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
May 22, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, May 22, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Edgar E. Boyd

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; Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney; John Paul Samaha; Amit Ghosh; Neil Hart; Max Putra-Tan; Joan Kugler; Leigh Kienker; Rick Crawford; Kelley Amdur; Sara Vellve; Jonathan Purvis; Matt Snyder; Michael Smith; Joy Navarrete; Mark Luellen; Glen Cabreros; Kate McGee; Mary Woods; Geoffrey Nelson; Kay Simonson; 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. 2002.0896C (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 Meeting of April 24, 2003)

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

          (Proposed for Continuance to July 10, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 10, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      2a. 2003.0183DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions as well as a request for Discretionary Review by a member of the public, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.08.13.3876, proposing the demolition of a two-story two-family dwelling within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to construct a new, four-story three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces. The new construction proposal is the subject of Discretionary Review Case No. 2003.0258D.

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

          (Proposed for Continuance to July 17, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 17, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      2b. 2003.0258D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - request for Discretionary Review by a member of the public of Building Permit Application No. 2002.08.13.3873, proposing to construct a new, four-story three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to demolish a two-story two-family dwelling. The demolition proposal is the subject of Discretionary Review Case No. 2003.0258D.

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

          (Proposed for Continuance to July 17, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 17, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      3a. 2002.1295DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          567 SANCHEZ STREET - east side between 19th and Hancock Streets. Assessor's Block 3585 Lot 032 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.0731.2751, to demolish an existing one story one family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential House, 3 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Permit

          (Proposed for Continuance to June 26, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 26, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      3b. 2002.1297DDDDD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          567 SANCHEZ STREET - east side between 19th and Hancock Streets. Assessor's Block 3585 Lot 032 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.0731.2759, to construct a new 4 story (three over garage) one family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential House, 3 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications

          (Proposed for Continuance to June 26, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 26, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          4. 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 April 24, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to June 19, 2003) June 26, 2003

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Maria Souza

          - She agrees with the continuance.

          - Neighborhood organizations have just become aware of this legislation.

          - This legislation is not in conformance with the Residence Element.

          Marilyn Amini

          - She agrees with the continuance.

          - She submitted a packet to the Commissioners that includes copies of various policies that this legislation is contradictory to.

          Dorcas Maureen Bender - Preserve Our Neighborhoods

          - She agrees with this continuance because the public needs to be notified properly.

          - She would suggested that information on this legislation be noticed and put in both newspapers and on television.

          - There is an appeal to this legislation, which will be heard on Thursday June 17, 2003 at the Board of Supervisors.

          ACTION: Continued to June 26, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          5. 2003.0189D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

                529 21ST AVENUE - west side between Anza and Balboa Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1564 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.06.14.9077 proposing to demolish a one-story single-family residence, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project also proposes the construction of a new four-story, two-family dwelling on the site.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2003)

                NOTE: A discretionary review request (Case No. 2003.0316D) has been filed for the new construction portion of this project. This item is proposed for continuance to allow proper public notification for the additional DR request.

          (Proposed for Continuance to June 19, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 19, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      6. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes March 13 and April 24, 2003.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Minutes for March 13, 2003 approved with the following correction: Page 14 - correct the spelling of Ada Chan's name.

                Minutes for April 24, 2003 approved with the following corrections: 1) on page 1 - Commissioner Boyd was absent and he is stated as being present; 2) on page 7 - Jim Chappel is misspelled; 3) on page 12 - Jim Crowfoot is misspelled.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          1) When the public submits information to the Commission that consists of hundreds of pages 36 hours before a hearing, it is absolutely impossible to expect Commissioners to have it read before the hearing. Because she is very diligent and reads everything related to the hearing she requested and expects the public to submit their information at least one week before each hearing [as outlined by the Commission Secretary].

          2) Regarding the Housing Element and some of the other policies that are being reviewed by the Commission, she requested that staff report to them on the kind of regional planning that is available and how San Francisco is participating in regional planning issues.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He agrees with both points that Commission Feldstein commented on.

