Source: http://sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=1046
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 05:07:59
Document Index: 185960368

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 2003', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2003', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2003', 'Application No. 2003', 'Application No. 2003']

San Francisco Planning Department : October 16, 2003
Public Hearings Planning CommissionAgendasMinutes20132012201120102009200820072006200520042003January 09, 2003January 16, 2003January 23, 2003February 06, 2003February 13, 2003February 20, 2003February 27, 2003March 03, 2003March 06, 2003March 13, 2003March 20, 2003March 27, 2003April 03, 2003April 10, 2003April 24, 2003May 01, 2003May 08, 2003May 15, 2003May 22, 2003June 05, 2003June 12, 2003June 19, 2003June 26, 2003June 26, 2003 (Special Joint Meeting)July 10, 2003July 17, 2003July 21, 2003July 24, 2003July 31, 2003 (Special Meeting)August 21, 2003August 28, 2003September 04, 2003September 11, 2003September 16, 2003 (Special Joint Meeting)September 18, 2003September 25, 2003October 02, 2003October 02, 2003 (Special Joint Meeting)October 9, 2003October 16, 2003October 23, 2003November 06, 2003November 13, 2003November 20, 2003December 04, 2003December 11, 2003December 18, 200320022001200019991998Case PacketsRules and RegulationsHistoric Preservation CommissionZoning AdministratorWeekly Newspaper Notice Connect With Us
/ October 16, 2003	October 16, 2003
October 16, 2003SAN FRANCISCO
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Edgar E. Boyd
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:10 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon - Acting Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian - Deputy City Attorney; Amit Ghosh; Paul Maltzer; Miriam Chion; Rachna; Susan Exline, Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary
1. 2002.0418T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)
SECONDARY UNITS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by repealing Section 207.2 [Second Unit] in its entirety, adding new Section 207.2 and amending Section 209.1 to authorize one additional secondary unit limited to 750 square feet of gross floor area on a lot within 1250 feet of a Primary Transit Street or Transit Center and also within 1250 feet of a Neighborhood Commercial or Commercial zoning district, and constructed for the elderly or persons with physical disabilities and to prohibit the owner from legalizing an illegal unit pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance; by amending Sections 135(d), Table 151 of Section 151 and 307(g) to establish the amount of open space and adopting findings.
(Proposed for Continuance to November 6, 2003)
Marilyn Amini
- She is concerned that there has not been disclosure of significant information on the Neighborhood Commercial Transit District draft legislation pending from former Supervisor Leno.
- This is very significant legislation.
- Included in this legislation is the findings of the secondary units EIR. The BOS upheld the exemption for secondary units because the issues related to transit corridors were not adequately addressed.
- She feels that the public was hampered because this legislation has not been put before the public, although it is currently pending.
- Supervisor Peskin's legislation does constitutes defacto rezoning.
- She requested that the Commission direct the City Attorney to make findings regarding the question of rezoning.
Charlotte Maeck
- She supports everything that Ms. Amini mentioned. This is the feeling of various neighborhood groups.
- Ms Amini speaks from a legal point of view.
Dorcas Maureen Bender
- She supports everything that Ms. Amini said.
- She believes that the secondary units have to be considered in conjunction with the whole housing element and the transit corridors in the neighborhoods.
- This issue also has to be considered with affordable housing.
- It is important to provide for every income level but she believes that the Commission is going in the wrong direction. It is important to keep San Francisco beautiful.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 6, 2003.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein
2. 2003.0863D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
555 VALLEY STREET - south side between Castro and Diamond Streets in Assessor's Block 7536 Lot 023. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.24 3036, to construct a 37 foot long, four story addition to the rear of the existing 25 foot long, three story single family dwelling 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 Building Permit Application as submitted.
NOTE: On September 25, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to October 16, requesting better plans of the surrounding area by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner William Lee was absent. (Proposed for Continuance to November 6, 2003)
3a. 2002.1298CV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
624 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner of Ivy Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Request for conditional use authorization to demolish a vacant one-unit residential building and to construct a four-story, 40-foot-high senior care residential facility for up to 30 residents within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project is the subject of a concurrent Variance hearing before the Zoning Administrator.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 16, 2003)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance) SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.
ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein 3b. 2002.1298CV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
624 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner of Ivy Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Parking variance sought. The proposed project is the demolition of a vacant one-unit residential building and the construction of a four-story, 40-foot-high senior care facility for up to 30 residents within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project is proposing to provide zero off-street parking spaces where three are required.
