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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

April 24, 2003

April 24, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 24, 2003

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:30 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judith Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Dan Sirois; Geoffrey Nelson; Joy Navarrete; Jonas Ionin; Joan Kugler; Paul Lord; Matt Snyder; Ben Fu; Mary Woods; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - 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. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - The applicant has requested approvals for two alternate, mutually exclusive uses, both of which would demolish three un-rated buildings located on the project site, construct a new building connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovate that existing building, rated as Category IV under the Planning Code. The new construction and renovated 150 Powell Street building would be approximately 65 feet high, (four stories), and would include retail space, a 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard, and a lobby on the first floor. Both alternatives require a determination of compliance with the Planning Code pursuant to Section 309, with an exception to loading requirements. No parking would be provided as part of the Project. Alternative (1) would provide ground floor and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for 45 units of time share condominiums, categorized as a "hotel" use under the Planning Code and requiring a Conditional Use authorization. The basement would be used as accessory spa and gymnasium space for fractional ownership ("time-share") residents. This alternative has no parking requirements. Alternative (2) would provide ground floor, basement, and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for 45 dwelling units, all uses permitted as of right. This alternative requires an additional exception under Section 309 (rear yard), and also must obtain variances from residential parking (eleven spaces), dwelling unit exposure, and open space requirements, at a concurrent hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 10, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 8, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 8, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

2. 2003.0093TZ (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

JACKSON SQUARE SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - consideration of an Ordinance amending the Planning Code to add Section 249.24 to establish the Jackson Square Special Use District, amending the Zoning Map Sectional Map No. 1 SU to show the boundaries of this District, requiring that within a portion of this district all ground floor and basement level office use be subject to conditional use authorization and in other specified portions be prohibited, requiring that within this District adult entertainment enterprises be prohibited, modifying the abandonment period for permitted conditional uses in this District, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications

(Proposed for Continuance to May 8, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 8, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

3. 2002.1065DD (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

1469 18TH STREET - corner of 18th and Connecticut, Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 4036 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.05.5714 proposing to change the use to include "Other Entertainment" with a Police "Place of Entertainment" permit, doing business as the "Lingba Lounge," located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 8, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 8, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

4a. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

891 CAROLINA STREET - east side, between 20th Street and 22nd Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.08.6090 proposing to construct a new two-story vertical and horizontal addition to the existing single-story over garage building with an attic level. The project proposes an increase from one to two dwelling units. The project is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The proposal also requires a front setback Variance for the second story, which will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

NOTE: On March 20, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this item to April 3, 2003 by a vote of +4-1 (Commissioner Feldstein voted No; Commissioners Boyd and Hughes were absent). Both Discretionary Review requestor and Project Sponsor were asked to explore possible alternatives to the plans.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 15, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 15, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

4b. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

891 CAROLINA STREET - east side, between 20th Street and 22nd Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Request for a front setback Variance for the construction of a new second story in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family House) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The proposal also requires a request for Discretionary Review for the construction of a new two-story vertical and horizontal addition to the existing single-story over garage building with an attic level. The project proposes an increase from one to two dwelling units.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

NOTE: On March 20, 2003, the Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to April 3, 2003. On April 3, 2003, the Zoning Administrator continued this item to April 24, 2003.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 15, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 15, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

5. 2002.0896C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

436 CLEMENTINA STREET - north side, between 5th and 6th Streets, Lot 062 in Assessor's Block 3732: Request for Conditional Use (CU) authorization under Planning Code Section 263.11 to allow Special Height Exceptions within the South of Market Residential Service District (RSD) with a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk Designation. The proposed project would demolish the existing one-story, 5,000 square-foot warehouse and construct 28 residential units over a ground-floor commercial space, and ten off-street parking spaces within a new eight-story structure. The proposed structure would be approximately 75 feet in height.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Hearing of March 27, 2003)

NOTE: Although a public hearing was held on February 13, 2003, public comment remains open.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 22, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

6. 2002.0207E (L. KIENKER: (415) 558-5970)

5894 MISSION STREET - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration, on an irregular-shaped parcel (Assessor's Block 7143 - Lot 33),at the northeast corner of Mission Street, Sickles Avenue, and Huron Street. The proposed project involves the replacement/modernization of a gasoline station and construction of an AM/PM mini-mart, demolition of an existing Smog Pro building, removal and replacement of underground petroleum storage tanks (USTs), and partial site re-grading. The 1,680-gross-square-foot (gsf) project building would result in an approximately 50-gsf expansion of the 24-hour commercial operation. The project would retain the two Mission Street access points, eliminate a Huron Street access, eliminate a Sickles Avenue access near Mission Street, and retain the Sickles Avenue access closest to Huron Street. The approximately 18,000-gsf project site is located in the Outer Mission Neighborhood, is zoned NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and is within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 22, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Steve Currier, Otter Mission Residents Association

- His organization supports this continuance.

ACTION: Continued to May 22, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

7. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of March 20 and 27, 2003.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Boyd

8. Commission Comments/Questions

Commission Secretary

Re: Vacations

- She passed out a calendar and requested that Commissioners indicate when they might be off during the summer months.

