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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

February 20, 2003

February 20, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, February 20, 2003

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Michael J. Antonini; Rev. Edgar E. Boyd,
Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lisa Feldstein

THE 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; Ben Helber; Matt Snyder; Jonathan Purvis, Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Jonas Ionin - Acting Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

      1. 2002.0967C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        2000 VAN NESS AVENUE - northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Jackson Street; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0595: Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install a total of three (3) antennas and six (6) related equipment cabinets on the roof of an 8-story, 100-foot tall commercial structure, known as the Medical Arts Building, as part of Sprint's wireless telecommunications network within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

      2a. 2002.0877CR (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        720 MOSCOW STREET (SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION #43) - northwest side between France and Italy Avenues, Lot 024, Assessor's Block 6338 - Finding of Consistency with the General Plan pursuant to § 4.105 of the San Francisco Charter to install a total of six (6) panel antennas and related equipment at an existing two-story, publicly-used structure (a fire station) as part of Cingular Wireless' wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District, and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location - Publicly-Used Structure).

        Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of Consistency with the General Plan.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

      2b. 2002.0877CR (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        720 MOSCOW STREET (SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION #43) - northwest side between France and Italy Avenues, Lot 024, Assessor's Block 6338 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 209.6(b) and 234 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) panel antennas and related equipment at an existing two-story, publicly-used structure (a fire station) as part of Cingular Wireless' wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District, and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location - Publicly-Used Structure).

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)

        (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

      3. 2002.0723C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        491 HAIGHT STREET - southeast corner at the intersection of Fillmore Street and Haight Street; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 859 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of two antennas and related equipment on the roof of and within the basement of an existing four-story, 45-foot tall, mixed use (21 apartments over ground floor commercial) structure, as part of Cingular's wireless telecommunications network, within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 5 as it is a mixed-use building in a high-density district.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 19, 2002)

        (Proposed for Continuance to May 15, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      4. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes January 16 and February 6, 2003.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Minutes for January 16, 2003 - Approved

            Minutes of February 6, 2003 - Continued to February 27, 2003

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

    5. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Stonestown Project

        - He would like to update the public regarding his involvement in the Stonestown Project which will be coming before the Commission on February 27, 2003.

        - It has been determined that his residence is within 397 feet from the beginning of the Stonestown project. He has been speaking with the City Attorney's office regarding this but now the question that remains is that if the distance is measured from where the project is actually taking place or where the property begins. He also has to prove that there will be no financial gain to his property from the Stonestown project.

        - Within the next couple of days he will be receiving information from the City Attorney's office regarding these issues.

        Commission William Lee:

        Re: Enforcement

        - He would like to have staff work with the City Attorney's office to investigate methods of enforcement and enforcement fines for Planning Code violations and to draft the appropriate legislation to ensure that any fines collected stay with the Planning Department.

        Re: Process regarding receiving impact fees

        - He would like the Director to let the Commission know who notifies whom to ensure that the impact fees are collected.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      6. Director's Announcements

        Re: President Bradford Bell's Mom

        - Welcomed her to the Commission hearing (she was in the audience).

        Re: His daughter's birthday

        - Sent a birthday wish to his daughter.

        Re: Commissioner William Lee's Question regarding collecting impact fees.

        - Impact fees are required under the Planning Code. They come in the form of contributions to open space funds (both downtown and citywide); transit impact development fees and the affordable housing fund.

        - The Board of Supervisors had considered legislation which would have made the Treasurer's office be the ones to collect these fees.

        - This legislation has not moved forward because there hasn't been a hearing.

        - The Planning Department, in response to a budget committee issue at least two fiscal years ago, reacted by hiring two administrative assistants. One was hired to monitor the collection of impact fees, and the other was a position to make sure that the Department was collecting all other fees appropriately.

        - The Planning Department is responsible for collecting these impact fees.

        - The Director feels that the department is doing a good job collecting these fees.

        Larry Badiner's response related to this matter:

        - Some of the fees are required to be collected upon issuance of the first addendum to the site permit of a major downtown building, and some of the fees are required to be collected prior the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

        - There is communication between the Department of Building Inspection and the Planning Department.

        - The administrative position monitoring these fees keeps track of when projects are approved and when fees are due. Another part of this position's responsibilities is to look at building permit fees and make sure that for application fees, the Planning Department is getting proper dues for childcare, housing and open space.

        Re: Enforcement Collection Items:

        - The Department would be pleased to work with the City Attorney's office on how to create a citation process. Staff will provide a status report in the near future.

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

        BOS - None

        BOA

        Jonas Ionin from staff represented the Zoning Administrator (ZA) at this meeting.

        Re: 412 Lombard Street (Telegraph Hill)

        - The Commission heard this Discretionary Review on February 28, 2001 for an addition to a single-family house on a very small lot.

        - The Zoning Administrator issued a variance decision on March 9, 2001.