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS 4. Consideration of Adoption of Draft Minutes of October 2, 2003.
Re: Definition of Affordable
- Last week he asked for the definition of affordable. Unfortunately he was not able to have the answer during public testimony, although he did get an answer from Dr. Ghosh.
- It is important to mention this because sometimes there is confusion that affordable housing only relates to the Leno legislation which would dictate that housing for sale be at 100 percent of AMI and rental at 60 percent. By definition, affordable housing could extend up to a level of 120 percent of AMI.
- It is important that this be a matter of public record and that it is clear what is being talked about. Often times when discussions come up, everyone tends to focus on the Leno legislation. And certainly in market projects where there is inclusionary housing, that is what dictates the housing. But when there are other types of projects, other income levels might apply.
Re: Section 207.2 (The exemption from the Leno Legislation and recent amendment)
- He has also seen some correspondence that tends to imply that the City feels that it is in conformity and that it does not have to change the position the Commission has on secondary units in terms of conforming to the Leno legislation.
- He requested an opinion from legal counsel or the Acting Director on this issue.
- He believes that it is an important distinction to make that if in fact the Commission is in conformity, then the whole issue of secondary units would be one of whether or not it is advantageous--for housing purposes--to have them, as opposed to something that needs to be done to conform with the law.
Deputy City Attorney Judy Boyajian Responded:
The original Melo Bill passed by legislation about 20 years ago, provided an option that if you made certain findings you could prohibit them citywide. We made those findings and they are contained in Section 207.2. The recent amendment, AABA 1856 left that option in. The other two options were tightened up a bit, but the option to opt out is still there. We do have some very old findings. We have never been challenged on them and she could not predict what a court would say if we were. Right now we are taking the position that we complied with the original Melo Bill and are still in compliance and until a court tells us otherwise.
Commissioner Sue Lee:
Re: Article on the Transbay project
- There was an article in the Sunday paper that a plan is being put together on the Transbay project.
- She requested back in September, that this Commission receive the latest version of the Transbay Design Guidelines. She understands that there is a new document out now. She would like the Commission to have this document and see what the design development is so there is an understanding of what people are thinking and it gives the Commission "gestation time."
- He will provide a copy for the Commission ASAP.
Re: Action List
- There have been a lot of requests from Commissioners. - He suggests that the requests from Commissioners made last year be given priority.
Re: Ballot Measure from the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
- This ballot measure was not adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
- He requested that the Department contact the Chamber of Commerce to find out what that ballot measure is all about.
- Current requests from Commissioners have been given priority. He felt this was more appropriate. It will take a bit of time to go back to 2002 but he will move this ahead.
- He will contact the Chamber of Commerce to obtain the information.
- It would be helpful to have this as part of the Director's Comment section on the agenda to go through the list and see where the Commission and the Department are on this.
- There are some items on the list that have been taken care of.
Re: Spreadsheet from the dollars of all governmental resources that have been allotted towards affordable housing in San Francisco.
- He realizes that some of this data is in the Commissioner's packets, but would like to go through this and make sure that they have all the answers.
Re: Affordable Housing
- Is there a way to get information on the location of all affordable housing?
- He would like to have this information as the Commission goes through the Housing Element.
- He will contact the Mayor's Office of Housing and the Redevelopment Agency to try to get this information.
Gerald Green - Planning Director's Comments:
- He is glad to be back.
- The fellowship is a great experience for him although it is also a lot of more work than he expected.
- In the future he will present some of the readings and activities he is involved in.
- He has had the opportunity to watch the hearings via the internet to keep abreast of what is going on.
- He thanked Jim Nixon and Larry Badiner for their work in this rather unusual situation, and announced that they are both communicating with him constantly on the Department's business.
- He asked if the public comment period on the Housing Element is in deed closed?
- Commissioner Bradford Bell did close the public hearing on the Housing Element at the last hearing.
- If the Commission decides to hold another hearing, there will obviously be public comment on the item at that time. - Written comments would be accepted.
- Once the determination is made on what kind of environmental review will be done, staff will come back to the Commission--probably as an informational item first. If it is an EIR, it will require public comment. If it is a Negative Declaration, there will probably be an appeal and that will come before the Commission.
- There will be plenty of opportunities for public input.
D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED
At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
Re: 572 San Jose Avenue
Interpreter speaking on behalf of Mr. Jose Morales
- He is opposed to this project because it will eliminate two affordable housing units.
- He would like to continue having rent control.
- He requested a lifetime lease and no capital improvements.