Re: Sunshine Ordinance Training

- Announced that she received correspondence from the City Attorney's office on a mandatory training session regarding the Sunshine Ordinance on May 6, 2003. A copy of this has been placed in your correspondence folders. Please review it for time and location.

Re: Commission Photos

- She passed out copies of digital photographs taken of the Commission as a group. Asked commissioners to let her know if they are interested in obtaining a copy.

Re: Correspondence to Commissioners

- When any member of the public emails individual commissioners on matters under the jurisdiction of the Commission, it is important to also copy the Commissioner Secretary. This would eliminate the need for the commissioner to forward a copy to me and it insures that a copy is provided for the public record.

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Commissioner's Comments

When he or any commissioner speaks to groups, the opinions expressed are those of the individual and not representative of the Commission as a whole.

Re: speaking engagements

It is important that Commissioners inform the Commission Secretary when they receive invitations to speak so the Commission Secretary make sure a quorum of the commission is not involved.

Commissioner Sue Lee:

Re: Potential Legislation

- She requested from staff any information on potential legislation or legislative initiatives that come from the Board of Supervisors. This information would be sent to Commissioners prior to the legislation being included in case reports that are given to Commissioners one week before the hearing. If there are any reports or analysis to the Board of Supervisors, this information also be provided to them in advance as well.

It would assist them to look at the legislation in advance.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements

Re: Joint Hearing on Information Items

- The Planning Commission and the Park and Rec Commission will have to hold a joint hearing to determine how funds that are generated for the downtown open space park fund are allocated. He will work with President Bradford Bell and the Commission Secretary to come up with a date for this hearing.

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

Re: Land Use Committee

Rezoning of 4463 24th Street

- The request was a rezoning from an RH-2 to an RM-1 designation.

- This was passed forward to the full board without any opposition and a favorable recomendation.

Re: Full Board of Supervisors

40-50 Lansing Street - CEQA Review

- This case was appealed and then continued in order for the traffic consultant to prepare a supplemental traffic analysis dealing with some issues that were brought to the attention of the Board. Staff provided some updated information to the Board.

- On Tuesday, the Board voted unanimously to uphold the Commission's decision to uphold the negative declaration. That is why this case will be heard today.

BOA -

Re: Lakeshore Plaza

- In 1991, the Commission approved a Conditional Use which was appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The Board placed specific limits on the type and number of restaurants.

- This past summer when someone asked if a McDonalds could move in there, the Zoning Administrator issued a letter of determination that the conditions of approval that the Board of Supervisors placed specifically omitted a "hamburger type restaurant."

- This was appealed to the Board of Appeals. Last night his determination that they would require a new conditional use or a modification of a conditional use was upheld on a +3-2 vote. It is likely that a conditional use will come before the Commission.

Re: Glen Park Market Place

- This case came before the Commission a few months ago, and the Zoning Administrator heard a Variance for parking and open space.

- The Conditional Use was appealed to the Board of Supervisors and was upheld.

- The Variance was appealed to the Board of Permit Appeals and upheld +4-1.

- This project will move through the permitting phase and would not be surprised if the permit is appealed later on.

D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

None

E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

11. 2002.1120C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

678 PORTOLA DRIVE - north side between Sydney Way & Woodside Avenue, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 2892 (AKA Ebenezer Lutheran Church) - Request for Conditional Use authorization by Verizon to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the Ebenezer Lutheran Church pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.6(b), which includes the installation of 2 panel antennas, and associated equipment in an RH-1 (D) (Residential House One-Family Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The subject site is a preference 1 location (publicly-used structures) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, 1996.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 10, 2003)

NOTE: On March 27, 2003, after public testimony the Commission closed public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) Approval -- the motion failed to carry by a vote of +3 -3. Commissioners Feldstein, S. Lee and Bradford Bell voted no. Commissioner Boyd was absent. 2) Continuance to April 10, 2003 -- passed by a vote +6 -0. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

NOTE: On April 10, 2003, the Commission continued this matter to April 24, 2003.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Boyd

MOTION: 16570

12. 2003.0139D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

1835 19TH AVENUE - west side between Noriega and Ortega Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 2056 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.25.9921, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-family dwelling, containing three stories above the street and one basement below the street) 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 Demolition Permit Application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

NOTE: On February 27, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to March 13, 2003 by a vote of +6 -0 (Commissioner William Lee was absent). Staff was instructed to review and correct inconsistencies in the reports. On March 13, 2003 this item was continued to April 3, 2003. On April 3, 2003, the Commission continued the matter to April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

James Lee

- He was concerned with why there is a request for continuance on this item.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 15, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

13. 2003.0084D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

23 WOOD STREET - west side between Euclid Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1069 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.07.25.2322 proposing the demolition of a two-story single-family dwelling, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to construct a new, four-story two-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

NOTE: On April 3, 2003, following public comment, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) to not take Discretionary Review and approve the Project. The motion failed to carry by a vote of +3-3. Commissioners Feldstein, Hughes, and S. Lee voted No. Commissioner Boyd was absent. 2) to continue the item to April 24, 2003, to allow absent Commissioner to participate in final action, passed by a vote of +4-2. Commissioners Feldstein and Hughes voted No. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 15, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