        - The department felt that it was appropriate in character. The Commission made a few amendments: 1) modifications to the design, making it less aggressive in it's modernism; 2) increased the amount of glass and reduced the amount of stainless steel - more residential character; 3) added a light well.

        - On June 26, he the ZA wrote a letter of determination clarifying what he felt the Commission had meant regarding the light well.

        - The appeal was not for the letter of determination or the variance but for the Building permit. The Board of Appeals upheld the Commissions' decision but asked staff to look at the residential character and the amount of glass vs. solid. There was also a request by the Board of Appeals to do a plan check because there were questions raised by an adjacent neighbor. This information will be reported back to the Board of Appeals.

      8. Review and Comment on Planning Department's Budget, including Staffing Allocations, Administrative Overhead and Budget Process.

        Director Green gave a presentation on these issues.

    REGULAR CALENDAR

      9. (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        WIRELESS FACILITIES SITING GUIDELINES BRIEFING - Commission briefing and discussion on the 1996 WTS Siting Guidelines and consideration of additional policies to supplement those guidelines.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Supervisor Tom Amiano

        - Along with Supervisor McGoldrick, he initiated a discussion about a wireless antenna moratorium in 2002.

        - He used this opportunity to engage the industry in a mediated discussion about how the siting guidelines should be modified.

        - He thanked the industry, SNAFU and staff from Planning for the countless hours put into this process.

        - When they started there was very little agreement; and when it was completed there was agreement on various issues including the need to rewrite the guidelines. The product of this was a draft resolution urging the Planning Department to modify the guidelines and to hire consultants to rewrite the guidelines. After a series of hearings at the Board of Supervisors, the Board requested feedback from the Planning Department on the proposed resolution including timelines for implementation of the various steps in the resolution. But due to the departure of the Planning staff most familiar with this issue and other staff restraints, the Board has not received comments as of yet.

        - Mr. Samaha has identified a lack of budget resources as part of the problem.

        - He asked the Commission to schedule a hearing on the proposed resolution with the goal of obtaining comments from the industry and from staff. If the Commission develops a set of recommended amendments to the resolution, he would introduce these to the Board of Supervisors.

        - He asked the Commission to direct staff to develop cost estimates for the work proposed under the resolution along with recommended funding sources.

        Bill Sanders - Deputy City Attorney

        - The first part of the resolution recommended immediate changes to the wireless guidelines: such as requiring community outreach meetings, requiring alternate site analysis for preference 5 sites, requiring applicants to pursue the most preferential rating, requiring annual reports or semiannual reports, requiring applicant information in the check list, requiring applicants to show compliance with city requirements at existing sites, requiring applicants to indemnify the City against claims to environmental affects to RF emissions, merging location preference 5 and 6 into a limited preference category, removing certain buildings on small lots as preference 1 when they are publicly owned structures or as preference 2 when they are co-location sites, limiting Conditional Use authorizations to 10 years and requiring applicants to come back and show necessity.

        - The resolution also asked the Planning Department to hire a consultant or direct staff to study more detail changes to the guidelines: 1) additional requirements for community outreach; 2) changes to the approval process which would require industry to pay for consultants so the City could examine their claims of necessity at limited preference sites; 4) further changes to siting preferences including issues of whether landmarks should be considered as limited preference sites; 5) developing guidelines to address new technologies and equipment; 6) developing design guidelines; and 7) developing standards for upgrades to existing facilities that were approved as accessory uses or installed before adaptation of the guidelines.

        Richard Lee - San Francisco Health Department

        - He has been involved in this issue since 1996.

        - He discussed the requirements for RF Radiation reports: 1) RF Ambient Report -- this report is required before the site gets approved. The carrier is required to provide a report drafted by a professional engineer; 2) Project Implementation Report -- this report requires the measurement of how much exposure radiation is coming from the antennas; 3) Status Report -- done every two years.

        Corey Alvin - Nextel Communications

        - He is the zoning manager with most of the sites in San Francisco.

        - Regarding compliance, they are actively working to make sure that their sites are under compliance right from the very first location they built.

        - He is here to briefly discuss the industries determined effort to adhere to the City's Urban Design Guidelines and policies.

        - He displayed photographs of how Nextel uses the most appropriate use of materials and textures as well as architectural detail. Every site is different and Nextel tries to design the facilities to be compatible with that urban fabric.

        Misako Hill - Cingular Wireless

        - Each day over 250 911 calls are placed in San Francisco using wireless technology.

        - Wireless technology improves the City's 911 network and will continue to save lives.

        Jennifer Estes - Sprint

        - She would like to discuss the issues of fairness and necessity.

        - On the matter of fairness, it has been suggested that in certain portions of the City there are more wireless facilities. However, the low power and the subsequent limited range of antennas make it impossible to place sites in some parts of the City to cover others.

        - The second issue of necessity or desirability makes wireless sites extremely important: they are used to keep families in contact with each other; allows businesses to work more efficiently; and they are critical in emergency situations.

