tv [untitled] July 16, 2010 8:30pm-9:00pm PST
improvements. on that motion, commissioner antonini. aye. commissioner lee aye commissioner sugaya aye commissioner olague aye commissioner president meteorology l aye. so moved, commissioners. director ram is acting -- >> i'm for the next two minutes zoning director. i grant the variance subject to the normal conditions. thank you. >> commissioners, that will put us on items 9- put us on items 9-a and d, case numbers 2004.0964-k and c, for 1717 17th street. request for adoption of findings, pursuant to section 295 of the planning code, regarding a shadow study, and a request for conditional use for planned unit development with an exception to the rear yard, pursuant to planning code
the result of not updating is that the southwest portion of the project site is technically zoned for a height of 45 feet at this time and not 48 feet. therefore, any approval for this 48-foot-high project cannot be effective until the height table is amended to reflect the new lot, which will effectively rezone the southwestern portion of the project site to a 48-foot height district, which was the original intent. supervisor maxwell introduced an ordinance to this end to correct the lots in the height district table and ensure that the new lot eight is entirely within the 48-foot height and bulk district. she did that on june 29 of this year. if the planning commission approves this conditional use request, it will not be effective until that ordinance is effective. regarding shadows, this project was subject to a shadow analysis study, per section 295. due to its potential impact on jackson playground, located just to the east across carolina street, the majority of the park includes a clubhouse, two baseball feeds,
outdoor tennis courts, outdoor basketball courts, a to the lot and a community garden. the project would only affect the northeast area facing carolina street, which consists of mature trees, benches and a baseball field. no new shadow would be created on any day before 2 1/2 hours prior to sunset and the only new shadow would occur on the west side of the park on a small portion of the ball field in the late afternoon when field use is less frequent. the new shadow would not adversely affect park activities, because the fields are mainly used in the morning and during early afternoons on the weekends, outside of the time when the new shadow would occur. the total shadow increase is less than.15%. the recreation and parks commission found on january 21 of this the proposed p 21 of this year that the shadow of the proposed project would noc1 of this year that the shadow of the proposed project would not be significant or adverse on jackson playground. regarding public comment, the department received one letter of support for the project and we also received a letter of opposition from the brewing
company based on a dispute regarding a 2006 memorandum of understanding between the company and the project sponsor and not necessarily on the merits of the project overall. the project sponsor has since worked with the brewing company to make sure the agreements under the memorandum of understanding will be met and the sponsor is propose together add a condition of approval that requires a second notice of restriction be recorded on the property to ensure new residents are aware that they will be living next to an industrial site that may create noise and odor, and that addition alcondition was passed out to you. regarding the planning unit development, the only modification requested by the project sponsor is for rear yard. while the proposed rear courtyard does not meet the letter of the requirement, it does provide the minimum area of 25% of the lot and sizable roof decks provide space for open space use. regarding the height district, the project must meet the new physical controls passed in the neighborhood's legislation, which includes a requirement
for 17-foot ground-floor ceiling height. section 175.6 of the code permit the planning director to grant an increase beyond the otherwise height limit of no more than eight feet when a project needs additional height to meet one of the new physical controls, in this case the additional height for the ground floor. the planning director did grant an eight-foot height increase for this project to allow the increased height. regarding affordable housing, the environmental review application was submitted in 2004. as site, the requirement for this project 12iss% and the off sithe requirement is 17%. the project sponsor is proposing to provide 49% of the requirement as on-site units, which results in one b.m.r. unit in each building, so a total of two on-site b.m.r. ugtse for the project and the remaining will be subject to the affordable housing fee. in order for the project to proceed, the commission must adopt findings that the project will not create an adverse shadow impact on jackson
playgrounds and grant conditional use authorization to allow for residential use in the m-1 zoning district and to allow planned development for the rear yard. this project is necessary and desirable under section 303 and recommends approval of the project, with conditions for the following reasons -- it will create new residential units and a new trill area as called for in the planned area. it will create new ground floor commercial space as large floor plates and attractive street front design, also called for in the square plan. the project will convert an underused site into mixed development, that includes significant site upgrades with, including 24 street trees. it will provide two on-site b.m.r. units. it will not create any adverse shadowy impacts on jackson playgrounds and meets all the applicable planning code requirements and is consistent with the general plan. that concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions you may have. president miguel: thank you. project sponsor.