Beatrice Wahlbeck
- This project will force out a resident who has been living there for 38 years and is a senior.
- Mr. Morales cannot pay the rent increase as a result of the capital improvements.
- She requested that the Commission not approve this project and have the affordable units remain.
Amy Beinart - Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center
- She is opposed to this project because affordable housing is very hard to come by.
- They are working to keep affordable housing when there is new construction.
- This project is just totally against their goal.
- The City has to act to prevent this kind of displacement, especially for seniors.
Colette Daily
- She is here supporting Mr. Morales. He has been living at this location for 38 years.
- Mr. Morales will be evicted and she hopes that the Commission will not approve this project.
Ernestine Weiss - She recalls a friend who was a senior and in a similar situation. The project took so long to be decided upon that her friend eventually passed away because of all the stress. She would not like this to happen to Mr. Morales.
- She appeals to the Commissioner's conscience to not let this happen to seniors.
- She hopes that the new Mayor will support affordable housing and seniors.
Marisol Ocampo - St. Peter's Housing Committee
- Mr. Morales's project is an example of what happens so many times to people so the Commission can set a precedent by not approving this project.
Luis Granados - Mission Economic Development Corporation.
- The project as stated in the agenda is very misleading because it does not state that there will be a loss of an affordable unit.
- Mr. Morales will have to go through a long process to try to find affordable housing because of his age and his income.
- The developer/property owner has made some efforts to mitigate the situation but these measures just speak to calming the Commissioner's concerns.
- Mr. Morales has a very, very low income and relocating to another location would create a hardship.
- He hopes that the Commission will look beyond the updates they have received on this project and either postpone the decision or not approve the project.
Myriam Zamora - St. Peter's Housing Committee
- One of the main objectives of the committee is to try to avoid these kinds of evictions. This case is very important because it represents what is happening to many people of the community.
- Mr. Morales is a very important part of this neighborhood and has lived in his house for 38 years.
Renee Salcedo - La Raza Centro Legal
- They serve immigrant seniors who face evictions, homelessness and lack of affordable housing.
- She urged the Commission to not allow this project to be demolished.
- Seniors, especially leaders of the community, should have protection from these injustices.
- He would like to have protection in writing, and a lifetime lease.
Guillermina Castellanos - SRO Hotels
- She is here representing the families who live in SRO hotels.
- There is an injustice being done with what is happening to Mr. Morales.
- She has known Mr. Morales for many years and he does not deserve this. No one deserves this.
- She urges the Commission to have a conscience in the decision that needs to be made today.
- He has been living there for 38 years. Everyone in the community will be supporting Mr. Morales.
Edwin J. Lindo
- He has been living in this world for 54 years and in San Francisco for 42 years.
- What is happening to Mr. Morales is similar to what a rapists does - he is being evicted from his own house.
James Pye
- He is speaking in support of Mr. Morales and the tenants who live at this location.
- By living at this location, Mr. Morales has been able to use public transportation and various amenities that are close by his house.
- It is important to stop these developers and keep affordable housing.
Ted Gulicson - Tenants Association
- These two affordable housing units are important to maintain.
- The rent control law will not protect Mr. Morales.
- He hopes that the Commission will deny this demolition. If this is not possible, the Commission has the power to put on conditions. Mr. Morales should get written conditions with his landlord.
Steven Schubert - San Francisco Tenants Union
- He is here opposed to this project because Mr. Morales is very important to the community.
- Mr. Morales has worked for preserving the rights of seniors.
- Mr. Morales does not have the income to live somewhere else.
- He asked the Commission to not approve this process or to postpone the project until there is further conversation with the tenant and Mr. Morales.
Eric Quezada - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition
- He supports Mr. Morales in his case and agrees with everything that has been said.
- This is more of a broader policy decision.
- Displacement and mergers is what is going on in the Mission.
- Mr. Morales is a fighter and he has been fighting for the rights of seniors.
- This project needs to have conditions set as well as policies.
- This is a policy issue.
Charlie Sciammas
- He is against the demolition of this project.
- Denying this permit and stopping the displacement will set a very clear message that this Commission is different from the previous Commission.
- He submitted a petition of various neighborhood residents who are opposed to this project but could not be here.
Re: 2477-2479 Sutter Street
- She is opposed to the demolition of this project.
- The figures on the demolition report are fixed.
- Every time a demolition is approved, people are cut off.
- The new construction will not fit in with the neighborhood character.
- She urges the Commission to let this project stand.
- This project is a mandatory demolition and there have been two hearings on this already.