        - Sprint remains committed to adhering to the City's already comprehensive guidelines, pledges to work with community members, SNAFU, Planning staff and the Commission to enhance the guidelines.

        Paul Albritton - AT&T Wireless

        - He has been involved in this industry since 1986.

        - He has been working with Supervisor Amiano for the past two years.

        - AT&T Wireless supports Supervisor Amiano's resolution.

        - The only suggestion he has is that the resolution does not include the definition of necessity.

        - He submitted a letter with points to prove this conclusion.

        Gloria Talanowski

        - She stated that the engineers from the carriers reporting to the Health Department is a conflict of interest.

        - She believes that neutral parties should be involved in this process.

        - Dead birds are being found.

        - She believes that the 300 foot radius is not sufficient.

        Robert Garcia

        - He feels that notification to the neighborhood is of utmost importance here.

        - He was not notified when various wireless antennas were installed.

        - People need to know what is going on in their neighborhood.

        Doug Lauringer - SNAFU

        - The organization supports Supervisor Amiano's resolution.

        - Many, many hours were put into this resolution.

        - The goal is to amend the guidelines and not to update.

        Tod Curtis

        - He did not feel like there were any new guidelines so he is a bit disappointed.

        - He did not hear anything about height regulations.

        - He is concerned where these antennas are placed in relation to people's homes.

        ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Motion of Intent to Approve Policy.

            Discussion of Resolution March 13, 2003.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Feldstein

      10. 2002.0446E (B. HELBER: (415) 558-5968)

        40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves the construction of a 155,000 gsf, 8-story residential building containing 82 dwelling units with 81 off-street parking spaces on 2 below-grade garage levels and the demolition of the existing 56,250 gsf, 3-story light-industrial building. The site is located at 40-50 Lansing Street, on Assessor's Block 3749, Lot 11, in the Rincon Hill area. The 20,205 sf site fronts on guy Place and Lansing Street, between First and Second Streets. Two on-street loading spaces are planned; one on Guy Place and one on Lansing Street. The site is within a RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) zoning district, the Rincon Hill Special Use Subdistrict and an 84-X height and bulk district. The project would require variances from the following provisions of the Planning Code: Freight Loading; dwelling unit exposure; and from the Rincon Hill Special Use District; and Conditional Use authorization for construction of a residential structure over 40 feet tall.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Andrew Junius

        - The department, as always, has diligently and carefully reviewed the information, all the reports and has concluded that there is no evidence that this project would have a significant affect on the environment.

        - The appellants have raised issues related to policy issues and process issues that are not at all related to the physical environment or to CEQA.

        - The appellants have raised a lot of construction issues.

        - The negative declaration satisfies the requirement of CEQA and he asks the Commission to uphold it.

        (-) Tom Morley

        - He has been a resident in this neighborhood for 40 years.

        - He has seen the neighborhood evolve from mixed residential/light industrial to predominantly residential.

        - The proposed development is vastly out of scale with the neighborhood.

        (-) Paula Roth

        - She lives on Lansing Street.

        - She displayed pictures of the panoramic view of the neighborhood showing how the tall buildings have no horizontal visual effect and blend in beautifully.

        - The proposed project is too large, too dense and overwhelms this tiny, little street.

        (-) Cliff Roth

        - He and his wife live and work on Lansing Street.

        - He is against upholding the mitigated negative declaration because he is concerned with the access of emergency vehicles to this narrow "U" shaped street.

        - There is a lot of night time activity because it's a club area. There are also freeway entrances so there is traffic during the entire day and night. This project would cause more traffic and block access to these emergency vehicles.

        (-) Tule West

        - This proposed project will have a negative impact on her building because she will be surrounded on two sides.

        - This negative declaration is inadequate because it does address the geology concerns as the project will be constructed.

        - The design and analysis of this project in the negative declaration and the geotechnical investigation report is based on the continued assumption that an encroachment permit may be required and that one will be obtained.

        - She lives in the adjacent building and would like to know what guarantees there are that when the project begins there will be no settling, major slides, or subsiding.

        (-) Patrick Malone

        - He lives and has his law office on Lansing Street.

        - People would not have even been here to discuss this project if it had not gone through plan checking.

        (-) Ken Morrison

        - He feels that the height and bulk of the proposed project have not been studied correctly.

        - Aesthetically the building is wonderful, but the project is just in the wrong location.

        (-) Robert Lundahl

        - He is an artist and a film maker and he makes his living from visual materials.

        - There is a misunderstanding because the heights of the adjacent buildings are misrepresented.

        (-) Denyse Gross

        - She is not opposed to the design of the building. It just needs to be smaller and there are several safety issues.

        - There are significant traffic problems already in the area.

        - This project, if it continues as it is proposed, will double the number of residents and guests and will create a number of traffic problems.

        (-) Mary Ann Robertson

        - This project concerns her because the current building plans are intrusive and propose a project of monstrous proportions.