14. 2002.0782E: (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PROJECT - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - The California Academy of Sciences is in Golden Gate Park (Lot 1 of Assessor's Block 1700) along the easterly edge of the Music Concourse within a P (Public Use) district and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. The project would be to build a new CAS on the site of the existing facilities. The project would include demolition of 11 of the existing 12 buildings, and the removal of approximately 73 existing parking spaces. The project would retain and rehabilitate Simson African Hall in place. The Academy would retain its general location and orientation. The new facility would include three main levels above grade, two levels below grade, and a loading area at the southwestern portion of the project site. The new Academy building would be approximately 460 feet long and 280 feet wide, with the edges of the roof extending to approximately 520 feet long by 335 feet wide. The building would feature a landscaped roof, the base height of which would be less than 40 feet. Above the base, the landscaped roof would undulate to accommodate the Academy's major programmatic components beneath, with the two peak elements over the planetarium and rainforest exhibits reaching a height of about 67 feet, or approximately 13 feet beyond the highest existing point (Morrison Planetarium). These two peaks would be set back approximately 150 feet from the roof's edge along Academy Drive. Trellised portions of the roof would extend beyond the perimeter walls. The floor area would increase from approximately 350,000 sq. ft. to approximately 390,000 sq. ft. The footprint would decrease from approximately 240,000 sq. ft. to approximately 205,500 sq. ft. This increase in area on a smaller footprint is possible because the plans significantly increase basement level areas. Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on April 29, 2003.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Mark Palmer - Green Building Coordinator of Department of the Environment

- The Environmental Impact Report is intended to describe and disclose any possible negative environmental impacts to a project. The Green Building of the Department of the Environment on the other hand is there to create buildings that have positive environmental impacts.

- The Academy of Sciences was designated as one of ten green building pilot projects as part of the R&B ordinance of 1999. This information should be disclosed as part of the record in the EIR.

- The new academy will be a physical embodiment of the Academy's mission to understand and project [protect] the natural world.

- The building will serve as an extension of the exhibition program and highlight the green building features for the project.

(+) Ron Miguel - Planning Association of the Richmond

- He has actually read and understood the EIR.

- He has attended meetings at the Academy on the subject of the EIR.

- The EIR is totally adequate.

- He believes that there will be an enthusiastic response on this.

(+) Jim Chappell - President of SPUR

- He has been following all of the development in Golden Gate Park for many years.

- He has prepared many EIRs himself and feels that this is complete.

- The academy has followed a model process and they have met extensively with the community. They have heard and they have responded.

- This will be a positive contribution to the City.

(+) Maggie Lynch - Member of the Community Advisory for the Academy

- She has attended a lot of the meetings on this and has seen the design and plans for the project.

- From a transit standpoint, the academy has done a great job. They will offer a lot of incentives for using transit.

(-) Mary Anne Miller - San Francisco Tomorrow

- Her organization has been following projects in Golden Gate Park.

- She read a statement from a letter of the City Attorney stating that there should be an EIR that covers all proposed projects at Golden Gate Park together.

- This project will not allow phase II of the garage construction going on at the Concourse.

- The academy does not address this.

(-) Chris Duderstadt

- He is concerned that the tunnels that service the area near the academy are not there in the EIR of the academy. This should be dealt with in the document.

(+) August Longo - FDR Democratic Club

- He supports the academy's report because it shows great consideration for people with disabilities and seniors.

(+) Alyce Brown

- She supports the EIR and as a disabled senior citizens she looks forward to having this project come alive

- There are areas at the academy that are currently not available to seniors.

- She hopes that the Commission will support this EIR.

(-) Katherine Roberts - Alliance for Golden Gate Park

- She does not agree with the EIR. She feels that the design is catastrophic.

- This is just not going to work in the long run.

- It is irresponsible to not take many issues into consideration.

(-) Roger Brandon

- He is not in agreement with the EIR or the project.

ACTION: No Action Required.

15. 2002.0657C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

3725 BUCHANAN STREET - west side between Beach Street and North Point Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0445A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of eight antennas and related equipment for Verizon Wireless, on the roof of an existing four-story, 45-foot tall, commercial structure 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 4 as it is a commercial building in an NC-2 District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 10, 2003)

NOTE: Although a public hearing was held on April 10, 2003, public comment remains open.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Jennifer Donnely - Verizon Wireless

- This site is important to provide coverage to the Marina District.

- There has been over a 100% [use] increase in the area.

- This site was chosen because of the height of the building, it is fully commercial, and it is on a commercial strip.

- There will be 8 panel antennas screened from view. There will be no increase in height to the building. There will be fans located there but the noise is comparable to household fans.

- Notices in trilingual languages were sent out. There were community meetings held and there were about 10 people who attended these meetings.

(+) Barbara Janeff

- She is concerned about the height of the building and the equipment.

- She is wondering if another room would be allowed at the top of a building?

- The room for this equipment is very large.

(-) Robert Wales

- He lives within 100 feet of this equipment and is concerned with the noise from the fans.

- Even though there is a slight commercial strip, this area is mostly residential.

- None of the resident's issues have been addressed.

- Staff has told him that the fans on this equipment will transmit intermittent noise. This is worse than a constant noise.