- This project will have three units instead of its current two units.
- The units will be suitable for families.
- There will be two off street projects.
- There was another Discretionary Review requestor who withdrew their application.
- The neighborhood is a multiple unit neighborhood.
- Nothing in this building works.
- There is no foundation.
- The brick perimeter has no mortar.
- There is some discrepancy regarding the age of the building. The front section of the building was done before the back part so there are two dates.
- There is total structure failure of the building.
- There have been three different contractors and they selected the lowest cost.
- A shoring and underpinning scheme has to be done if a foundation is planned on sand.
Arnold Humn
- He is an employee of Mr. Santos.
- Regarding the structural review and soundness report, it was stated that there were minor inconsistencies. The only difference was that a much more thorough analysis was done.
- This building does not work and there are structural calculations that support this.
E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
8. 2003.0412D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)
572 SAN JOSE AVENUE - west side between 27th and Duncan Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6595 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.11.04.0682 proposing to add a horizontal and vertical addition to a duplex and to add two parking spaces. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 17, 2003)
NOTE: On July 17, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to October 16, 2003 by a vote of +6-0. Commissioner Boyd was absent.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the demolition.
AYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: Boyd
9. 2003.0183D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.08.13.3876, proposing the demolition of a two-story, two-family dwelling within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to construct a new, four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 25, 2003)
NOTE: On September 25, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing, and entertained two motions: 1) to take Discretionary Review and disapprove by a vote +3 -3. Commissioners Boyd, Antonini, Bradford-Bell voted no. The motion failed; 2) continued the matter to October 16, 2003 by a vote +6 -0. Commissioner William Lee was absent. SPEAKER(S): None
1. MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition.
AYES: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee
RESULT: Motion Failed
2. ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Item Continued to November 13, 2003. The Commission requested that a representative from another City Department review the soundness report.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, W. Lee
NAYES: Hughes and S. Lee
F. REGULAR CALENDAR 10. 2003.0193D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
244 GRANADA AVENUE - east side between Ocean and Holloway Avenues in Assessor's Block 6942 Lot 039 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.1028.0113, to demolish the existing one family house, in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk district. There is a related proposal to construct a new two-family building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Demolition Permit. (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 2, 2003)
Re: Continuance
David Chan - Project Representative
- He apologized if there were some discrepancies in the written information for this project.
- He agrees with the continuance and will provide the information requested by the Commission.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
ABSENT: Boyd 11. 2003.0859D (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)
643 GREENWICH STREET - south side, between Powell and Stockton Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0089 - Discretionary Review request for a building permit No. 2002.11.27.2429 to allow the addition of a full third floor and smaller fourth floor to the existing residence. The existing building is a one-story, single-family dwelling over garage, with frontage on Greenwich. A second structure at the rear of the lot is to remain as is and is not part of this project scope. The property is located in the RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Permit Application.
12. 2003.1007D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
352-354 CASTRO STREET - west side of Castro Street, between Market Street & States Street, Lots 003, in Assessor's Block 2623 - Mandatory Discretionary review of Building Permit Application 2003.05.19.4925 under the Planning Commission policy for dwelling unit mergers to legalize the merger of dwelling units in a four unit building that created two flats. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low density) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Dwelling Unit Merger.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger.
13. 2003.0430D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)
733 KIRKHAM STREET - south side of Kirkham between 11th & 12th Avenues-- Mandatory Discretionary Review of demolition application 2003.02.14.7551 pursuant to the Planning Commission's interim policy requiring review of residential demolitions, to demolish a single-family dwelling. The project also includes the construction of a new two-family dwelling under a separate permit. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Family) District in a 40-X Height & Bulk District.
Alex Varum - Representing Project Sponsor
- The soundness report states that it would take 76 percent of the cost of the property to make repairs.
- There is extensive mold damage to the property.
- The adjacent neighbors are in support of the demolition.
- The lower unit will be as affordable as a single family home.
- The unit will be significantly large and more affordable than the current property.
- The new unit will have only 6 rooms instead of the 7 mentioned in the report.
- The current owner purchased the property and was not involved in its lack of maintenance.
- The current owner should not be penalized for what the previous owners did not do.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.
Item 14 was taken out of order and followed item 17.
14. 2003.0906D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)
445 NAPLES STREET - east side between Persia and Brazil Avenues; Lot 029 in Assessor's Block 6077 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.01.30.6372, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling. A new single-family dwelling would be constructed under a separate Building Permit Application, No. 2003.01.30.6370s. The project is located in a RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
Armando Sandoval - Project Architect
- He displayed a photograph showing the front of the house.
