Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 12, 2011 2:30pm-3:00pm PDT

2:30 pm
canceled because of thehelled b weather and we practice outside. when it rains, we have to do p.e. in our spanish room which is quite small and the spanish teachers have to move around and it gets a little confusing about where everyone is going. so if we can build the multipurpose center, we can have games at our school and we don't have to do p. nechlt -- we don't have to do p.e. in our spanish room. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am maxi kim moto and i am a fifth grader at the san francisco school.
2:31 pm
we had a performance and we were cramped into a little music room and we were split apart and the audience and it was too tight to breathe and with the new facility we will be able to pull out the row of chairs and a stage and have lots of room to breathe, i guess. and yeah. i think will this will be a good experience for teachers and children to expand their minds and thank you for your time. >> thank you. is there any additional comment? i don't know if any adults want to follow that, but at your own
2:32 pm
risk. >> i am a very proud parent of my eighth grade son who has been there since he was 3 years old and his eighth grade teacher is with him. he is an exceptional drummer with a fantastic music department, and we are respectful of the neighbors and do understand their concern about the driving situations and i know this would be dealt with in the revision. but i would just like to say that i would say i hate he's leaving before the revision has
2:33 pm
been okay'd which i am confident of, but i would hope you would support this. president olague: additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. we'll open it up to commissioners. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: it is very difficult not to be persuaded by motivational speakers of which you had quite a few. perhaps we should follow in the footsteps and we always have strong support to recognize the need for schools and appropriate housing for families and this is a very easy one to look at and i think the design is really very sensitively done and the package is really stellar and we should keep it because it's one of those packages where you usually understand of what is required here and looking at all your
2:34 pm
very happy students who are exceptionally good speakers, unless they were well coached, i don't see any problem to support this school because it really speaks to what we did with drew and i do believe that the idea of maintaining housing and using it in an adaptive reuse form for offices for the school is the right way to go. and it is a condition as is described says that the houses remain as potential resources, i don't have a problem using it that way. i would encourage you and as the responsibility that is sitting here and when the neighbor comes forward and having a traffic moderator and i live next to cathedral hills school where
2:35 pm
there is a really good interaction between neighbors and the same kind of situation that you have and people organizing when they pick up the children and children cor rald on the sidewalks and the car goes off and i encourage that you engage in a similar manner and even when the next year rolls around, you keep that momentum. and i am in strong support. i move we support this project. >> second. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: we have many projects that come before us, secondary, preschool, elementary, and college. and happy to see the use of the residences which will probably in some day return to residential use as the school is able to build more facilities to meet their growth. and i am also really encourage
2:36 pm
bid the fact that very high percentage of your students, 70% or more, come from the adjoining forces districts which are at the creconnaissance influence o what -- of the confluence of what serves the community need and i can identify with the need to have a gym or a center and multipurpose center on campus. my kids went to an elementary school and we were also the bears and we built our gym after my kids had left, and i can identify with coaching out in the rain and in the darkness and in the cold and the ability to have so many more uses and days that were previously unusable because of the weather or the short dayses in winter and that is a great benefit for all kinds of activities. i am very supportive of this
2:37 pm
project. president olague: commissioner sugaya? commissioner sugaya: go bears. i am also a bear. and anyway, i was interested in the initial event about where students had been. and treasure island, i don't know if students know, but treasure island has been in the papers because of a huge development proposal for that island. the bridge would be terrific. and pointing to the mayor's office, and i haven't even seen the mayor office, and i haven't even seen the mayor. i have asked a number of times if i could get in and goes into some dark hole and you guys are luckier than me and now you are at the than me and now you are at the p luckier than me and now you are at the planning commission and extending civic lesson there is. the only body you haven't gotten in front of yet is the board of supervisors and the commission can help you get there.
2:38 pm
if we deny the conditional use, you can appeal to the board of supervisors and you can all go and talk there. i don't think there's any problem here at all. president olague: commissioner moore? commissioner moore: and to the music-playing students who are going out this summer, good luck and at that age i went and did the same and it was amazing. secretary avery: commissioners t motion on the floor is to approve. that motion passes you unanimously. [cheering] .