>> members of the commission, i'm representing the project sponsor. your staff has given you a very thorough presentation of what the project is about. i do want to talk about the shadow on the park. basically your department, as well as the proclamation, have determined that the new shadow on the park will not significantly affect the use of the park. this is not one of the 15 parks that this commission, back in 1989, have determined that there should be no add shazz do -- additional shadow or have a
limit on the amount of new shadow to be cast. this is not one of those. so because of that, the new shadow that was analyzed by the computer based on the computer run of every seven days and 50 minutes every day for the whole entire year demonstrated that the new shadow that will be cast on the park, the difference between a 40-foot -high building, which can have any amount of shadow on the park and a 48-foot high shadow to make sure that we have the kind of high ceiling height that this commission wanted as a matter of policy for retail space and for p.d.r. space is less than half of a percent. not only that, but this is not counting the shadow that -- that's been cast by the trees,
which the recreation and park commission also looked at and considered, because it would be shadow on top of shadow. in your packets i had included a series of diagrams, starting at 5:00 until 7:30 that compare all the different shadows. and the biggest shadow is at 7:30 in the afternoon. and basically the new shadow, compared to 45-foot building, is the green color. this area happens to be the softball field and also the area where sometimes, if they're not playing softball, other kinds of activity. but it is not an area where new shadow that's cast after 5:00 will adversely affect the use of the playground. proposition k does not prohibit
no new shadow on the park. what proper k said is that -- prop k said is that this commission has to consider the new shadows that are being cast and determine whether or not the new shadows will adversely affect the use of the park, and i submit that this is not the case, that the use of the park will not be adversely affected by the new shadow. the architect is here the architect is here to answer any question you have on the design, including treatment of the retail space frontage, to make sure that they don't look the same throughout, and the project sponsor is also here to answer any questions. and finally, the project sponsor did meet with the attorney for both the current owner of the brewing company as
well as the future owner. so all the parties are onboard and we agreed that the main thing is to make sure that the future owner of these units will know about the industrial use nature. so we agreed to put up a design that is very similar to the ones that this commission had previously required for the project. if you have any questions, i'll be glad to answer them. president miguel: thank you. i have one card on public comment, gary keefment >> commissioner, i'll defer the public comment. i'm just here to answer questions of the architect. president miguel: thank you very much, gary. is there any public comment on this item? >> commissioners, i'd like to
start -- project sponsor. i'd like to start by acknowledging my support for that new condition as well. it's part of the memorandum of understanding. i'm very committed to it. so i'm onboard with that. i'd also like to follow up a little bit about what alice spoke to about the 1989 memorandum regarding prop k. it lists 15 parks that are very specific. if you're one of those 15 parks, i can't believe -- i can't remember the exact wording, but it's zero tolerance. there's different phrases that i've heard. if you're not one of those 15 parks, it goes on to give specific factors that you need to gauge. and the first factor is, is the park greater or less than two acres? in our case, we're 4.41 acres. so we're more than twice the size. the second factor is, does the existing shadow cover more or
less than 20% of the existing park? and in our case, we're at 6.25, or a little less than 6.25. so we're well under that threshold as well. and the new shadow that would be created is less than one-half of 1%. it also speaks to qualitative criterias. where is the shadow being created? it's not on the parks where the kids hang out, it's not in the swings, it's not in the sandbox, it's on an adult softball field. another criteria is the time of day, and in our case it's the last few hours. in many cases, the last few minutes of the day. and the last criteria is the fact that the analysis shows -- and i know it's not part of the prop k study -- but there's very mature trees already along the carolina side of jackson park. we're not allowed to factor those trees in. but if you were to factor those trees in, it would eliminate
65% of our new shadow. so the bottom line is if you're a user of that park, the impact would be very subtle, at best. the architect is here, as he stated. he's got a retail pattern book, if anyone is interested in seeing that as well. thank you. president miguel: thank you. is there additional public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. i want to start out on this one, first, by saying that i double-checked my 500-foot map to make sure that i was -- that i did not have to recuse myself on this. i am outside of that area, not by a whole lot, but i am outside of that area. i know that lot very well. if any of the commissioners are confused by the diagonals that were originally there, those are the old spur lines -- railroad spur lines that serviced all the warehouses in
the area. first moved there 34 years ago, and the first night my wife and i are sleeping there, and at 4:00 in the morning we got woken up by a train whistle. i was told don't buy next to a railroad yard. that has stopped now. as far as the conditions of approval, i fully understand them. over the years i had conversations with fritz maytag at anchor. he was very strong, vehement at times, on the idea that it is possible for residential and commercial to live together in the same area, if everyone keeps their cool about them. actually, during midsummer, be even though i'm outside of that 500-foot area on this project, i'm probably within it slightly on anchor itself, and the sweet
smell of hops is rather pleasant. it has never annoyed anyone in the residential area that i know of. you had a letter from dick millett is a longtime resident of the boosters, whom i've spoken to. they are fully in support of this, as is the merchants association. this is the type of thing that the eastern neighborhood was thinking about, where you have manufacturing, you have p.d.r., you have retail, and you have residential making a very compact, sometimes complex, neighborhood. everyone who lives around there knows that you weave around trucks that are big 18-wheelers that are making deliveries. it's just part of living there.