        - The project will also "gobble" up street space for construction trucks and traffic.

        - There will be loading and unloading that will impede traffic of emergency vehicles when needed.

        - She requested that this project be denied.

        (-) Sara O'Malley

        - She lives on Lansing Street.

        - There is not much green in this area so open space and greenery is a big thing for the neighborhood.

        - This building will block sunlight to the area.

        (-) Anna-Christina Newby

        - Her unit receives a lot of light and she is concerned that the proposed project will block the sunlight.

        - Because of the demolition there will be a lot of dust and debris that cause negative impacts.

        - She asks that this building be reduced in size.

        (-) Lesley Emmington Jones

        - She does not live in the area, she lives in Berkeley.

        - The Commission should be proud (that people are) fighting for a little remnant of early San Francisco history.

        - Please don't let a mitigated negative declaration go through inadequately by not assessing what is there. The topography of the hill will be cut away. A huge building will dominate that hill.

        (-) Andy Kazitzki

        - He is the geotechnical engineer of the project.

        - The investigation states that the subsurface conditions beneath the site in particular in that common property line is very favorable for this type of construction.

        - Similar projects as the one currently proposed have been built successfully in even less favorable subsurface conditions.

        (+) Kate White - Executive Director of the San Francisco Housing Coalition

        - They took a look at this project and she urges the Commission to support the project.

        - The coalition supported this project unanimously.

        - This is a very well designed project.

        (+) Bob Meyers - City Planning Consultant for the Project Sponsor

        - This project will improve the neighborhood character.

        - The project is the exact residential project the neighborhood envisioned.

        - This is a very well designed and classy building.

        - He has been asked by Green Belt Alliance to mention their support for this project.

        (-) Albert Moreno

        - He has been a resident of the area for almost 20 years.

        - He moved there when the development of South of Market began.

        - The demolition and construction of this project would be disastrous.

        - Rincon Place is a wonderful place because it's historic. A project like this would destroy it.

        (+) John Eller - SB Architects

        - There are a lot of misunderstandings surrounding this project.

        - The development has in no way any detrimental affect on the trees one speaker was concerned about or the hill.

        - The design will allow for common and open space.

        - There is a benefit to the community that a gaping hole will be replaced.

        (-) Dennise Esmacro

        - She lives on Lansing Street.

        - There are concerns about street parking and an increase in traffic.

        (+) Paul Fisher - Project Designer

        - He has lived on Lansing for many years.

        - The neighborhood has a mixture of uses.

        - Part of what remains is completely unrelated to any historical issues.

        - It is disappointing to meet his former neighborhood and find himself on the wrong side of the street.

        (+) Julia Ann Lauwey - Project Manager

        - This project is a wonderful example of urban infill development.

        - This is a wonderful project.

        (+) David Murphy - Murphy, Burkury

        - They are the structural engineers for the project.

        - The soils engineering has already spoken about the geology of the area.

        - Safety is his utmost concern.

        - There is no danger for the adjacent buildings.

        (+) Will Bailey - Project Manager - Cannon Constructors

        - They have been very proactive in dealing with safety issues.

        (+) Cris Harney - Project Sponsor

        - There is more flexibility to getting an emergency vehicle on Lansing than on any other one-way street.

        - The trees on this street will not be hurt.

        - This is the largest parcel on the street.

        (+) Douglas Perry

        - He urges the Commission to approve the variances.

        - The land use issues are well established by now.

        - There are a variety of heights on this street.

        - Housing is very important right now.

        - People are moving away because they cannot find places to live.

        (+) Chris Foley

        - He is here to speak for GSTLLC, owner of the building across the street from the proposed project.

        - They are in support of this project. this is what the City of San Francisco needs.

        - The city needs high density housing that is close to transportation.

        (+) Theodore Brown

        - He owns property on Fremont Street.

        - He feels that the opposition is not really interested in the project.

        - This building will go up very quickly and there will be dust and inconvenience but that happens with any construction.

        (+) Ellen Reich

        - She welcomes a project like this since it improves the quality of life in the neighborhood.

        - If someone does not want traffic, then why live next to the Bay Bridge.

        - She has been very happy living there.

        - She helps any project like this one because it will bring amenities.

        ACTION: Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration Upheld

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Feldstein

      11a. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) , a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the construction of a building within a Residential District that would be taller than 40-feet pursuant to Planning Code Section 253(a); and (2) for the construction of a building that would have full lot coverage within the Rincon Hill Special Use District pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B). The building would be 84-feet tall and contain up to 82 dwelling units. The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Andrew Junius - Reuben and Alter - Representing Project Sponsor

        - Every project is based on the General Plan. In this case it's the Rincon Hill Plan.

        - The project maximizes residential units.

        - They have given special attention to the ground of the building.

        - They have made enhancements for the residents and pedestrians of the area.

        - This project is near transit and close to everything in downtown.

        - The San Francisco Housing Coalition is in support of this project as well as other organizations.