- There is a lot of corruption in the structure of the house.
- The floor is not leveled.
- The project sponsor would like to have this house demolished and replace it with a brand new house that would improve the neighborhood.
- The foundation shows rotten wood and supports.
- The new building will have a two-car garage.
15. 2003.0362D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)
1886 FUNSTON AVENUE - east side of Funston Avenue near Aerial Way; Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 2049B - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.26.4216.S proposing a second story, rear horizontal extension for an existing single-family dwelling within an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Submitted.
Re: A request for continuance made by the DR requestor
Josephone Chan - Project Sponsor
- She does not support the request for continuance.
Re: Merits of the Project
- They are in need of space because they have a growing family. This is the reason why they want to build an extension.
- This project will add value to the neighborhood.
- They hired a water drainage consultant and the recommendation was submitted with their report to the Commission. They would be in agreement with the incorporation of the drainage system plan recommended.
- The Discretionary Review requestor is claiming that this project will reduce their light and air.
- They have made every effort to accommodate the DR requestor's concerns.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.
16. 2003.0364D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
3243 21ST STREET (aka 1 BARTLETT STREET) - southeast corner of 21st Street and Barlett Street, Lot 53 in Assessor's Block 3616 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission policy that requires review of dwelling unit mergers of Building Permit Application No. 2003.02.25.8245 proposing to merge two units into one in an existing three-unit structure in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Dave Dow - Project Sponsor
- He has been the owner of the lower unit for six years.
- The property is a landmark building built in 1883.
- According to the research, the original plans show that it was a single family home and converted to three units in the 30s. There were many Victorians converted to multiple units but this one particular house was converted to three units.
- Since the time he has been living there, he has been able to maintain and preserve the building.
- He has removed the smaller unit from the rental market.
- He lives upstairs and agrees with the proposal.
- He is also helping to bring the building closer to its original single family dwelling status.
- The house is important in the neighborhood.
Eric Quezada - MAC
- Independent from the individuals living in the units, this is an issue of taking a unit out of the rental market.
- This type of policy is very important to them.
17. 2003.0734D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)
1740 CHURCH STREET - west side of the street between 29th and Day Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 6632 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.12.9484, proposing to construct a two-story rear horizontal addition and a roof deck on a mixed-use building containing a second floor dwelling unit and a full-service restaurant (Deep Sushi) at the ground floor, located in a NC-1 (Neighborhood, Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Ray Toballas - Project Sponsor
- There have been concerns with sound and privacy from the deck.
- He feels that Deep Sushi benefits the neighborhood by providing jobs to neighbors.
- There have been about 50 petitions in support of the project.
Robert Alvarado - Legal Representative
- They did sound reports to determine noise levels on typical activities.
- There are some benefits to the proposed design.
- The restaurant is open in the back of the house. The proposed project will construct a structure to limit the noise in the back.
- The design will add positive qualities to the project.
Jim Rapatos - Project Architect
- He has met with the Discretionary Review requestor twice.
- He has designed a fence to deal with the issue of privacy.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following amendments:
1) The addition shall incorporate a light well to match the adjacent building. The light well shall be a minimum of four-feet in depth.
2) The addition shall have soundproofing.
3) The roof deck shall have a solid privacy wall that extends seven-feet above its floor.
4) A NSR shall be placed on the property to limit the use of the operable windows at the rear of the building at the ground floor which shall be closed at 10:00 p.m. every day.
18a. 2003.0518DV (K. SIMONSON: 415-558-6321)
1412 LYON STREET - east side between Sutter and Post Streets, Lot 20B in Assessor's Block 1074 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.26.0779, proposing to remove the existing rear stairs and deck and construct new stairs with associated landings and fire walls at the rear of the existing three-story three-family residence. The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Submitted.
(-) Dan Sullivan - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor
- The project sponsor avoided a 311 notice by filing a permit for minor stair work.
- The project as proposed has substantial negative impacts on light and air.
- They have worked with the project sponsor by writing letters asking to have meetings.
- There is no place to put tables or chairs on the deck.
(+) Harry Karnilowicz - Representing Project Sponsor
- He displayed a photograph of the rear of the structure and how the proposed structure would look.
- The project sponsor does not want to file a 311 notice and have this project delayed further. The project sponsor would like to have this project approved as is.
(+) Joe O'Donaghue
- The person representing the project sponsor has always been opposed to the Residential Builders Association even though he is a builder. However, he is a very well mannered and respectable person.