- He hopes that the Commission will turn down this application.

(-) Jacqueline Clemens - Beach Street Homeowners

- She submitted 59 additional signatures for the record.

- She also submitted a letter from a resident who could not attend this heading.

- These fans need maintenance and sometimes they break down. She is very concerned with the noise these antennas will make.

(-) Erika Tarantino

- She read a letter from Christine Barron whose daughter has a life threatening disease who is concerned about the negative affects of the antennas.

(-) Joan Girardot

- In 1996, there was an application from Sprint to install an antenna at this same location but the neighbors fought it.

- The neighbors are still opposed to this site being used for this purpose.

(-) Patricia Voughey

- There are five pieces of paper that state they want to install these antennas. Yet there is nothing on those pieces of paper that talks about the cumulative impact on the neighborhood.

- Two people, less than 50 years old, just died of brain tumors.

(-) Mark Longwood - SNAFU

- Staff mentioned that Sprint had more antenna sites than Verizon.

- There is a saturation of antennas in the City.

- The need is described by the neighborhood. And in this case, there is no need expressed by the neighbors.

(-) Catherine Roberts - Member of the San Francisco Green Party

- People are coming to their senses more and more about this.

- There are enough questions about these cell phone antennas in a densely populated area such as San Francisco. She feels that the Commission should limit them as much as possible, taking the necessary steps against people's health being harmed.

MOTION No. 1: To approve

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee,

NAYES: Feldstein and W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

RESULT: Motioned Failed

ACTION: Public Hearing Closed, item continued to May 1, 2003

AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

16. 2002.0809E (R. AHMADI: (415) 558-5986)

VALENCIA GARDENS HOPE VI PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT. Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: Assessor's Block 3546, Lot 2 is approximately five acres and is located at 340-370 Valencia Street on the block bounded by Valencia, Guerrero, 14th, and 15th Streets in the Mission District of San Francisco. The proposed project would be the demolition of the existing Valencia Gardens public housing project which was found to be an historical resource, including 22 three-story residential buildings containing 246 rental units and 82 surface parking spaces and replacement construction of new public housing. The new construction would consist of 15 three-story buildings and two four-story buildings containing 290 residential units, a community center; a childcare center; a computer learning center; an outdoor child play space and other semi-public community open space; and 86 surface parking spaces. The proposed project would require Conditional Use authorization from the Planning Commission to determine qualification as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 304 of the City Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2003.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Kenneth Jones - Director of Housing, Mission Housing Development

- He is pleased about this project and is anxious to find out the comments from the public and from the Commission.

- He looks forward to working with the Commission on this.

(+) Gabrielle Fontanella - Valencia Gardens Secretary

- This project needs to move forward as soon as possible.

(-) Judy Berkowitz

- As it has been seen with another housing project, the tenants in public housing do own cars. There is a great demand for parking in public housing projects. Doubling the population without increasing the parking would cause a great detriment to the health, environment and well being to those concerned. It will increase noise congestion and emissions.

ACTION: Hearing for Public Comment Only. No Action Required.

17. 2003.0042T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION NOTIFICATION - consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 311 and 312 to require expanded public notice for major exterior alteration projects; requiring the Building and Planning Departments to issue implementing regulation within 90 days and report to the Board of Supervisors on the effectiveness of the ordinance no later than nine months thereafter; and adopting findings.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 15, 2003.

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

ABSENT: Boyd

18. 2002.0418T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

SECONDARY UNIT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by repealing Section 207.2 [Second Unit] in its entirety, adding new Section 207.2 and amending Section 209.1 to authorize one additional secondary unit limited to 750 square feet of gross floor area on a lot within 1250 feet of a Primary Transit Street or Transit Center and also within 1250 feet of a Neighborhood Commercial or Commercial zoning district, and constructed for the elderly or persons with physical disabilities and to prohibit the owner from legalizing an illegal unit pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance; by amending Sections 135(d), Table 151 of Section 151 and 307(g) to establish the amount of open space; and adopting findings.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications

(Continued from Regular Calendar of March 27, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Marilyn Amini - West Portal Residents

- It is important to continue this item because there are a lot of community groups who are not aware of the substance of this proposal.

- She does not even know if the Landmark Advisory Board is aware of this information.

- She believes that the time limit for the Board of Supervisors has run out as well.

- Her neighborhood group has not had an opportunity to have a membership meeting to discuss this.

Silvia Sosa

- She supports the continuance of this item because the affected residents should have time to review and study this.

- There should be proper community input.

Ernestine Weiss

- She would like to have this item approved. It will make affordable housing available for those most in need.

Jill Kent

- She supports this continuance also because many of the residents have not been informed.

- The neighborhood association has not been informed either.

- Time is needed for someone from staff to come out to the neighborhoods and explain what all this is about.

- Most of the information was taken from past information. Information should be more updated.

Mike DeCastro

- He has been fighting in-law apartments for many years.

- In-law apartments increase congestion and cause problems.

Steven Currier - Outer Mission Residents Association

- His organization supports this continuance because not many of the members know about this item being heard today.

- He welcomes members of staff to come to his organization and talk about this item.

