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 27, 2003

February 27, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 27, 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 1:35 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Dan Sider; Jamilla Vollmann; Mary Woods; Matt Snyder; Dan DiBartolo; Michael Li; Michael Smith; Tom Wang; Dan Sirois, Tammy Chan, 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. 2002.0430C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

      378 10TH AVENUE, A.K.A. 389 9TH AVENUE - northwest corner of 9th Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 1441 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of six antennas and related equipment for AT&T Wireless Services, on the roof of an existing three-story, 53-foot tall, industrial structure within an NC-3 (Moderate-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 1 as it is both a co-location site and an industrial building in an NC-3 District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 23, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

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

      2. 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 January 23, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

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

    3. 2002.1064D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

      2508 19TH AVENUE - east side of the street between Ulloa and Vicente Streets, Lot 013B in Assessor's Block 2419 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.13.1301, proposing to construct a two-story over garage single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications

      (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

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

    4. 2002.1109D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

      107 MAYWOOD DRIVE -east side of the street between Ravenwood Drive and Brentwood Avenue, Lot 043 in Assessor's Block 3042 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001.02.20.2529, proposing to construct a vertical addition on an existing single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1(D) [Residential, House, One-Family (Detached)] District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

      (Proposed for Continuance to March 13, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Continued to March 13, 2003

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

      5. 2002.1046C (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

              399 GROVE STREET - southeast corner at Gough Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0809 - Request for modification of conditions of a previously-approved Conditional Use authorization, Case No. 99.238C, to extend the hours of operation of the existing large fast food restaurant (a bakery/café) known as "Citizen Cake." The proposal would allow the restaurant to stay open until 2 am Monday through Saturday and until 10 pm on Sundays. Currently the restaurant is closed on Mondays and is open until 10 pm Tuesday through Saturday and some Sundays. The subject property is located in the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

      WITHDRAWN

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

    6. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of February 6, 2003.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

      AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes

      EXCUSED: Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

      Commissioner Bradford Bell:

      - She would like to invite the public to Mayor Brown's seminar for Women's History Month. It will be held on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. and Doris Ward will be honored.

      - In observance of Passover, she canceled the Commission hearing scheduled for April 17, 2003.

      Commissioner Antonini:

      Stonestown Project

      - He would like to update the public on the issue of his residence being within 500 feet of the Stonestown project. According to the City Attorney's office, the actual measurement is determined from the beginning of the property, not from the beginning of the project. Based on this determination, his property is 397 feet from the Stonestown property and he can not participate as a commissioner on this matter.

      - He Recused himself from participating as a commissioner during the hearings, but stated that the City Attorney's office had informed him that he could participate as a resident of the area. Therefore, during much of the hearing on this project he will be part of the public/audience.

      Commissioner Feldstein:

      - She would like to have the City Attorney provide the Commissioners with some guidance on the standards for determinations of unsound buildings.

      - It is unclear to her what the standards are.

      Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator commented that there would be a hearing on this issue as well as other Discretionary Review issues on March 20, 2003.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

    8. Director's Announcements

      Re: Housing Element

      - The Commission received this document in their packets. The final draft was released on February 10, 2003. There will be a hearing on this issue on March 27, 2003.

      Re: Commissioner Hughes concerns related to 40-50 Lansing Street

      - He has verified that the clerk's office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. does close at 5:00 p.m.

      - Any documents received after 5:00 p.m. should officially be stamped as received at 8:00 a.m. the next morning. This was an error on behalf of the Office of the Clerk.

      - The Clerk's office will schedule this appeal before the Board of Supervisors, but as of today it has not been calendared.

      - This Conditional Use has been calendared before the Commission but this date will be impacted by the date it is calendared for hearing by the Board of Supervisors.

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

      BOS:

      - There were no Planning Department items before the full Board of Supervisors on February 24, 2003.

      Land Use Committee

      Re: 1338 Filbert Street - Landmark of Cottages

      - This issue was continued from the meeting of Monday, February 24, 2003.

      - There was a question dealing with noticing of the hearing to the owner of the property. The item will be considered again this coming Monday, March 3, 2003.

      Re: 1250 Haight Street

      - On the agenda of March 3, 2003, there will be a discussion on legislation that essentially amends the Planning Code and Zoning maps to create the Haight Street Senior Affordable Housing Special Use District thus enabling the Conditional Use application to move forward on the 40-unit, affordable senior housing project by Citizen Housing Corporation.

      Re: Conditional Use Revocation Ordinance by Supervisor Gonzalez

      - On January 16, 2003, the Commission considered Supervisor Gonzalez's ordinance amending the Planning Code to allow for the revocation of a Conditional Use authorization upon finding that the applicant provided false information in obtaining the Conditional Use.