2:39 pm
2:40 pm
secretary avery: okay, commissioners. we are still in session to item 10a and b. 10a is a mandatory discretionary review and 10b is the request for noncompliance structure variances. as you consider the mandatory d.r., the design administrator will hear the variance request. >> good afternoon, president
2:41 pm
olague and members of the commission. the case is a discretionary review with planning code session 317 to allow the merger of two units into one. the proposal includes two lots located in the middle of a block bound by scott, pierce, push, and pine street with access to bush street by an easement. the project includes merging the two lots into one and a horizontal addition between the two structures and a 4 foot long by 6 foot wide at the rear of the building to the north and with the zoning administrator and the science of the proposed project is three of the five criteria and the project will rehabilitate the defining features land not displace tenants or remove rent
2:42 pm
controlled housing. staff recommends that the commission not take d.r. and approve as proposed. that concludes my presentation. thank you. president olague: project sponsor? >> good afternoon, president olague and members of the commission. i am represents the project sponsor. as aaron described to you, the project before you today proposes to merge two small single story mid block cottages that are currently locate on two separate lots in a block bounded by bush, pine, scott, and pierce streets. these are the only midblock lots in this block. tlot line adjustment application is currently pending. these cottages are unique that they are locate on undersized midblock lots that have no street frontage and are not visible from the public right-of-way. they are accessible only through
2:43 pm
an easement with a single family property at 2454 bush street which grants access through a breezeway to the two properties behind it if small, flat front italian cottages are single story with wood siding and wood sash double hung windows at the front facade. the interior finishes are undeck ratted over lap and plaster walls and ceilings and the appliances are modest, older, and in need of reparis and upgrades. while the foundation of the northcottage was replaced in 2000, the foundation of the south one appears to be nothing more than wood skids. both show signs of differential settlement indicating they had inadequate foundation before the 2000 replacement of the northcottage. they both sit on small, nonconforming lots that are 1600 and 1100 square feet and with the cottages themselves providing less than 600 square feet of living space each. they are set back slightly from
2:44 pm
a common side property line with a total separation of 3'3" and based on the findings in the h.r.e., the cottage appears to date back to the 1870's and have both been determined to be eligible for listing on the california register. therefore, they are considered to be historic resources. they are not, however, located in a historic district. the buildings appear to have been minimally altered from what appears to be the original configuration and maintain rustic siding, bracketed cornices and flat window and doorways. and development of the neighborhood as shown on the sanborn map indicates that the block was developed as single family dwellings and appear on the maps as part of a single lot with three single family dwellings fronting bush street and the subject properties behind. it was divided into the current configuration since 1993. since that time they have been owned together. the zoning on the block is
2:45 pm
currently split between rh 2 and rh 3 and rh 3 and the lot fronting scott and pierce is rh 2. there are 12 single family dwellings, two family dwellings, four three-family dwellings and six apartment buildings on the block. the proposed project as described in the architectural plans submitted called for merging the two lots and connecting the cottages through a glass hyphen spanning the three-foot space. these are blank, tertiary facades and do not contribute to the defining structures. and this will be set back and diven shating it from the cottages themselves and leaving the two original volumes distinctive and separate. the cottages will be seismically upgraded and seismicry separate and will reconfigure the interior floor plans of both
2:46 pm
buildings. it will remove the rear window, wall, doors and porch and replace with flat panel doors and new wood siding and a new deck. it will also remove the rear entry porch and windows and fill in the southwest corner of 2454 a. these proposed changes are limited to secondary and tertiary facades and do not include any changes to the primary facades that would damage or destroy any materials, features, or finishes that define the historic character of the cottages. rather, they seek to preserve the primary facades with repair and incline replacement only as needed. as such, it is in compliance with the secretary of the interior's standards, a categorical exemption has been issueed. the cottages are currently owned by the same individual and purchased from the former owner who also owned both buildings. at the time of the purchase t previous owner occupied one of the cottages and the other was vacant. both were delivered vacant upon sale and the project sponsor and
2:47 pm
have been vacant since the purchase. both cottages are currently single-family dwellings and therefore the proposed merger of the lots and the dwellings will have no net effect on the status with respect to the rent control ordinance. in conclusion, while they are eligible for listing on the california register t proposed project would presooefsh the buildings as -- would preserve the buildings as historic resources and connect them in an appropriate manner with the between yor standards. >> thank you. >> may i finish the last paragraph? >> we know you are here and if you have questions. >> i'm available for questions if you have any. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. commissioner sugaya: yes, generally i don't like mergers, but this doesn't seem -- president olague: i don't either. commissioner sugaya: i am quite in favorover it. i have one issue given the small historic nature of buildings and i understand the concern is about the primary facade and i
2:48 pm
would like staff to work with the project sponsor on diminishing the amount of glazing in the rear. i understand the desire for a lot of light and sunshine and whatnot, but i think to have the entire rear elevation turned into three sliding glass doors is a bit excessive and i think by reducing the amount of void and increase the amount of masting in the back would help be more in character with the historic nature. i will make the motion to approve with the condition that staff work with project sponsor on something more inline with french doors. >> second. president olague: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i agree with commissioner sugaya for all
2:49 pm
the reasons stated. thing makes perfect sense and the cottages individually are less than 600 square feet and the separation is small. i would like to see the addition in the passageway or a connector between the two and perhaps cut down the amount of glazing a little and try to make it blend in a little bet we are the structures and certainly in terms of how much of it is window and how much isn't. but i am supportive and satisfied with most of the criteria and brings it into conformity with the neighborhood which is 50% single family. secretary avery: commissioners, on the motion for approval with the condition that project sponsor continue to work with staff on reducing the amount of
2:50 pm
glazing in the rear and to produce something more like french doors in the rear, on that motion. [vote taken] thank you, commissioner. that motions passes unanimously. >> subject to standard conditions for the variance as well as the conditions offered by the vision today and clearly a lot that poses the hardship and clear difficulty and created a difficulty for us in figuring out where to put the poster even and with that we close the public hearing and the variance will be forth comeing. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now on item 11, 2010.0566d for 1500 grant avenue.