        (-) Patrick Malone

        - He would like to point out that they will appeal the decision of the Commission on the preliminary negative declaration.

        - There is no extraordinary circumstances for obtaining variances.

        (-) Robert Lundahl

        - He is disturbed with the Planning Department stating that there will be no negative impacts from this project when there will be.

        - The day that there is a fire will be the day that the alley will be blocked--which will cause disruption.

        Re: Appeal of the decision of the Commission Upholding the Preliminary Negative Declaration

        Andrew Junius

        - This is very frustrating and very shocking for him.

        - He questions the validity of the appeal since it was filed after hours.

        - He would like to have this item on the calendar as soon as possible.

        ACTION: After a presentation by the Project Sponsor and a limited number of public comment, an appeal of the Preliminary Negative Declaration was presented from the Board of Supervisors. The Conditional Use part of the project was continued to March 6, 2003. Public hearing is open.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Feldstein

      11b. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) , a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 - A request for variances from (1) the exposure standard required under Planning Code Section 140; (2) the loading space standard required under Planning Code Section 152; (3) the setback standard for building mass above 50-feet as required under Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(3); (4) the frontage standard that requires at least 50-percent of all frontages be comprised of building entrances and display windows as mandated by Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(1)(C); and (5) the requirement that restricts parking on the first and second levels being any closer than 25-feet horizontal distance from any street grade as mandated from Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C) . The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District, and the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 11a.

        ACTION: The Zoning Administrator continued this item to March 6, 2003.

      12. 2002.0813C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        177 TOWNSEND STREET - south side between 2nd and 3rd Streets, a through lot with frontage on King Street; Lots 4 and 7 in Assessor's Block 3794 -- Request for Conditional Use approval under Planning Code Sections 215, 271 and 304 to develop a mixed-use Planned Unit Development (PUD) with 198 dwelling units, approximately 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and a 201-space garage, with exceptions from rear yard requirements of Section 134, parking requirements of Section 151, freight loading space dimension requirements of Section 154, and bulk limits of Section 271, within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, a 105-F Height and Bulk District, and within the Mixed Use Housing Zone.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) David Levy - Morrison and Forrester

        - This project provides housing and open space in San Francisco.

        - They presented this project to community organizations and it was approved unanimously.

        - Hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

        (+) Andres Greci - Project Architect

        - He described and displayed diagrams of the architectural aspects of the project.

        (+) Jeffrey Lievovitz - Rincon Hill CAC

        - The project sponsor came before the Rincon Hill CAC about a year ago and it (the project) was approved unanimously.

        - This will be a great addition to the South Beach area.

        - The only issue that they had was parking. He would encourage the Commission to increase parking.

        ACTION: Approval with the condition for increased latitude on the parking configuration and the removal of the proposed condition G.2.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16531

      13a. 2002.1001CD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        2020 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 21st and 22nd Avenues; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 1412 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 717.39 of the Planning Code to demolish an existing two-story, two-family dwelling within the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is also to construct a new, four-story, 3-unit condominium building with three off-street parking spaces.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 23, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This property is 95 years old and contains asbestos and lead paint.

        - A demolition report was filed and staff visited the property as well.

        - The Discretionary Review requestor never visited the property until the "11th hour."

        - This project will be compatible to the other buildings in the neighborhood.

        (-) Robin Thompson

        - She lives in the neighborhood

        - She is against this project because the proposed new construction is not compatible with the neighborhood and it will also block light and air.

        (-) Shu-Lin Fong

        - She lives on Clement Street.

        - The building is too high.

        (-) Tom Lee

        - This building is too high and it will block sunlight to his home.

        (-) Owen Brady - Save our Richmond Environment

        - He is here to oppose this project because it will be a monster building that will not have affordable units.

        - The estimates made on this project are not admissible since wrong standards were used.

        (-) Jack Norton

        - He grew up near Clement Street.

        - He is tired of developers coming to replace buildings with large ugly ones.

        - He opposes the demolition and the new construction.

        (-) Hiroshi Fakuda - Richmond Community Association

        - This association is opposed to the demolition and the new construction.

        (-) Dennis Estrada

        - He was born in San Francisco--specifically the Richmond District.

        - He has seen 7 single-family dwellings replaced with monstrosities.

        - These have compromised the characteristics of the neighborhood.

        (-) Jim Draper

        - He lives in the Richmond District and is a homeowner.

        - This project will destroy the character of the neighborhood.

        - Each project that comes in, keeps getting higher and higher.

        - He believes that this project should be scaled back.

        (-) Bill Iraki

        - It is painful to see affordable houses disappearing.

        - He would like the Commission to take a long, hard look at the demolition report and the plans for the new construction.

        (-) Jackson McCalmel

        - He lives on Clement Street.

        - The proposed house is too large.

        - He would like the Commission to reduce the scale of the building.

        - The "exercise" room appears to be more of an in-law. He urges the Commission to look closely at the design.