      - The Land Use Committee will consider the ordinance this Monday.

      - Staff forwarded the Commission's positive recommendation on the legislation along with suggested amendments for language to clarify what would constitute "false information" that could justify revocation of a Conditional Use approval.

      Re: 1193 Oak Street

      - This matter will be heard by the full board on Tuesday, March 4, 2003.

      - This is an appeal of a January 9, 2003 authorization by the Commission of a Conditional Use to establish a bed and breakfast inn within the second floor dwelling unit. Staff will be there to represent the Commission.

      BOA

      Re: 138 28th Street

      - This case was heard by the Commission on May 30, 2003 and was disapproved.

      - The project consisted of merging four units to two units and to construct a 4th floor

      - The Commission disapproved the merger but approved the 4th story.

      - The Board of Appeals upheld the Commission's decision.

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.

      SPEAKER(S):
      Re: 195 Commonwealth Street

      (+) Lily T. So

      - She spoke on behalf of the project sponsor for this massage establishment.

      - The establishment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience or general well fare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity.

      - This massage is a therapeutic service for people who feel pain.

      - There is no control from having homeless people stop in the doorway.

      (+) Natasha Stone

      - She has been a patient of acupressure shiatsu and comes from far away to receive treatment.

      - The project sponsor has been able to help a lot of people.

      - She hopes that the Commission will approve this establishment.

      (+) Linna Lai Wang

      - She is a nurse and is on her feet a lot.

      - She hurt her knee and after receiving treatment from acupressure she feels a whole lot better.

      - She enjoys receiving treatment from this spa.

      - There is no need for patients to remove their clothes.

      (+) John F. Long - Complete Business Services

      - He has been to this massage establishment and there is more than adequate room to treat the patients.

      - There is more than adequate service as well.

      - He hopes that the homeowners association is not using this as a smokescreen to evict the owner.

      (+) Cindy Chen

      - She spoke on behalf of the owner of the massage establishment.

      - She displayed a photograph of the new signage of the massage establishment, which states clearly that Shiatsu Acupressure is provided.

      - This will be an asset to the community.

      - She displayed photographs of the interior of the establishment showing that there is adequate space for customers.

      (+) Terry Chen

      - He displayed photographs of the neighborhood and how this establishment is allowed in this area based on the Planning Code.

      (+) Tulip Yeh - Help-U-Sell Golden Gate Realty

      - There have been many changes in the City.

      - The area is changing to diversified nationalities.

      - There should be no problem for a small business to operate in this area.

      Re: 226 17th Avenue

      (-) Mary Iracki

      - She has lived on 17th Avenue since 1959.

      - She is concerned that there will be a precedent if this project gets approved.

      (-) Juanita Waycott

      - She owns a single-family dwelling on 17th Avenue.

      - She is opposed to the demolition because every time a single-family dwelling is demolished a very large apartment building gets built.

      - This causes an impact on the parking and traffic on the street.

      (-) Norma Lee Cook

      - There have been a lot of single-family homes demolished.

      - It's like loosing the composition of the neighborhood.

      - She would like to have the Commission not demolish this building.

      (-) Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Community Organization

      - He is here trying to prevent this demolition.

      - Each demolition results in units being more expensive after they are rebuilt.

      - This building is sound and there is no question about it.

      (-) Jack Norton - SORE

      - He opposes the demolition of sound housing and the destruction of the Richmond neighborhood--replacing housing with huge monsters.

      (-) Bill Iracki

      - He opposes the demolition of sound housing.

      - He discussed the cost estimates with the planner and the planner removed almost everything.

      - The foundation was repaired under permit in 1956.

      - The cost to repair is not 50% of the cost of rebuilding.

      (-) Megan Sullivan

      - She is opposed to the demolition and construction of the new building.

      - She feels that the new building is too large and it will stand out like a "sore thumb."

      (-) Terry Rolleri

      - He is interested in homes that do not have garages.

      - About 30% of the people that live in this City do not have cars.

      - He is in opposition to the demolition of this home.

      (-) Peter A. Cully - Structural Engineer

      - He was hired by Mr. Iracki to look at the data for the demolition of this property.

      - He has personally looked at the foundation and it is quite sound.

      (-) Steve Williams

      - There is nothing wrong with this house.

      - The problem with the developers is that the entire demolition and building report are (designed) just to construct a new building.

      - This house could be sold and be habitable.

      - The project sponsor should seek an alteration permit not a demolition permit.