- A map would be helpful to help people understand and educate themselves on it.

Steve Johns

- He supports the continuance because this is a huge issue and it would take months for dialog and conversation between members of associations.

Ron Miguel

- He supports the continuance because people do not have a vision yet of what is to be done.

- He is not speaking for or against it but he definitely supports a continuance.

Mary Ann Miller - SPEAK

- She has always hoped to have secondary units in the Sunset District because this area is a zoning category RH-1(S) and single-family property owner's would be allowed these secondary units.

- Not having the parking garage for the extra unit could be a problem.

Wade Crowfoot - Legislative Aid for Supervisor Peskin

- This legislation has been at the Planning Department for over a year.

- It is very important to hear from the Commission.

- It would be beneficial as changes are contemplated to have a framed dialogue.

- The Supervisor's office is totally committed to go to neighborhoods and talk to people about this.

- He feels that it would be very productive to have a hearing today.

PUBLIC HEARING:

(+) Wade Crowfoot - Legislative aid for Supervisor Peskin

- Supervisor Peskin would have wanted to attend this hearing but he is at a Budget Committee meeting.

- They have had an opportunity to discuss this legislation with various community organizations, landlords, etc.

- Secondary units don't require additional funding or extra land. They provide modern, safe homes for seniors, living space for students or singles, etc.

- It is not the intent of the Supervisor's office to police the units that are already built. This is meant to increase the housing stock in San Francisco.

- If there are units in a building subject to rent control, they will continue to be controlled. If they are not subject to rent control, then they will not be controlled.

- Homeowners would have to pay a $5,000 in lieu affordability fee or subject the unit to affordability requirements.

- If there are enough negative impacts then this legislation would be cancelled.

- To ensure that homeowners are not expanding the envelope to have secondary units, requirements would be controlled.

(+) Alex Ku

- He is in agreement with this proposal.

- If the City passed a law for handicap access it would be difficult to add extra units. Not all units should be required to have handicap access.

- This proposal is very good except for the issue of handicap access.

(-) Mike DeCastro

- He and his wife have lived in St. Mary's Park for many years.

- The reason he purchased his house is because the area is very residential and is a single-family neighborhood.

- It is his belief that the quality of life and equity of homes would be destroyed if this legislation were to be approved.

- This is a lifestyle and equity-damaging proposal as well.

(-) Julie Hagelshaw - Westwood Park Association

- She submitted a letter from Danny Burks, president of the association who is not in support of this legislation.

(+) Norman Rolfe

- He can anticipate issues from the public regarding this legislation.

- If you provide the parking you get a car if you don't provide a parking space you get rid of the car.

- There are a lot of people in San Francisco who do not have cars.

(-) Ann Marie Conroy

- There has been a lack of meaningful outreach and lack of communication to homeowners regarding this legislation before the Planning Commission.

- Every homeowner that is targeted on the map provided by staff should have been notified and given the opportunity to come to this hearing.

- The issue of CC and R should be looked at closely.

- This legislation lacks provisions for off-street parking.

(+) Bob Planthold

- He supports this legislation.

- He is a single parent raising two children who will be leaving home. Once children are gone there is no need for two or three bedrooms.

- This City has a large population of seniors. There is a long list for subsidized housing. Not everyone who is nearing retirement is low income. This legislation would allow and provide a unit small enough for a single senior person to have a safe and private living space.

- This will also allow homeowners help with their financial situation.

(+) Dan Kalb - San Francisco Tomorrow

- Additional housing will happen one way or another.

- The question is what type of housing and when will it happen.

- This legislation is quite modest.

- Housing in transit areas just makes sense.

- More affordable housing opportunities are needed in the City.

- This is a smart proposal that should be approved quite quickly.

(+) Shannon Dodge

- She supports this legislation and is glad that it is finally before the Commission.

- As a homeowner now, she is the kind of person who would like to have a secondary unit because it would help her financially.

- Every reasonable tool needs to be used to make more affordable housing.

(+) Kate White - San Francisco Housing Coalition

- She would like to see ways to get rents to go down and to have more affordable units.

- Secondary units are a great way to accommodate immigration, extended families, etc.

(+) Gabriel Metcalf - Deputy Director of SPUR

- Every neighborhood needs to be asked to do their part and be moderate about allowing more people to live in their neighborhoods.

- There could be no additional housing units with more visual impacts than this legislation.

- Anybody who opposes this will oppose anything.

(+) Phil Tai - Executive Director of the Asian Law Caucus

- His organization supports this legislation.

- There are numerous people who come to his organization speaking of unsafe units.

- The units under this legislation will be held under a strict order of conduct.

- The City needs more housing supply.

(+) Robin Levitt - Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- He read a letter from Ashley Hamlett of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association who is in full support of this legislation.

(+) Brandon Baunach - Housing Action Coalition/Bicycle Coalition

- Working professionals who do not make enough to own a home would be given the opportunity to own a home if there was income from a secondary unit.

(+) Jim Chappell - President of SPUR

- Housing in San Francisco is the most important need.

- SPUR strongly supports this well crafted ordinance.

- He would like to be able to live on a ground floor where there will not be any stairs.