        (-) Loren Lopin - Discretionary Review Requestor - Chairman of SORE (Save Our Richmond Environment)

        - He is representing various neighbors.

        - There is large neighborhood opposition to this project.

        - He displayed a map of all the homes who are opposed to this project.

        - There were some neighbors who cannot speak English and were not informed correctly in their language.

        - The project should be in scale with the other structures and should not be domineering.

        - He would like to ask the Commission to adhere to the Residential Design Guidelines.

        ACTION: Approved

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16532

      13b. 2002.1001CD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        2020 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 21st and 22nd Avenues; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 1412 - Request for Discretionary review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.06.13.8990, proposing to demolish an existing two-story, two-family dwelling within the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is also to construct a new, four-story, 3-unit condominium building with three off-street parking spaces.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition as submitted.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 13a.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition with the following conditions: subsequent filing of a Notice of Special Restrictions on the property memorializing the authorized use of the property and other relevant information. The Commission also acted upon a related Building Permit Application proposing the construction of a new, three-unit, four-story residential building (BPA 2002.06.13.8994)

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      13c. 2002.1113D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        2020 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 21st and 22nd Avenues; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 1412 - Request for Discretionary review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.06.13.8994, proposing to construct a new, four story, 3-unit condominium building with three off-street parking spaces, within the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is also to demolish an existing two-story, two-family dwelling.

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

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 13a.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications:

            _ removal of the proposed ground floor bathroom

            _ increase the amount of maneuvering room in the proposed three-car garage by expanding the garage into space currently proposed for the ground floor bathroom and exercise room.

            _ elimination of the bay at the rear of the fourth floor

            _ reduction in the floor-to-ceiling heights to 8'-0" at the ground floor, and 8'-6" at all subsequent floors.

            _ reduction in the height of rooftop parapets to the minimum required by the Building Code (assumed to be 6") by providing a fire-rated roof, and provide a stronger cornice element at the cornice of the fourth floor.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      Approximately 8:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

The following items, 14a and 14b, were taken out of order and followed item 16.

      14a. 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, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition 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.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 6, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Steve Williams - Representing 5 of the DR requestors

        - There are 41 people who live around these homes and only 2 support this project.

        - The buildings are incompatible with the neighborhood since they are too tall.

        - The issues that the neighbors have are to: 1) match the light wells, 2) reduce the depth into the rear open space and 3) reduce the height.

        - Five doors down the exact same analysis came from the Department in a nearly identical project. He obviously thought that the same recommendations would be given and they were not. That project is now under construction. Whey is this a different standard.

        (-) Cindy Reuter

        - Five doors down, staff required that the developer reduce it's rear wall to be the average of the adjacent neighbor's rear walls on the second story and on the third story.

        - The proposed projects do not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - These buildings are twice as large as the average three-story home on the block.

        - These buildings are just too tall, too deep and too long and too big. The buildings do not step down the hill either.

        (-) June Chun

        - She lives across the street from the proposed project.

        - The homes are just too large and they overwhelm the surrounding homes and neighborhood.

        - She is just asking to have this project reduced in size.

        (-) Lex Fukumitzu

        - He lives on 28th Street.

        - He wasn't excited about the construction of the two homes because of the parking issue.

        - Almost 80% of the neighbors who live on this block have written to the Planning Department in opposition of this project because of its size.

        - Upper Noe Neighbors and Friends of Noe Valley wanted the Project Sponsor to work with the neighbors.

        - There is support from Assemblyman Leland Yee and well as Assemblyman Mark Leno.

        (-) Rene Pittin

        - She lives on 28th Street.

        - The project sponsor made promises to the neighbors that he did not keep, for example: that light wells would match, 3rd floor setback, no higher than uphill roof and no higher than project sponsors rain gutter, deeper excavation below grade, dwellings would step down the hill, flat roofs, and that the homes would not extend past neighbors' rear walls.

        - Neighborhood character, neighborhood concerns and good neighborliness are not part of this project.

        - She would like to ask the Commission to maintain the character of this neighborhood.

        (-) Dick and Jerry Meister

        - They moved into this neighborhood because of all the sunlight that falls upon this neighborhood.

        - They receive a lot of sunlight into their home.

        - The design of the new homes showed a huge wall that would cast deep shadows into his home and onto his garden.

        - The first plans that they viewed, kept changing without having consulted the neighbors.

        (-) Michelle Vignes

        - She lives on the east part of the proposed project.

        - It is very important for her to have peace and light in her home. She is a photographer and needs to work quietly in her office.

        - With the proposed home, it would make her office quite dark. She only needs one dark room.

        - She has lived thirty years in the neighborhood and has seen it change but nothing like these monster homes.

        (-) Joe Butler - Project Architect

        - He would like to ask the Commission to bring an additional 13 feet out of the second and third story so that the rear walls average with the adjacent structures.

        (-) Randall Zielinski

        - He lives in Noe Valley and is a member of the Friends of Noe Valley.