      (-) Owen Brady - Save Our Richmond Environment

      - This organization opposes the demolition of this structure. He does not believe that there is a need to lift the house to remove the asbestos.

      (+) Mark Stender

      - He would support the demolition of this house if for no other reason than that it would support property owner's rights.

      - There is an energy crisis and these older homes are looked at as a little quainter than they actually are.

      - A house of this nature is not particularly attractive.

      - He does not see any problem with removing this building.

      (+) Phillip Whitehead

      - This home requires that it be demolished and it needs to "be put to rest." There is dampness and mildew that causes health problems.

      - A new building would be an improvement.

      (+) Bruce Bauman

      - This proposal is 100% code compliant.

      - The house is not historic and it is not affordable. The new dwelling would provide affordable housing.

      (+) John Lau

      - He is the project designer and engineer.

      - The porch of the property is unsound as well as the rest of the house.

      (+) Jim Reuben - Representing the Project Sponsor

      - This project is completely code compliant.

      - He received at the last minute the document from the Discretionary Review Requestor regarding the cost of repair vs. demolition.

      - According to the report from the Project Sponsor, the cost to repair this building exceeds 50% of the cost to repair.

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

    10. 2002.0636DD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

      111 MANCHESTER STREET - east side, south of Stoneman Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 5544 - Two Discretionary Review requests, the first initiated by Department Staff, pursuant to Planning Commission residential demolition policy, of Building Permit Application Number 2002.04.22.4580, which would demolish an existing single family dwelling, and the second initiated by a member of the public, of Building Permit Application Number 2002.04.22.4585, which would construct a new single family dwelling on the same site. The property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, the Bernal Heights Special Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2003)

          NOTE: On February 13, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to February 27, 2003, by a vote of +6 -1. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, this item was continued to March 13, 2003.

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

      11. 2002.0953C (J. VOLLMANN: (415) 558-6612)

          195 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE (AKA 3400 GEARY BLVD) - west side between Euclid Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 1063: - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.54 of the Planning Code to allow a massage establishment within the first floor of a commercial building located in an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed massage establishment would be approximately 280 square feet and contain one massage table. There would be no physical expansion of the building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 6, 2003)

      NOTE: On February 6, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) a motion of intent to disapprove failed to carry by a vote of +3 -1. Commissioner Hughes voted no. 2) a motion to continue the matter to February 27, 2003 in order to have absent commissioners participate in the final action, passed by a vote of +4 -0. Commissioners Feldstein, Sue Lee, and William Lee were absent.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      NAYES: Antonini

      MOTION: 16533

      12. 2000.0413DD & 2002.0874DD (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          226 17th AVENUE - east side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 29A in Assessor's Block 1417 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Permit Application No. 9914684 for the demolition of a two-story, single-family dwelling and Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9914683S, requested by the public, proposing to construct a three-story, two-unit building. The subject property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve both applications as proposed.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)

          NOTE: On October 10, 2002, following public testimony the Planning Director, hearing the items under emergency legislation, closed public hearing and continued the matter to November 14, 2002, so project sponsor can respond to questions raised by the Zoning Administrator, and allow the Discretionary Review Requestor to inspect the property.

          NOTE: On November 14, 2002, the Commission continued this matter to January 16, 2003.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ON THE DEMOLITION PERMIT:

      MOTION NO. 1: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition permit.

      AYES: Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee

      NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

      RESULT: The motion failed.

      FINAL ACTION : Did not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition permit.

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

      NAYES: Hughes, Feldstein, S. Lee

      ON THE REPLACEMENT PERMIT:

      ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with the requirement

          of a Notice Special Restrictions on the lot line windows and the ground

          floor bathroom be reduced to a half bath.

      AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, W. Lee

      NAYES: Hughes and S. Lee

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

    13. 2002.0575C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

      3400 BLOCK OF 19TH STREET, THE PG&E TRANSFORMER STATION - located on south side of the parcel bounded by 19th Street on the parcel's north, San Carlos Street on the east, and Lexington Street on the west, Lot 104 in Assessor's Block 3596 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 209.6(b) to install a total of 6 panel antennas, and associated equipment cabinets, as part of a wireless transmission network operated by AT&T Wireless. The site is within an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 1 Location Site, a public utility structure.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Bill Stephens - AT&T Wireless

      - Emergency and public service providers rely on AT&T Wireless for cellular service.

      - There are three roof levels on this building, and none of the antennas will protrude above the roofline.

      - This site is necessary for the implementation of service.

      - The service in this area is very poor.

      - There was community outreach.

      (-) Todd Curtis

      - He lives across the street from this location.

      - He has over 100 signatures of people who are opposed to the installation of these antennas.