but these particular lots are ripe for development. the shadow that is going to be cast on jackson playground -- and by the way, to remind everyone, jackson is one of -- that is one of the areas where, just a week ago, we saw the plans for improvement. this is not going to interfere with that. i double-checked that situation. but it will not interfere with the use of jackson playground in my mind or to my knowledge in anyone's mind in the least. i think it's a project that has been a longtime coming. these are the types of unused lots in the eastern neighborhoods, and even though it's to the western end of it, perhaps that should be developed and i'm very pleased that someone has finally gone ahead and it will happen. president miguel: commissioner olague.
commissioner olague: i just wanted to move to approve what the updated motion language included. >> second. president miguel: commissioner moore. commissioner moore: i think it's a really good project. i think it fits well, partially because it takes an inner courtyard and adds to a large building, something which really gives it its own meaning, adjoining open space. i'm pleased that we understand the shadow issue. that is important for the public to hear. it's always good to remind ourselves, because those are things that we don't always have at our fingerprints. we're happy to hear that. residential is highly compatible, has an edge to an open space. i also am glad that the architect was able to respond to my concerns, which i expressed in a separate design review. the large commercial space was of concern to me, and i wanted to see a way that we are able
to break the space up as well as the linear facade. and he had a number of ways of how you can do that, and i was quite satisfied that that type of thinking is within the way the project is designed. so i am comfortable with that and obviously will support its approval. president miguel: commissioner ant nene knee. commissioner antonini: thank you. i also think this is a very, very good project combining it with residential, of course. we've been down the road with a very thorough analysis of the shadow impact. actually, the very, very small amount of shadow i notice is shading one of the baseball diamonds, which, having played softball at that diamond and some others and having the sun in your eyes at 7:30 at night sometimes, that might not be the worst thing that could happen, because you could get creamed easily at third base with that ball coming off the bat. so that might be a welcome addition there.
and also, i really like the design. i think it marries classic and contemporary so well. the articulation and the rhythms and the symmetry, which is, you know, so well put together on the renderings we see, and my climents to the architect. president miguel: commissioners, i'd like to clarify, there is a motion and a second for both the request of adoption of findings for the shad doim pact as well as the conditional use. president miguel: correct. >> ok. on that motion, commissioner ant kneey. aye. commissioner lee aye commissioner moore aye commissioner sue guy why -- including the amendment. commissioner olague: and the updated language. >> aye. >> commissioner olague aye commissioner pittsburgh penguins miguel aye. president miguel: we are going to take a short 10-minute break.
the project is located at 2601 mission street at the southeast corner of 22nd street. the project complies with the requirements of the planning code. it is consistent with guidelines. the location is classified as transmission facilities. they have complied with all the procedures, including community outreach. this occurred in june 2010. there will provide the service that is in demand. the planning staff is unaware of direct opposition. the staff has received general
calls of the safety of wireless facilities on this project and other wireless projects. given the finding, the staff recommends approval with conditions in your packet. should you have any questions, i am here to answer them. >> project sponsor? >> i am the project sponsor. we're proposing a new wireless facilities for a new carrier in the city at 26 01 mission. it is at a commercial building. this site will provide wireless broadband internet and serve the needs of the residents and businesses in the area.
they received approval at this site back in 2000, but they only built nine out of the 12 antennas. one antenna is located at an existing place behind an existing stream. one antenna is located at another existing fall. one mislocated on the facades. -- one is located on the facade. it will be located next to the equipment room on the seventh floor of the building. there is currently no coverage because of a new carrier. you will see they are painted to match with one antenna
completely screen. we have engineers who design the site and will answer any questions you may have. i thank you for your time and available for any questions. >> is there public comment on that item? if not, the comment is closed. >> a motion to approve? [calling votes] so move, commissioners. you are now on item 11, the request for a conditional use operation to install a wireless
telecommunications facilities. >> could afternoon, commissioners. before you are presented the authorization to install three pamela antennas and associated equipment cabinets through the wireless transmission. the project is located at 888 france street. the project compliance with the guidelines. -- complies with guidelines. the site is classified as the preferred site for wireless facilities. the project sponsor has applied, including holding a meeting. this is done in june of 2010.
the project will insist on maintaining a comprehensive wireless communications network in the city, provides a good service that serves the public good. the planning staff is not aware of direct opposition. this concludes my presentation. i am here for any questions. >> thank you. project sponsor. >> hello again. i am the project sponsor. we are proposing the installation of the new wireless facilities at the wholesale -- wholesale retail facility.
this will serve the needs of the residence, commercial, and industrial services in the neighborhood. we are proposing one the equipment rack, and one antenna is located inside the existing structure for the antennas are located. tina vigo antennas are located on the facades. the equipment iraq will be located inside the existing shelf -- the equipment wrack will be located inside the existing shelf. this is the proposed coverage. you will see the antennas are minimally visible, some street level and hidden due to the location. these are some things you have
in your packet as well we have engineer s to answer any questions you may have. i am available for any questions. >> is there public comment on this item? if not, public comment is closed. >> move to approve. crack second. >> on that motion -- [calling votes] so moved, you are on item 12 for 1097 howard st., request for a conditional use authorization to establish a retail wine shop doing business as the secret wine shop with