        - He read a letter from the organization who is neutral on this project. They just ask that all neighbors work together on this to resolve all the issues.

        (-) Tom Mogensen

        - He is Vice President of Upper Noe Neighbors.

        - The organization as well as the Planning Department received a letter from Supervisor Bevin Dufty of District 8 inviting everyone to participate in resolving a contentious problem of oversized homes.

        - The Supervisor would like to have this problem resolved by participating in this project and finding a solution now.

        (-) Julie Christensen

        - She read a letter from the Bankorft Library stating how important it is to have Ms. Veene finish her photographical work by having a solution to the proposed homes and that they will not impact negatively into her home.

        (-) Nancy Levine

        - She lives on 28th Street.

        - There is inconsistency with this project and the rest of the homes on this block.

        (-) Pauline Shulman

        - She lives on 28th Street

        - She respectfully asks that the Commission take Discretionary Review on this project.

        (-) Diane McCarney

        - She is trying to make her neighborhood balanced and hopes that everyone can come to a compromise.

        (-) Stan Lekach

        - He lives around the corner from the proposed project.

        - There are a lot of homes who have gardens and trees. If these houses were to be built as proposed, it would be a huge imposition and impact negatively on the adjacent homes.

        (-) Phyllis Lyon

        - She lives on Duncan Street.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve a Discretionary Review on this project.

        (-) Del Martin

        - She is here to support the Discretionary Review requestors.

        (-) Bonnie Lindahl

        - She lives on Duncan Street since 1963.

        - She would not like the proposed homes to become an intrusion into their marvelous green space which has been protected for many years.

        (-) Donald L. Eesley

        - He lives on Duncan Street.

        - He is in support of taking Discretionary Review

        - Big buildings are not part of where he lives.

        (-) Richard Meyers

        - He lives on 28th Street.

        - He is opposed to anything that would change people's lifestyles.

        (-) Rich Levine

        - He lives on 28th Street.

        - The project sponsor has not had consideration to the neighborhood and there is no consistency with the homes on the block.

        - The comments of the residents are plain and simple.

        - He is not asking that the development cease, he is just asking for consistency in the neighborhood.

        (-) Klaus Wirsing

        - He lives 25 feet above the proposed building site.

        - he made additions to his home a few years ago and excavated also to keep the roof line of the adjacent homes equal.

        - This is something that the project sponsor could do to he proposed home.

        (-) Patrick McLane

        - He and his wife are the most recent residents of this neighborhood. They came to this neighborhood because of all the open space and air.

        - They totally respect the right to develop property. They just ask that the property be developed that is in keeping with the adjacent buildings, that is of a scale that is consistent with the slope and that it's in keeping with the local neighbors.

        (+) Steven Aiello - Project Designer

        - HE is proposed two units where only one exists.

        - San Francisco has a variety of homes and neighborhoods.

        - Both of the adjacent neighbors' homes project further back than the buildings around them.

        - He is only developing 50% of the total developable volume on the downhill volume and 57 1/2% on the uphill building.

        - Both building are below the required height limit.

        (+) Mary Sangiacomo

        - She lives on 28th Street.

        - She supports this project since the project sponsor will take a property which probably does not comply with building requirements and develop it into two very reasonably sized homes in a City which is in need for single-family housing.

        - She and her husband have reviewed the plans and agree with the design.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

        (+) Andrew Junius

        - There are smaller houses on the block but there are also larger houses on the block. Just because one house is larger than the adjacent one does not constitute Discretionary Review.

        - There are no substantial issues here to justify Discretionary Review.

        (+) Val Rabichev - Structural Engineer

        - The foundation will be lower than the uphill neighbor.

        - This construction will be conducted in a safe manner with all the requirements of the San Francisco building code.

        - The changes requested by the Discretionary Review requestors would make the construction of the homes riskier.

        (+) Phillip Whitehead

        - He prepared the soundness report and he is available for any questions.

        (+) Claire Piltcher

        - She founded Friends of Noe Valley 32 years ago.

        - She is in support of this project. This is a great project.

        (+) James McFadden - Project Sponsor

        - He is not a developer and is just trying to build a house for his growing family.

        - He and his wife want to remain living in Noe Valley.

        - They plan to have about 4 or 5 members of his family live in the proposed homes.

        - There are dozens of trees which will be removed and allow more and clearer views for the neighbors.

        - If this building were across the street or lower down the block, they would probably not be here.

        - They have made numerous changes to the design to accommodate the neighbor's issues.

        (+) Maureen McFAdden

        - She and her husband would like to remain in Noe Valley and enlarge their home.

        - The project falls far within the San Francisco Building Code.

        - Her husband has made several revisions to the design of the project.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve the design as is.

        (+) Margaret McFadden

        - She is the sister of the project sponsor.

        - She has letters from neighbors who could not attend the meeting but who support the project sponsor.

        (+) Joel Baumgardner

        - He is an architect and has known the project sponsor for many years.