      - He would like to have this case continued until after March 13, 2003 since that is the day that Supervisor Amiano's resolution will be before the Commission.

      - He and his family have a cell phone with AT&T service and they have excellent coverage.

      - He hopes that the Commission will either disapprove this proposal or continue it.

      (-) Julia Babiars

      - She lives across the street from the proposed site.

      - She is an AT&T subscriber and she has been able to receive excellent service from her home and the street.

      - She never received notice about the community meeting and feels that many of the residents were not properly informed.

      - It seems that there are a lot of other antennas and that there is probably excellent service in the area.

      (-) Doug Loranger - SNAFOO

      - He displayed documents with specifications from the cabinets that would be used by this provider.

      - He would also like to have this project continued so that other people could be here to oppose the project.

      (+) Marcelo Pontin - Engineer

      - He realizes that the Commission is not the ones to require seamless coverage - the customers do. This project would enhance the service.

      (+) Bill Hammett - Registered Professional Engineer

      - A regular part of his practice is the measurement of radio transmissions for various carriers and residents of San Francisco.

      - He has measured the site and has made the reports that this site complies with the standards.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      NAYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein

      MOTION: 16534

      14a. 2002.0812KXCV (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          61 - 69 CLEMENTINA STREET - south side of Clementina between First and Second Streets, Lots 36 & 37 in Assessor's Block 3736 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Review of Downtown Buildings) for Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions, including: an exception to the rear yard requirements as permitted in Section 134(d); and an exception to the Separation of Towers requirement as permitted in Section 132.1(c); to construct a 75-foot tall, 7-story building containing nine residential dwelling units, 3,500 square feet of office space, and nine off-street parking spaces on a site previously approved for a new office building. The site is in a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District, and is also the subject of concurrent Conditional Use and Variance hearings.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 23, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Jim Reuben - Representing Project Sponsor

      - There is no opposition to this project.

      - This is a damage control issue more than anything else.

      (+) Kristian Barge

      - He spoke about the architectural aspects of the project.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      NAYES: Feldstein

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16535

      14b. 2002.0812KXCV (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

      61 - 69 CLEMENTINA STREET - south side of Clementina between First and Second Streets, Lots 36 & 37 in Assessor's Block 3736 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for five non-accessory parking spaces under Section 204.5 of the Planning Code. The project proposes nine parking spaces for the use of proposed nine dwellings, where two spaces are required and four are permitted as of right. The project site is within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District, and is also the subject of concurrent Article 309 and Variance hearings.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 23, 2003)

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

      ACTION: Approved

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

      NAYES: Feldstein

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16536

      14c. 2002.0812KXCV (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

              61 - 69 CLEMENTINA STREET - south side of Clementina between First and Second Streets, Lots 36 & 37 in Assessor's Block 3736 - Request for variance from public open space requirements under Section 138 of the Planning Code. The 3,500 square feet of office space proposed require seventy square feet of open space with public rest-rooms under this code provision. and requests a Variance to provide no public open space or rest-rooms. The project site is within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District, and is also the subject of concurrent Conditional Use and Article 309 hearings.

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

      ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and Granted the Variance with conditions: pay an equivalent amount into the downtown open space fund.

      15. 2002.1084C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

      321-323 GRANT AVENUE - west side between Bush and Sutter Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0286 - Request for conditional use authorization to convert residential hotel rooms to nonresidential use and to establish a tourist hotel use within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. The existing building, the Baldwin Hotel, contains 61 residential hotel rooms, of which 45 are vacant. The proposed project is to convert the vacant residential hotel rooms to tourist hotel rooms. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 6, 2003

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

G. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

    Approximately 5:10 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

      16. 2002.0717DDDDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

      653 DUNCAN STREET - south side of the street between Diamond and Castro Streets, Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 6604 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.02.19.9476, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition at the rear of the building, 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)

      NOTE: On December 17, 2002, the Commission continued this matter to February 6, 2003 in order to give project sponsors the opportunity to continue to meet with the community and Discretionary Review requestors. Planning Department staff will continue to review and research the project.

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Lynne Srinivasan - 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

      - She and the other Discretionary Review requestors met with the project sponsor and the Community Boards. They presented various ideas for design changes but the project sponsor did not suggest any changes. After a few hours, nothing was achieved.

      - Yesterday, they (the DR requestors) provided the Commission with another compromise.

      - They (the DR requestors) have come up with an equitable solution and all the DR requestors have compromised on this.

      (-) Diane McCarney - 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

      - She displayed diagrams of suggestions the DR requestors have made in order to come to a compromise.

      - This compromise is a win win situation.