- The original project extended far more into the rear yard than the present proposal.
- Supports the proposed project.
ABSENT: Antonini and Boyd
18b. 2003.0518DV (K. SIMONSON: 415-558-6321)
1412 LYON STREET - east side between Sutter and Post Streets, Lot 20B in Assessor's Block 1074 - Request for Variance to Rear Yard requirements to allow construction of new stairs and associated landings at the rear of the existing three-story three-family residence. The stairs would project 7 feet from the existing rear wall of the building, 5 feet of which would be in the required rear yard, and would extend up to the third floor, with fire walls along the side property lines. The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Same as those listed in item 18a.
ACTION: The Acting Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.
19. ( CITYWIDE STAFF )
PRESENTATION ON EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS - Status report and discussion on the Eastern Neighborhoods project and the environmental review process. There is also possible Commission action to establish the Commission's preferences regarding alternatives.
Preliminary Recommendation: Establish Commission preference regarding alternatives.
My Do - Mission Economic Development Corporation
- Production, distribution, and repair businesses in the City provide essential employment for residents of San Francisco. And in particular, the Eastern Neighborhoods.
- PDR businesses provide income to the City.
- It is important to include in this document, the creation of industrial preservation districts as well as buffer zones since these are vital to the City's economy.
Luis Granados - Mission Economic Development Corporation
- When there is talk of planning for the Eastern Neighborhoods, it includes about 68,000 working class people and about 4,000 businesses. So when the Commission considers this document, it is important to take these facts into consideration.
- He supports the plan and suggests moving it forward to the CEQA process.
- He suggests asking staff to include socio economic impacts be included in the document in order to look at who benefits and what alternatives there are.
- He asks staff to develop policies to control development in the interim.
- He began this process about two years ago. He has participated in organizing planning department workshops and focus groups in order to determine the needs of the residents of the Mission District.
- He has consistently advocated at community meetings in order to ask the department to move this document forward.
- They recently had a protest at the panning Department in order to express their feeling of importance on moving this forward.
- He would like the Commission to clarify what direction they will take with this document so they [the community] can be prepared when the EIR process comes about.
- The housing element is tied to the Eastern Neighborhoods plan.
- He invited Director Green and several Commissioners to come to a community meeting in the Mission. The Director mentioned that the work MAC has been doing in the planning process was grass roots at it's best.
- He urged the Commission to move forward in this process and to move as quickly as possible.
- She urges the Commission to move forward on this.
- It is evident that there should be a major transportation component done very quickly.
- There are traffic lines that don't work because there are certain areas that are designed for trucks.
- There is certain information that is not described in the document. For example, how will it be paid for? Also, making sure it is online at the same time the Housing Element is online.
James Haas - Rincon Hill CAC
- When the Eastern Neighborhood began, they began to develop some guidelines.
- He has participated extensively in the South of Market process.
- He has a desire to build a more residential area in the east of 4th Street area.
- He would like to proceed with the EIR.
- This has been around since 2001 so the talking stage should stop and we should move forward with the EIR, at least in the east of 4th Street area.
Bill Poland
- He is very pleased to have been involved in this process. It has been very valuable and it is pretty clear that everyone would like to see mixed use in the Showplace area.
- Even when the Commission moves forward with the EIR it will not jive with the work they are currently working on.
- There are certain areas that are ready to go and this document should not be stopped just because there are some areas that are not.
- There is some tweaking still to be done for Option B.
Joe Girimonte
- He is a resident of Potrero Hill.
- He invited the Commission on a tour of the Potrero Hill area.
- There was a desire to upgrade the housing, businesses and safe parking.
- He supports the Planning Department's option B for the Showplace Square.
Mary Murphy - Farella, Braun and Martel
- She read a letter from Julie Milbourne who is the Facilities Director of the California College of the Arts. Ms. Milbourne is in support of moving this document along as soon as possible.
Ms. Murphy stated the following:
- It is important to take a look at outdated policies and strategies.
- It is important to try to create neighborhoods.
- The four changes to option B that the Department has proposed permitted an active street front eliminate; the 1 to 1 SAR requirement for PDR; higher heights at 65 feet; and 1 to 1 parking so as to not displace the current parking.
Mel Beetle - Senior Action Network/Homeless Senior Task Force for the City
- Social and economic impacts should be included in the EIR document.
- The amenities, which will be coming forward, should be taken into consideration.
John Melone - Homeless Senior Task Force/Permanent Housing Committee
- He is very concerned about the homeless seniors.