2:51 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. before you today is the discretionary review request regarding the t-mobile microwireless telecommunications service facility consisting of a panel antenna shrouded inside a faux vent pipe structure and equipment cabinets at 36 feet and the diameter would be 10 inches approximately. the full vent pipe would be set back a minimum of 7 feet from the edge of the building and to the wall and the existing penthouse structure from the northeast corner of the building. the microwireless facility is defined for the individual letter carrier and letter of termination as issued by the zoning administrator. the micro wireless facility meets specifications defined in the letters of determination and the facility is considered in a
2:52 pm
residential commercial use district from 311 or 312 modification. this has been included in the packet. neighborhood groups held meetings for the subject proposal and the concerns that were outlined in the d.r. including that t mobile not showing that there is an existiexist ing coverage gap and permitting this as an accessory use and the krps regarding upgrade to the site. staff received phone calls and emails in support and in opposition. and written correspondence have
2:53 pm
been included in the materials. staff does not believe that extraordinary or exceptional circumstances exist and ask that the commission does not take discretionary review and approve the project. project sponsor has provided coverage maps and the kovj in the project area and propose the use with the gap. the project sponsor has proposed the sitar to minneapolis-st. paul minimized and would be considered an accessory use of the micro wireless site from t-mobile. and this concludes the staff presentation and lib available for questions and comments. president olague: thank you. d.r. requester?
2:54 pm
>> hi, commissioners. i have additional documentation which i would like to distribute. i have this documentation and filled out the d.r. which includes 300 signatures from residents and concerned neighbors in support of this d.r. request, many of whom confessed to having previously signed a project requester's petition under false pretense and not completely understanding the issue at hand. i live right across from the proposed antenna location. here is the view of the proposed antenna location from the building across the street about 50 feet away. if you could show this, please.
2:55 pm
and the photos are also included in the additional packet. ed the rooftop view before and the mock-up was installed and i would like to please note that the stairwell where the equipment build is to be installed is the stairwell right there and this photo is from across the street and the same level from the antenna is from my window on the second floor. when the mock-up installation was added. here is a photo from the same location about half a block down on union where you can see the mock-up antenna and can also clearly see the stairwell where the antenna belt will be. and here is what we have receive
2:56 pm
ed showing where the antenna belt is going to be and even the planning map doesn't quite show the mock-up and that is quite significantly larger than the antenna. this is not exactly incon spikous. this is a prominent building in the popular corner of north beach where san francisco's well known icon the hoyt tower is seen right next or directly behind it. please note that the project spot is a residential building with a ground floor retail space and making the proposal site less desirable to begin with. the planning commission hearing on february 17 in response to our d.r. request for proposed t-mobile cell antenna at 1663 grant avenue, at that hearing
2:57 pm
the commissioners requested a letter to the board of supervisors requesting a comprehensive city plan and how to handle the increasing number of cell phone antenna proposals. among the long list of reasons for this request was concern for the amount of time wasted by the public departments on hearings and the consideration of the antennas one at a time. yet here we are again having to go over the same argument. the planning department rejected the d.r. request for 1663 grant avenue which means another t-mobile antenna is being installed only two blocks away from this antenna. commissioners, is there enough justification for this additional antenna in such a close proximity to the one just approved? and in close proximity to numerous t-mobile and within a
2:58 pm
two-block radius. please review this documentation prepared based on the information providing by the planning department showing 44 antenna sites within one-mile radius of the proposed location for t-mobile alone. with 121 existing antennas and an existing 128 proposed antennas. and please also note according to the t-mobile online coverage gap, there is extensive coverage for voice and data in this area. where is the hard data providing that this antenna is necessary and desirable at this point? during the board of supervisors ceqa hearing at 1663 grant avenue, supervisor david chiu directed the planning department with a request that they require microcell sites to meet the same permitting review as macro cell siteses as they did before 2006.
2:59 pm
[bell ringing] president olague: thank you. i have only one -- we're going to limit public comment to two minutes. is there any public comment in support of the d.r. requester at this time? secretary avery: state your name for the record. >> i am a 14-year resident of north beach, julie long, and i live at grant avenue and also at the d.r. hearing in february. this is the latest list by at&t even though we are dealing with t-mobile about 55 new antennas they are going to install and this is in "the chronicle "of may 1 to increase network coverage and capacity. what it feels like here