      - She requested that the Commission take Discretionary Review and apply the changes.

      (-) Pauline Shulman - 3rd Discretionary Review Requestor

      - Department reports discuss minimal information on shadow impacts.

      - She displayed a diagram that showed the shadow impacts the project would cause during the different seasons of the year.

      - She would like the Commission to take Discretionary Review and implement the changes they have requested.

      (-) Gerry Meister

      - She is in favor of taking Discretionary Review for this project.

      (-) Michael J. Miller

      - He displayed a diagram of the proposed project and mentioned that the top floor of the building is a super structure.

      - He is not a DR requestor yet there was an invitation for residents to come to the meeting.

      - There have been a lot of projects that have had compromises.

      - The project sponsor has not done anything to work with the neighbors.

      (-) Dave Thompson

      - He lives on Diamond Street.

      - He supports the position to take Discretionary Review and look at this closer.

      - This project will be very, very tall.

      - He agrees with taking off the beams and the chimney.

      (-) Dick Meister

      - He lives on 28th Street, which is just a few blocks away.

      - The existing building should not have been built in the first place.

      - The people who will be impacted the most are ready and eager to compromise.

      (-) Cindy Reuter

      - This building is entirely out of character with the neighborhood.

      - If the top part of the building would be eliminated it would make the building look and fit a lot better.

      - Building out to the maximum of the Planning Code does not make the project compatible with the neighborhood.

      (+) Debra Stein - Representing Project Sponsor

      - Most of the speakers seem to be concerned about a project they did not like in the first place.

      - There are areas of disagreement such as the aesthetics of the existing house. Any kind of impacts, however small, makes it an impact.

      - Project sponsors did not know of any impacts.

      - She would be happy to answer any questions on the remaining alternatives.

      (+) Roberta Boomer

      - The Commission needs to make a decision based on facts.

      - There are no substantial impacts from this project.

      - She would like the Commission to approve this project and not take Discretionary Review.

      (+) Doland Hartman - Duncan Newburg Association

      - This addition will have no negative impact on the neighbors.

      - This home is a lovely addition to the neighborhood. It is sensitively designed and unobtrusive.

      (+) Stewart Wilson

      - This process has caused a lot of agony for the project sponsor.

      - He admires the style of Patrick McGrue and urges the Commission to approve this project and not take Discretionary Review.

      ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as submitted with the understanding that the new rear bathroom window will be frosted and a canopy will be installed over the proposed rear center window.

      AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes

      NAYES: S. Lee

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    17. 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.

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) James Lee - Engineer

      - This building has been vacant for more than two years.

      - The cost to repair the building exceeds $85 thousand.

      - The structure is just resting on the foundation without any connections.

      - The central beam is only a 4x4.

      - This is a truly unsound structure.

      ACTION: Public hearing held. Public hearing closed for today. Item continued to March 13, 2003 to allow staff to review and/or correct inconsistencies in the reports.

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      18. 2002.1192D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          2431 RIVERA STREET - south side of Rivera Street between 34th & 35th Avenues, Lot 025, Assessor's Block 2315 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2002.02.22.9878 to construct a two-story horizontal addition to the rear of the existing single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Donald Sorda

      - He is concerned that the proposed project will block sunlight to his yard and will block views, although he understands that the Commission does not protect views.

      (-) Susan Wolf

      - She lives on 34th Avenue

      - Although it will not affect her home directly, it will block her views.

      - She does not understand how one bedroom would require so much space.

      - She is concerned that she will be looking at a big monstrosity.

      (+) Willis Kwong - Project Sponsor

      - He does not understand how this addition will impact the neighbors since he is about 30 feet away from the adjacent houses.

      ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications offered by the project sponsor: install a weighted roof so parapet will have uniformity with the other buildings.

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

6:30 p.m. (THE FOLLOWING ITEM STARTED AT APPROXIMATELY 7:10 P.M.)

        19. 2002.1258E (T. CHAN: (415) 558-5982)