- Very few people who live in in-law type apartments have cars.

(+) Dean Larson

- He is a professional artist.

- It has been very difficult for he and his partner to move into his recently purchased home. He has been hammered from many sides for a lot of expenses. If they were allowed to put in a secondary unit, it would help their financial situation.

(-) John Bardis - Inner Sunset Action Committee

- This hearing is taking place without an environmental review on this legislation.

- The housing element is pending and this legislation will be implemented into the element.

- This public hearing is premature.

(-) Judy Berkowitz - Chair of the Land Use Committee

- The committee voted unanimously against this legislation.

- The addition of an ancillary unit would cause a lot issues because it cannot be enforced.

- She recommends that the Commission vote against this.

(+) Marilou Lascari - West Portal Resident

- She would like the Commission to exempt West Portal from this legislation.

- They already have a better neighborhood. West Portal does not need to be destroyed.

(+) Maria Souza

- She is a resident of the Richmond District.

- Her board has not considered this legislation before.

- A number of the single-family homeowners have asked her to come out to the Planning Commission and represent them at the hearing.

- She would like the Commission to continued this item and give them an opportunity to discuss this.

(+) Jessie Lorenz - Independent Living Resource Center

- They support this legislation because San Francisco has a housing crisis for seniors and people with disabilities.

- Everyone in this room will need a place to live where they can have their own entrance and be safe.

- This is a big step to solve a huge crisis.

(-) Dave Bisho - Westwood Highlands Association

- This proposal has the most far-reaching implications he has ever seen.

- I should feel lucky since my neighborhood will be exempt from this legislation.

- Whether a neighborhood is exempt or not, there will be implications because of traffic impacts.

(-) Jill Kent

- They have not been informed or contacted about this legislation.

- This change will affect everyone in West Portal.

- This ordinance will increase density and this causes more crime, etc.

- Most of the areas in San Francisco will be affected.

(-) Stephen Johns - Preserve Our Neighborhood

- He is concerned that there has been a lack of notice. There are a whole number of people who will be affected from this.

- The proper thing to do is to notify people about a decision before the decision is made.

- This decision should be postponed or disapproved. He feels that the Supervisors are the ones who should have notified people and they have not.

(+) Gwyneth Borden - SF Chamber of Commerce

- She supports this legislation.

- This is not an easy decision, but we live in a City and everyone should do his or her share.

- There is a need for low-income and moderate-income housing.

- People will be given an opportunity to either build a secondary unit in there home or not.

(-) Adena Rosmarin - Board of Directors, Lakeshore Acres Improvement Club

- This legislation is erroneously described.

- The categorical exemption is in error.

- It needs more environmental review.

- If this passes, it rewrites a portion of the Planning Code.

- Further environmental review with adequate mitigation measures needs to be addressed.

(-) Karen Niglio - Merced Manor Property

- She lives in the range where her neighborhood will be affected.

- She found out about this by a neighbor.

- There was no proper notice.

- There are a lot of people who will be affected and were not notified.

- At the very best, she is asking the Commission to oppose this legislation or at the very least, have this matter continued to have proper notice and proper review.

(+) Erik Quezada - MAC

- In concept, he supports this legislation. It is clear that the City should find many ways to have more units.

- Everyone has to do his or her part to improve this City.

(-) Harold Bright - Architectural Review Committee of the Forest View Association

- There was no proper notice. He does not know how the Department can rezone most of the neighborhoods in the City and not provide proper notice.

- Requiring someone to communicate with their neighbors if adding a secondary unit should be included in the legislation.

(-) Hiroshi Fukuda

- He is very concerned because it appears that the entire Richmond district will be affected by this legislation.

- This will be nice for people who already own a house.

- Some of the people who will be living in these secondary units will own cars.

- Neighbors should be notified as well -- not just special interest groups.

(+) Ken Kruszka

- Families are getting squeezed out of San Francisco.

- He urges the Commission to rework the legislation to encourage families to return to live in San Francisco.

- This legislation will not solve the housing problems in San Francisco.

(-) Lois DeCastro

- She opposes this proposal.

- This proposal will steal the right many people purchased.

(+) Joan Girardot

- She cannot support this legislation.

- This is unfair, arbitrary and not forcible.

- This needs notification and voting by the property owners.

(+/-) Sue Hestor

- She believes in secondary units.

- Substantial value will be conferred to property owners.

- How land values will be changed has not been really looked at.

- There should be a way to provide fees to MUNI if a secondary unit is built.

- This is not ready for prime time.

(-) Marilyn Amini - West Portal Homeowners

- She is in opposition to this legislation.

- There has been poor notice to neighborhoods.

- People will not live without automobiles.

(+) Amery Colman

- He opposes this legislation because it will increase the density of neighborhoods.

- He did not know about this legislation.

(+) Did not state name

- Transit in San Francisco comes when it comes.

- It is not a viable alternative to reduce the amount of parking.

ACTION: Hearing held, item continued to May 22, 2003.

AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

19. 2003.0162C (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

1624 CALIFORNIA STREET - north side between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0643 - Request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 723.48 and 790.38, for the addition of "Other Entertainment," including DJs and live bands, to the existing bar d.b.a. "Bohemia." No physical expansion of the bar is proposed. The entertainment use would be permitted only on the ground floor of the two-story building. The subject property is located in the Polk Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Mathew Brennan

- He supports this continuance.