        - The project is well designed and is consistent with the neighborhood and the residential design guidelines.

        - The scale of the project is in line with the trend of the homes on the block.

        - There have been several good neighbor gestures made.

        (+) Kieran MItchell

        - He lives on 24th Street.

        - He and his wife support this project.

        - He has had an opportunity to view the plans for the homes and thinks that they are quite reasonable.

        (+) Catherine McCall

        - She is here in support of the project sponsor.

        - She read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of the project as well.

        (+) Mario Wilson

        - There are dozens of large homes in the area.

        - This house is not out of character with the neighborhood.

        - He just sees people worried about their views and misusing a process.

        - The neighborhood needs family housing.

        (+) Bob Powell

        - He supports the project as proposed since it will be a great addition to the neighborhood.

        - He read a letter from a member of the Upper Noe Valley Neighbors Association who is in support of the project.

        (+) Heather Aiello

        - She read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of the project but could not come to the meeting.

        (+) John Dooling

        - He has looked at the plans and finds that they are well designed and thought out.

        - The proposed project will be a benefit to the neighborhood.

        - The plans comply with the building code and zoning ordinance.

        (+) Dorothy Walsh

        - All her children have had to move out of San Francisco because they could not afford a house here.

        - The proposed project needs to have both children's bedrooms and master bedrooms on the same floor.

        - She supports the plans as they have been proposed.

        (+) Gerry Kiegan

        - He is here to urge the Commission not to take Discretionary Review on this project and approve the plans with modification.

        (+) Sean Moran

        - He is in support of this project.

        - The old dwelling in question is uninhabitable and the proposed new construction are well under the height limit and the size and scale are compatible with the other homes on the block.

        - It is time to let this project go forward.

        (+) Vincent Walsh

        - He was involved in the rezoning of the City back in the `70s. They had a lot of conversations about the size, lot and building envelopes. It was specifically intended that single-family homes could be built on 70% of the lot since families should be able to build the kind of homes they felt they needed.

        - The proposed home is not unreasonable in size.

        (+) Matt Dooling

        - He lives in Noe Valley for many years.

        - He read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of the project.

        (+) Joe O'Donoghue

        - The opposition is trying to say that the project is not designed with the residential design guidelines in mind.

        - The project sponsor has a growing family and he should have the right to build this project to adapt to his growing family.

        - Change is not bad.

        (+) Sululagi Palega

        - He has been involved in Noe Valley for more than 30 years.

        - This neighborhood has always been about good changes and families and children.

        - All the houses are different sizes, different shapes and have families with different nationalities.

        (+) Joe Cassidy

        - He has built a few buildings in Noe Valley.

        - There are mostly two and three story buildings near the area where this home is proposed.

        - He feels that there has mass negative hysteria just because the Friends of Noe Valley wrote a letter opposed to this project when the members did not even meet about it.

        - He feels that the Commission should disregard the arguments from the opposition and approve the project as proposed.

        ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Demolition Permit

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Feldstein

      14b. 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 6, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 14a.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modification: the height of the proposed buildings shall be reduced by two feet.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Feldstein

      14c. 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 6, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 14a.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modification: the height of the proposed buildings shall be reduced by two feet.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Feldstein

Note: The following items were called out of order.

      15a. 2002.0963DV (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

        1411 NOE STREET - east side between 27th and Duncan Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 6593 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.08.01.2923 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and replace it with a new single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Building Permit Application as submitted.

        NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to February 13, 2003.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Georgia Schudish

        - She is here on behalf of her neighbor who is an elderly Japanese lady and is only concerned with her fence.

        (+) Jeffrey R. Heuer - Project Sponsor

        - He will be able to take care of the fence.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

      15b. 2002.0963DV (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

        1411 NOE STREET- east side between 27th and Duncan Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 6593 - Front Setback and Rear Yard Variances Sought - Planning Code Section 132 (a) requires a front setback of 2 feet 7 inches and Section 136(c)(25)(A) requires a minimum rear yard of 15 feet for the subject lot. The proposed new single-family dwelling would encroach 7 inches into the required front setback and would encroach 9 feet into the required rear yard, extending to within 6 feet of the rear property line in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to February 13, 2003.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 15a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.

      16. 2003.0055D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

        415 BRANNAN STREET - northeast corner of Ritch Street between 3rd and 4th Streets; Lot 048 in Assessor's Block 3787 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission Resolution No.14844, of Miscellaneous Permit Application Number MB0200865 to obtain Liquor License Type 41 (on-sale beer and wine for bona fide public eating place) in a SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District within a 50-X Height and Bulk District in the Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jeffrey Lievovitz

        - This will be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood.

        - They are always looking for "cheap" eateries and ethnic varieties.

        - He commends the Commission's endurance.

        - He looks forward to working with this new Commission.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as submitted.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

      None

Adjournment: 11:06 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd

EXCUSED: Feldstein

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:05 PM