- They have prepared a resolution, which they will be forwarding to the Redevelopment Agency and the Mayor's Office of Housing.
- Twenty-five percent of the housing should be designated for seniors.
- Although there is senior housing being built, it is only a "drop in the bucket." More housing for seniors is needed.
Mark Klaiman - Bay View Industrial Triangle
- He urges the Commission to balance the needs between jobs and housing.
- Not everyone is intended to work downtown. PDR provides jobs and economic development to the City.
- PDR are not necessarily bad for neighborhoods.
- Non-conforming uses are not the answer.
Kate White - Housing Action Coalition
- Move forward with the EIR.
- There has been a lot of work that has been done already.
- The Coalition feels very strongly about considering projects that stay within two or three of the options.
- She submitted a letter Vicki Hart - Flower Mart
- She has come to workshops and has written letters regarding having commercial/residential uses in the area.
- Although they are a small group and are not as organized as other groups, they are very vocal and are willing to help out as much as possible.
- They have no desire to stop the Mission or the Showplace Square folks from taking their rezoning into environmental review, but understand that the $127,000 that Director Green mentions for environmental review is SOMA money. The only reason that the money has not been spent is because Supervisor Daly has put it on hold.
- The legislation authorizing this entire process spoke of community-based planning.
- The process the Department began was called community planning and now it is called rezoning.
- SOMA was rezoned 13 years ago after an exhaustive comprehensive planning process. Frankly, he would opt for the zoning changes made in 1990.
- His property in the NEMIZ is part of the NEMIZ rezoning.
- He agrees with the previous speaker.
- They have created a document regarding all this that he will be submitting to the Commissioners. Edward Lortz
- He would like to have the Commission direct their plan to go forward as part of the EIR and interim controls with the use options A and B as starting points.
- Their plan is the only community generated plan that includes preserving PDR, housing, and mixed use.
Lisa Schiller - Urban Planner - Potrero Hill
- She has helped to design the Potrero Hill community plan. This plan ensures that rezoning of the Showplace area remains a vital part of Potrero Hill and San Francisco.
- The plan includes open spaces in the public realm where others do not.
- She was happy to see the Planning Department public benefit zoning memo and is glad to see that many of their concerns are being considered.
- Option B does not have the elements required, but their plan does.
Kepa Askenazy - Potrero Boosters
- They have taken a look at the section of the Planning Department's height suggestion and they are very disturbed by it.
- They presented a model of the scale of buildings determined by the height suggestion of the Planning Department.
- They are very concerned about any lack of design guidelines.
- She displayed photographs of buildings in the area that have either good designs or bad designs.
Tom Myers - Real Estate Appraiser
- He lives in Potrero Hill.
- He is concerned that it may fall short if the height requirement is not approved.
- The corridors on 17th Street and highway 280 provide the transit for the added traffic so that will not be a problem. There is still a problem with housing, especially for moderate income and seniors.
- He hopes the Commission will not approve interim controls.
- Every speaker has mentioned community, which is a good thing.
- Many of the community organizations are in agreement that housing is important.
- It is vital that this place be a nice place to live.
- What makes a nice residential neighborhood: - transit, jobs, parks, cafés, trees, street lighting, etc.
- There is a lot of housing in the Northeast Mission.
- Please adopt zones that specifically include housing.
- He does not know how an environmental study can be done on something that has not been decided yet.
- Although most community organizations like the Mission are ready to go, there are some that are not ready to go.
Cris Durazo - Market Street Community Network
- A comprehensive community process is essential.
- They have done a tremendous amount of work trying to explain to people zoning, planning etc. when they are in a need for survival.
- There are very basic things that are important so a comprehensive plan is quite vital.
- They want the Commission to start the EIR yet it is important to start a social impact process as well.
- They should not be split from SOMA.
Cindy Mendoza - South of Market Employment Center and Mission Hiring Hall
- She agrees with moving ahead on the EIR but include a social and community impact review.
- She works with Mission Hiring Hall and it is important that the industries that are included take into consideration low incomes, immigrants, and young people.
- She wants to ensure that the jobs are here and that the ones that exist are maintained.
Marie Ramos - SOMA Immigrant Committee
- She would like to have further time for community planning.
- She would like to continue to sit down and have further dialogue in the SOMA community in order to build a community consensus.
- That the social impact that will be built into the future EIR and the public benefit from zoning principals are strongly adopted.
Jeffrey Leibovitz - Rincon Point/South Beach CAC
- They have been at this since 1998.