        STONESTOWN VILLAGE PROJECT - 3251 20TH AVENUE - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: The project site is located on the south side of Eucalyptus Drive, immediately west and northwest of the Stonestown Galleria shopping center. The proposal includes a mixed-use development comprising approximately 366,800 gross square feet (gsf) on approximately 13.7 acres primarily used as surface parking for the shopping center. The proposed development includes both residential and neighborhood-serving retail components. The residential component includes three five-story, 50-foot-tall apartment buildings, approximately 96,250 gsf, 71,400 gsf, and 62,350 gsf, respectively, with 202 subsurface parking spaces; and a two- to three-story, approximately 30-foot-tall senior care facility, totaling approximately 70,300 gsf, with 17 parking spaces. The proposed retail component includes development of a 27-foot-tall, 41,600-gsf grocery market, and construction of neighborhood-serving retail spaces totaling approximately 24,900 gsf. The project would include construction of two parking garages and reconfiguration of two surface parking lots that would contain about 1,684 total commercial parking spaces to replace 1,500 existing commercial spaces displaced by the proposed project construction, and provide 184 net new parking spaces to serve the proposed retail uses. The proposed project would also incorporate landscaping features, such as streetscape connections, landscaped walkways, interior courtyards, and open space. To implement this project, the proposed project would require a Conditional Use authorization (CU) to amend the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) to modify allowable residential density for the apartment community and potentially modify rear yard setback requirements for both residential components. In addition, an amendment of the Zoning Map would be needed to change the height district from 40 feet to 50 feet. The 13.7-acre project site is located in the Lakeshore neighborhood within Assessor's Block 7295 and includes portions of Lots 21, 22, and 23. The site is primarily within a C-2 (Commercial Business) zoning district, and portions are within a 40-X and 65-D height and bulk districts.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Receive Comments. No Action Required.

            Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on March 3, 2003.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 13, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Supervisor Tony Hall

        - He has submitted a letter to the Department detailing all his concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the draft EIR and hopes the Commission will each take the time to read it.

        - He will touch on a few of the highlights of his comments, which are a result of his analysis of the DEIR as well as a compilation of many of the concerns he has heard raised by the neighborhood.

        - Initially, the DEIR was only going to include an impact study in 3 of the 14 possible areas. After a public scoping hearing which he sponsored last February, the scope of the Report was expanded to include 7 of the 14 possible areas.

        - He thinks the DEIR should include a full discussion of why the other seven areas are not included in the DEIR.

        - The most incomplete statement, and what he thinks is the biggest failing of the DEIR, is on page 60 where the DEIR says that the project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community, and that the project will not have a substantial impact upon the existing character of the neighborhood.

        - The DEIR only defines community and character with technical planning jargon. The real neighborhood community and the real character of the neighborhood are standing behind him at this hearing - whether or not they are opposed to the project or in support of the project. The neighborhood is not defined by planning jargon but by the people and institutions in the area. They are not adequately and completely defined in the DEIR.

        - To be complete, the DEIR should better define what the neighborhood's community and character are.

        - He thinks the DEIR, in order to be complete, needs to provide more discussion about how the increased traffic will affect pedestrian safety in the area. The DEIR only mentions that there are three schools in the area. It fails to include Lakeside Presbyterian Pre-School, Mercy High School, and San Francisco State, which are all within walking distance of the project. The DEIR says there will be no impacts on pedestrian safety. However, I think the DEIR should use a higher standard of care in evaluating whether or not there is an impact because there are so many children in the area.

        - There are a number of traffic estimates in Tables 3,4, and 5 on pages 90 and 91 that appear contrary to common sense. These tables estimate that the new grocery store will only generate 149 more trips on a Saturday than on a Tuesday. It seems to him that the vast majority of people do their grocery shopping on weekends, and the weekend number estimate should be much higher.

        - The Table 7 on page 97 states that there will be a 0 short term parking demand for the 202 units. Does this mean that the residents of the units will never have any visitors? Table 7 also estimates that the short term demand for parking at the Senior Care facility will be the same on weekdays as it will be on weekends.

        - There appears to be a conflict between Table 5 and Table 7. Table 5 says 2,483 daily vehicle trips will go to the market. But then Table 7 says there will only be a need for 128 parking spaces. How do 2,483 cars fit into 128 spaces. Granted, the 2,500 cars will be dispersed throughout the day, but that seems to be pushing the envelope by expecting no more than 128 to be there at any one time. If each car did one hours worth of shopping and was evenly spread out throughout the day - which is really a faulty assumption, the store would have to be open 20 hours a day to fit all 2,500 cares in the 128 spaces.

        - Without getting into further detail, he would like to alert the Commission to the other points he has raised in his letter:

        1. The DEIR should include a complete discussion of why there are no geology/topography effects resulting from the project.

        2. The DEIR should identify the eleven so-called "soft sites" in the area where other development may occur.

        3. The DEIR should explain why the nearby Stonestown Apartments are lower in density and height.

        4. There are four schools along Eucalyptus - not three schools as listed in the DEIR.

        5. The cumulative impact of the traffic of the four schools should be looked at as a whole, not in groups.

        6. There is no discussion of future expansion and growth of these nearby schools and that impact in the area.

        7. There should generally be more discussion about the impact of the project on the schools, rather than the other way around, which is how I read the DEIR.