- It would be helpful for the landlord to meet with the neighbors and try to discuss problems and issues.

David Lupo - Carpenters Union

- This permit has other implications in the neighborhood. He is in agreement with the continuance to try to get a meeting with the developer and the neighbors and try to resolve differences.

Peter Badetscher - Polk Street Merchants Association

- He is in agreement also so that both parties involved can try to deal with their differences.

Larry Telford, Esq.

- He is here on behalf of the developer.

- He has been working with the applicant for a long time and he believes that they have made much progress.

Gary Near

- He opposes the continuance because there has been a continuance on this matter already.

- Police test show they have met their standards.

- It is true that there is a major development going on next door but there is nothing controversial.

- He has not heard of the concerns people have until today.

- There is no reason to grant this continuance.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 22, 2003

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

NAYES: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

ABSENT: Boyd

20a. 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 April 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Andrew Junius - Reuben and Alter

- He is happy to be back and finish what was started on February 20, 2003.

- Every project must be based on the General Plan. In this case the Rincon Hill General Plan applies to this project.

- This project was started and was specifically tailored working closely with staff to promote each and every one of the goals of the Rincon Hill General Plan and the Rincon Hill Special Use District.

- This project is located in a place where there will not be any need to drive your car since it's close to all amenities and downtown. This allows for less traffic and less congestion and pollution.

- This project will satisfy San Francisco's housing needs.

- Green Belt, SPUR, the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, Plan C all are here and support this project.

(-) Tom Morley

- He lives on Lansing Street.

- He objects to the large number of Variances requested for this project because they are not in conformance with the existing Rincon Hill Plan and it would be detrimental to live in this neighborhood.

- He requests that the Commission deny the project and the Variances.

(-) Cliff Roth

- He lives on Lansing Street.

- He is against this project as it is currently being presented. He is not against development of the site.

- He believes that this project is just too big and totally out of context with the existing neighborhood.

(-) Paula Roth

- She lives on Lansing Street.

- This building which is now being proposed is too large, too bulky, to dense and totally out of character.

- She would like to have this building downsized to fit with the adjacent buildings.

(-) Robert Lundahl

- He lives on Lansing Street.

- He displayed photographs of the area pointing out that there is a lot of information in the reports that is not accurate.

- He believes that the proposed project is too large for the area.

(+) Julia Laui - Project Architect

- She gave a description of the architectural aspects of the project.

(+) Jim Chappell - SPUR

- This project is in a perfect location since it is so close to downtown.

- He is glad that the design of the building will not include a loading dock or garage doors.

- He submitted a letter that he submitted to the Board of Supervisors regarding the approval of this project.

(+) Kate White - Housing Action Coalition

- Replacing this vacant industrial building with housing makes a lot of sense.

- She hopes that the Commission grants all the approvals and hopes the neighbors will welcome this new project.

(+) Steen Aiello - Greenbelt Alliance

- The Alliance decided to support this project because it meets all their endorsement criteria for residential and mixed use projects.

- He read a letter from Janet Stone, Livable Communities Program Director for Greenbelt Alliance who is in full support of the project.

(+) Mark Reid - RJA (Rolf Jensen and Associates)

- He is a life safety consultant engineer and expert on fire protection.

- All the life safety and fire protection features will be installed properly and by City requirements.

(+) Erik Robbins

- He lives three blocks away and would like to speak in support of this project.

- The location is very quiet on the weekends so there is a need for more people there.

- This is the place to put as many units as possible.

(+) Bob Meyers

- This is exactly what the Rincon Hill plan asks for except smaller.

- The project is in scale with the neighborhood and the block.

- This project is close to downtown so people can actually walk to work and it is handsomely designed.

(+) Andy Kositsky - Treadwell and Rollo - Design Professional

- He is a geotechnical engineer.

- This project will be constructed safely at this location.

(+) Chris Harney

- This is a very well designed project.

- He has stacks of support letters from neighbors. He read a few of these letters.

(+) Dave Murphy - Project Structural Engineer

- Earlier there were some issues regarding the structural aspects of the building.

- The project will employ only conventional construction methods and will be built to code.

- There are no unusual conditions that would cause problems regarding safety.

(+) Gary Lattel

- He has lived in the area for many years.

- He supports this project because it will enhance the neighborhood by bringing more services to the area.

- There will be jobs, public transportation, etc. with the construction of this project.

(+) Ellen Reich

- She lives in the area. With more residential units she feels safer.

- This is a prime area for the development.

(+) Will Bailey - Project Manager

- He is here to answer any questions regarding the sequence of events, etc.

(+) Paul Fisher - Designer/Resident

- He lives in the area.

- This building will be designed as a building that everyone can be proud of.

(+) John Olivera - Local 6 Union

- This is a beautiful area for this project to be built.

- He is glad that this project will provide union jobs.

- The general contractor will go through great efforts so that the adjacent neighbors will not be negatively impacted with the construction.

- He read a letter from the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Counsel who supports the project.