- The Eastern boundaries that he would like to move forward would cover the areas from 4th Street to the Waterfront to the South Beach Redevelopment Area, from Stillman Street to the north, to the Ball Park.
- Since this process has been moving forward, there have been a lot of people that are disturbed by the process. In his neighborhood, they are not. They have consensus on moving forward.
James Collins - 6th Street/Mission Agenda
- He urges the Commission to pass this plan and start the EIR process.
- The community needs this. It is quite vital.
Shawn Gorman - Architect
- He grew up in the Showplace Square area.
- He looks forward to this process moving forward.
- He does not want this to follow the Central Waterfront Plan.
- Option B is a very good option because there are a lot of compromises.
- Maintaining the existing heights would allow for more housing.
Robert Meyers - City Planning Consultant/Eastern SOMA
- Including the South of Market area and the eastern part near 4th Street should be included in the EIR process.
- This part of SOMA has a general consensus of what they want in regards to planning.
- There is also a consensus that the current SLI [service, light industrial] zoning has failed.
- They are ready to move ahead and work with staff to work out the details.
David Wilbur - SOMPAC/SF Tenants Union
- He became involved in the planning process recently.
- He urges the Commission to include some of the social and economic impacts in the EIR process.
- There are a lot of important issues that still need to be taken into account related to rezoning.
- SOMPAC area should be included in this process.
- A very intensive comprehensive plan has been done.
- Exactions need to be required when rezoning takes place. Fees should be included to start building affordable housing and transit.
- She lives in the northeast Mission area.
- She is familiar with the concerns from both sides regarding pressures from land use.
- Rezoning needs to move forward that takes into account housing.
- Transportation planning, 16th Street corridor, etc. needs to be taken into consideration.
- She is nervous about moving forward.
John Elberling - SOMA
- He has been a worker and landlord in the South of Market for many years.
- When he sees the Bay View and the work they have done, he sees comprehensive planning. Now they are moving into the zoning process and the Redevelopment Plan adoption process. - When he sees the 6th Street PAC plan, he sees a developed comprehensive plan that is ready for zoning and redevelopment for implementation.
- A neighborhood requires comprehensive community planning before the zoning is done.
- SOMA needs the comprehensive planning process. An EIR process is not the same thing.
Phillip Lesser - Mission Merchants Association
- He commended the Commission for being involved in the process.
- The Commission has done a tremendous job.
- He looks forward to an EIR. It is a fallacy to think that because we are so rich with public transportation, there is no need for parking.
- It is imperative to consider public parking.
Jason Born - SOMA West Neighborhood Group
- He is here to talk about the planning process that missed the mark.
- He displayed a planning map of district parks planning.
- There is a reason that everyone is here today. If the Commission takes the decision to approving this, it would be like having the cart before the horse.
- She encouraged the Commission to move forward with this plan.
Charles Range - PAC
- He is a member of the South of Market Project Area Advisory Council to the Redevelopment Agency.
- He is a little bit confused. He has been working for the last five years on this and one of their responsibilities was to deal with the Plan Amendment for a small geographical area that the Redevelopment Agency's South of Market PAC is responsible for. They have been pushed by the Redevelopment staff to complete the Plan Amendment. It has taken them four or five years to do it and they have finally completed it. It had to go through the Redevelopment Agency legal process. The legal process reviewed it and kicked it back to them because they had to be sure that the things they were asking for fit within the law. So it came back to them. They reviewed it again, met for many times, and finally approved it. It went back to Redevelopment. In this process they interfaced with the Planning Department because they were told that Redevelopment had relinquished their responsibility in some type of agreement with the Planning Department as it relates to the redevelopment area. In their plan, there are issues that deal with zoning, etc that are the responsibility of the Planning Department. They met with staff from the Planning Department and also attended various meetings. Now the issue is that they are ready to move forward, but where do they go now? There are limited funds. This is why he is confused.
ACTION: Following public testimony, the Commission President closed the public hearing. No action by the Commission was taken. Director, Gerald Green and Acting Director, Larry Badiner, informed the Commission that they intend to initiate the environmental review process for the Eastern Neighborhoods to include:
Showplace Square, focusing on Alternative B and the two neighborhood proposals.
The Mission District, focusing on Alternative B and the two neighborhood proposals.
SOMA, to include the eastern portion and the redevelopment area, not including west SOMA at this time.
They would return to the Commission on November 13, 2003 with further information on:
Interim Policies/Interim Controls
Environmental Review Process.
Socio-economic impacts of the rezoning proposals and Public Benefits Zoning.
PDR definitions.