        8. The pedestrian patterns of Mercy High School's students should be evaluated.

        9. St. Stephen's peak passenger loading area is not between 8:30 and 9:00 as stated in the DEIR - school starts at 8:00 a.m.

        10. The morning p.m. peak period on Ocean Avenue between 19th Avenue and Middlefield should be discussed.

        11. What are the pedestrian volumes along Eucalyptus, and will there be an impact?

        12. On what Sunday were the 113 church related parked cars observed in Lot D - on a three day weekend or a Holy Day of Obligation or on an average Sunday?

        13. What kind of squeeze of parking will result in the Merced Manor neighborhood from the YMCA and church goers who currently park in the Stonestown property?

        14. Is 263 vehicles for 202 units a realistic estimate of the vehicle demand in the proposed building?

        15. Will people visiting the Senior facility and/or proposed units be more likely to park in Merced Manor than the Stonestown property to avoid internal Stonestown traffic?

        16. What route will construction vehicles and future loading vehicles take to reach the site? Will they be going through the neighborhood?

        17. Finally, I think there needs to be further explanation of the fact that the proposed grocery store is the real cause of the resulting traffic increase as opposed to the proposed housing.

        - He thinks his office has been very fair, patient, and deliberative in reviewing this project over the last 2 years. Balancing both property rights and the varied wishes and desires of the neighborhood, he has consistently respected the process, and it is his sincere hope that the Commission and the Planning Department will follow his lead in respecting due process by responding to all of the questions and concerns raised tonight.

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

        - Stonestown village will provide a mall with much needed housing as well as neighborhood-serving retail.

        - She would like to grow old in this town and the senior units are the kind of support housing that is desperately needed especially right near services and transit. Seniors own less cars and will not have such a traffic impact.

        - The project sponsor has "bent over backwards" to accommodate the neighborhood's concerns.

        - This DEIR takes a very careful look at the impacts. This project replaces a surface parking lot with a very-much needed transit oriented development. It is perfect for this area because it is right near MUNI. The community needs a grocery store.

        - She urged the Commission to support this project.

        (+) Rick Quire - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - He requested a continuance of this case because of the newsletter that gave erroneous information.

        - People have been misinformed about this project. Who knows how many people have read the newsletter and the draft DEIR.

        (-) Bill Chionsini - West of Twin Peaks Central Council

        - He is here on behalf of this organization and other citizens.

        - He agrees with the previous speaker regarding continuing this project.

        - He submitted a letter that asks to discuss certain sections of the draft DEIR.

        (-) Adena Rosmarin - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - This project will have significant negative impacts on areas that have not been included in the draft DEIR.

        - They have submitted factual evidence and expert opinions regarding these impacts.

        - This document is very incomplete.

        (-) Jim Herlihy - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - There are critical areas of study that have been left out of this draft EIR.

        - Noise is not covered in this document.

        (-) Ron Chun - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - The neighbors are all here to respectfully request that this commercial developer answers all the questions (required) by law that should be discussed in a draft environmental impact report.

        - This neighborhood approved the creation of the Stonestown mall that (that exists today), and made it the success that it is.

        (-) Len Stefanelli - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - He feels that this draft EIR is incomplete.

        - There is a possible landfill site in back of the Stonestown mall.

        - There was a revene that has been filled in with something over a period of time.

        - There has not been any testing on the soils on this site.

        - He recommends that this document be reevaluated and submitted for review.

        (-) Gregory Bayol - President of the Sunset School Board

        - Nowhere in the draft EIR does it discuss the issue of noise during construction and how it will affect the schools in the area.

        (-) Stephens Johns - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - He also spoke on the negative affects of noise during construction.

        - There is no noise report in this document. This makes it completely inadequate.

        - This document is supposed to provide something that the neighborhood could look at and not have to figure things out.

        (-) Richard Levino - St. Stephens Church

        - The direct negative impacts of this project on the schools in the area are not addressed.

        - The document also does not give correct information on traffic impacts.

        - He has read other impact reports and they are very detailed where this one is not.

        (-) David Dawdy - Merced Manor

        - He lives one block away from the project site.

        - Hydrology is not considered in the impact report.

        - The good points and the bad points should be covered in the draft EIR, but they are not.

        (-) Maureen Bender - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - There is a park located in the area and she is concerned with open space.

        - This project would come as close as 9 feet from the park. This would cause damage to the trees in this park. She is also concerned with the birds and animals of that park.

        - She is concerned with the church and how it will be impacted.

        - She is also concerned about noise.

        - She and her neighbors are concerned about neighborhood character.