(-) Patrick Malone

- This project is ignoring the Planning Code.

- This building does not meet the criteria from the Planning Code for granting Conditional Use or Variances. It is not desirable or necessary for the neighborhood and it is not compatible.

- There will be negative impacts because there will be traffic congesting and safety hazards from traffic, loading and unloading, etc.

(+) Steve Kuklin

- This is a great project that is well designed, attractive, well articulated and massed, and consistent with what is planned in the Rincon Hill development.

(-) Ana-Christina Newby

- She lives on First Street.

- Her entire building which includes 40 residents are against this project.

- They are not opposed to development on this site.

- This project is too large and has a lot of negative issues.

(-) Mary Ann Robertson

- She lives on Lansing Street.

- This project is not good or compatible with the neighborhood.

- Unnecessarily stuffing a building that is too large for the space will cause the neighborhood to lose sunlight, air space, and open space.

- There will be traffic congestion to the point of being unsafe.

(-) Barbara Jue

- She lives on Lansing Street.

- She is opposed to this project because the majority of the buildings on the street are smaller than the proposed project.

- This structure will mark an imbalance on the neighborhood because it is so tall.

(-) Tule West

- She lives on Lansing Street.

- The proposed project is too massive and out of scale with the neighborhood.

(-) Michelle Shutzer - Guy/Lansing Neighborhood Association

- Some of the letters of support that the Commission is receiving are not from owners.

- This project will have negative impacts in the neighborhood.

- Construction will cause a lot of hazards for people who live in the area and work around there.

- This project is too big for the neighborhood.

- She hopes that the Commission will reduce the size of the project and provide off street loading as the other buildings around there have done.

(-) Sara O'Malley

- She lives on Lansing Street.

- She feels that the Commission is getting the idea that the neighbors are against any type of construction in the area. She wants to make it clear that the neighbors would like a building that is not so large, that doesn't cover every last inch of the lot, provides off street loading, meets exposure requirements, etc.

(+) Larry Pace - Lambert Development

- He has been involved in many construction projects in this area.

- The purpose of this project is to building housing and to build within the envelope, etc.

- He has jumped many hurdles to try to build this project.

MOTION #1: To approve as amended

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, Feldstein

NAYES: S. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, and W. Lee

RESULT: Motion Failed

ACTION: Continued to May 1, 2003

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

21b. 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 Sub district.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 20a.

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and continued the item to May 1, 2003.

22. 2002.0333C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

270-284 VALENCIA STREET (a.k.a. 17 BROSNAN STREET) - west side of Valencia Street between 14th Street and Brosnan Street and south side of Brosnan Street between Guerrero Street and Valencia Street, Lot 9 in Assessor's Block 3533 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to demolish the existing single story building containing an auto repair shop and a photography studio and to construct a new building that would be 50-feet in height and would contain 28 dwelling units, 28 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 3,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space that would face Valencia Street. The project requires Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the construction of dwelling units within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District pursuant to Planning Code Section 215, (2) the demolition of a building containing an existing PDR (Production Distribution and Repair) business pursuant to Board of Supervisor's Resolution 02-500 (the Mission District Interim Controls), and (3) for the construction of a residential project that would contain fewer than 25-percent Below Market Rate units within a C-M District pursuant to Board of Supervisor's Resolution 02-500. The project site is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, a Mixed-use Housing Zone as designated in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and the NEMIZ (Northeast Mission Industrial Zone) as designated in Board of Supervisor's Resolution 02-500.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 15, 2003

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and W. Lee

23. (J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6310)

CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - informational presentation and update on the Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan, part of the Better Neighborhoods Program. No action is required.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 8, 2003

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

G. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

Approximately 9:20 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

24. 2002.1184DD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

620 CAROLINA STREET west side between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 4071 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.07.23.2136 proposing to construct a third story addition, rear extension, and a new building facade to the existing two-story over garage building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 8, 2003

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and W. Lee

25. 2003.0113D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2545 GREENWICH STREET - south side between Scott and Divisadero Streets; Lot 021A in Assessor's Block 0944 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.12.6333, proposing to merge one unit on the second floor with one unit on the third floor, converting the three-unit building to a two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the merger.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Mark Long - Project Sponsor

- He purchased this property about two years ago.

- When he purchased the property it was tenant occupied. Within 6 months of him purchasing the building, both tenants voluntarily moved out. Since then he has occupied both units.

- The previous owner was an elderly person and did not maintain the building.

- He is having a hard time finding an insurance company to provide homeowners insurance.

- With the merger, he will make major improvements.

- He would like to continue living there. None of the adjacent neighbors have any opposition to this merger.

MOTION #1: To not take Discretionary Review and approve the merger

AYES: Antonini and S. Lee

NAYES: Feldstein and Hughes

ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and W. Lee

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Continued to May 1, 2003

AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and W. Lee

26. 2003.0217D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

250 GRANVILLE WAY - north side of Granville between Ulloa and Clairemont Blvd., Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 2976 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.02.5598 proposing a second story rear horizontal extension for an existing single family dwelling in RH-1(D) (Residential House, One-Family, Detached Dwellings) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn

H. 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: 9:30 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as Amended

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

ABSENT: Boyd

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