        (-) Doris Dawdy - Merced Manor

        - She is a freelance writer and researcher and has done a lot of research on this project and this document.

        - She is concerned that the document does not provide all the facts.

        - There has been unfair advertisement of this project.

        (-) Karen Niglio - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - There is nothing wrong with promoting the project, but she has a problem with promoting the EIR.

        - She asked the Commission to extend the comment period.

        - She does not understand how many of the facts of the draft EIR were computed.

        (-) Cristophe Niglio - Preserve Our Neighborhood

        - He has extensively reviewed the draft EIR.

        - Although he will be submitting his written comments on the draft EIR, there is one critical and damaging error regarding traffic impacts that should be addressed.

        - He urged the Commission to request an accurate transportation study.

        (-) Michael Garcia - Board member of Merced Manor

        - He is concerned with the traffic impact this project will cause.

        - He would like the Commission to insist that this document be accurate and objective.

        (-) Stephen Wilson - St. Stephens School and St. Stephens Church

        - As a parish and a school, they are concerned with the safety of the children.

        - His three summary points: 1) this development has become a moving target because it is incomplete and inconsistent; 2) there is a problem with (not) presenting a cumulative impact; and 3) the project alternatives are weak.

        (+) Susan Calapietro

        - She is happy to see the Stonestown project become a reality because she does not drive-she takes public transportation.

        (+) Tim Colen - President of the Edgehill Way

        - He is a geologist and has helped prepare many EIRs.

        - The geology has been adequately addressed in this document.

        - A lot of the other issues have been address quite adequately.

        - This project brings senior assisted housing, 200 units of rental housing, and better retail services.

        (-/+) Dick Morten

        - He has supported the construction of housing in his neighborhood.

        - He is disappointed in the process because he could not understand where the rental units will be.

        - He would recommend that a better break-out be established by type of use.

        - He also agrees with a lot of the concerns from the previous speakers.

        (+) Catherine Russo

        - She lives in Stonestown.

        - The traffic from the market is spread out during the day.

        - Housing is desperately needed in the City.

        - This is a big under used piece of land.

        - Housing for seniors is greatly needed. Some seniors need to go to other counties because they can't receive housing or services here.

        - It is a fact that there will always be noise when there is construction.

        (+) John Frank

        - He urged the Commission to adopt the draft EIR.

        (+) Bette Landis

        - She supports the draft EIR.

        - This project has some very important aspects that are greatly needed.

        - The kids going to the schools in the area are going to need places to live.

        - There will be an increase in revenue from property taxes and commercial exchanges.

        (-/+) Robert Bender - Park Merced Resident Association

        - The Commission should get more information from this draft EIR.

        - There have been some things that have been glossed over.

        - This housing should be built.

        (-) Ted Theotis

        - He has listened to the traffic situation. However, his personal concern is that crossing Junipero Serra and Winston Drive is the most frightening thing in his life. He does not wish to die at the present time. He hopes the Commission will keep their eyes open on the traffic situation.

        (+) Robert Blandis

        - Housing is severely needed.

        - He urged the Commission to support.

        (-) Nancy Hagen-Crawley

        - She has children at St. Stephens and has concerns about traffic.

        - Some guarantees need to be established regarding the grocery store.

        - There are a lot of senior assisted housing units vacant--although she is not discounting the need for senior housing.

        (-) Sue Chin Chow

        - She has many concerns regarding this project and the draft EIR.

        (-) Bud Wilson

        - As a senior, he supports senior housing, but it should not destroy the integrity of a neighborhood.

        - There are a lot of alternate locations that were not included in the document.

        - He is concerned with the parking and traffic areas.

        - This document has not adequately raised the issues presented by the public.

        - He requested that the public comment period be extended.

        (+) W. Schneider

        - Built out, this project is a full 14.7 acres.

        - He urged the Commission to deny the conditional limit on height, setbacks and density.

        (-) Therese McGovern

        - She urges that this draft EIR not be accepted.

        (-) William Wortsen

        - He noticed that something was overlooked or omitted regarding transportation in the neighborhood.

        (-) Willow J. Solomoni, Jr.

        - He is concerned with the negative effects this project will have on the school.

        ACTION: The President extended the written comment period on this Draft EIR to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 17, 2003

        EXCUSED: Commissioner Antonini publicly recused himself from participation in any discussion and/or decisions related to this project because his home is within 500 feet of the project site.

    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))

      Cristophe Niglio

      - He requested that documents from the Planning Department be available in an electronic form.

Adjournment: 9:13 p.m.

    THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 2003.

    SPEAKERS: None

    ACTION: Approved as corrected

    AYES: Boyd

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