          - He would like to have his correspondence sent to his dental office.

          - He also agrees to have a joint hearing between the Planning Commission and the Building Inspection Commission.

          - He would like to see the Housing Element as a priority.

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: Planning and Economic Development Commission

          - Supervisor Peskin has proposed a Charter amendment that would consolidate the Building Inspection and Planning Commissions. The combined commissions would be called the Planning and Economic Development Commission.

          - He was able to get a draft of this amendment and if anyone would like a copy of it, he would be glad to provide it.

          2) He informed the other Commissioners that he calls staff on Fridays, Mondays and Tuesdays regarding items on the calendar and suggested that they might do the same.

          - It is helpful to try to talk to staff on Fridays because that is when the calendar goes out.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          - Informed the public and staff that her computer broke down about 10 days ago so she is backed up on reading and responding to email messages.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          - There is a tremendous volume of work and paper including emails and phone calls related to items that are on the calendar. If he does not respond immediately, he asks the public for their understanding and patience.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

          Re: Commissioner Feldstein's comment:

          1) Regional Planning is a good subject matter to discuss. He sits on the ABAG Regional Planning Commission so it would be appropriate to ask ABAG to come and discuss the program they have now. However, given your calendars, it will be complicated to schedule this subject matter as well as the other items that need to be heard. But in the next month he will bring information on a date and a possible agenda.

          Re: Housing Element

          2) At the next hearing on June 5, 2003, the Housing Element will be on the agenda. The public will be able to speak on this item. Amit Ghosh has been doing outreach efforts in various communities. This hearing will be televised but it will not be held in the Board's chambers.

          Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

          3) The public was able to speak on the Eastern Neighborhoods at a hearing held in March. The intent was to receive information on options and receive input from Commissioners. He did express that it was his desire to hold another hearing at least a month or so after that date. Since this has yet happened, it is important to at least give a status report: (If the commission requires more information and input, then something can be calendared).

            · Since that time, staff has been meeting with community groups to get their feedback.

            · Staff has been spending time with other agencies (Small Business Advisory Commission, Redevelopment Agency, etc.) to receive their input.

            · We have been trying to clarify how funding will be obtained for the environmental review. This is even more difficult because of our budget constraints. He believes that the Mayor's office and others see the importance of this and he feels there is still a way to fund this. Because of anticipated budget hearings, June will not be a good month to have a hearing on this. He suggests that we try to schedule an additional hearing in July.

            · The biggest issue right now is getting feedback from the public. That is what staff is currently doing.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Sue Hestor

          - There are no notice requirements and no controls in industrial areas. There should be more controls.

          - Interim controls expire on July 5, 2003. The areas that have never been rezoned are the most contentious and the most vulnerable.

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

          Re: 2690 Harrison Street

          - This began in 2001 and the Conditional Use was passed by the Planning Commission on March 20, 2003. The Conditional Use was appealed to the Board of Supervisors by MAC (Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition). As he reported last week, the appeal hearing lasted about four hours and there were speakers by both sides.

          - There were comments made that soured the atmosphere and have taken the issue away from the merits of the actual project.

          - The hearing was continued for 1 week because Supervisor Amiano was not able to be present and the project is located in his district. The item was continued from May 20, 2003 and Supervisor Amiano suggested the item be continue for two weeks until June 10, 2003, which is the next Board meeting. It was his wish that there be some time for mediation between the project sponsor and the appellants to this project and he suggested that a member of the Planning Commission be the mediator. The vote was +8-3 to continue the item to June 10, 2003.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          - She asked the City Attorney to clarify how a member of the Planning Commission could be a mediator, and what the Commission needs to be concerned about.

          - She is concerned that if a member of the Planning Commission decides to be a mediator and if for some reason this case comes back to the Commission, the commissioner who mediated could not participate in any action related to the case. She would like for all the members of the Planning Commission to feel comfortable to make any future decisions on the case.

          Deputy City Attorney, Susan Cleveland-Knowles:

          - A Commissioner acting independently could act as a mediator. The person would be acting as an individual and not as a member of the Planning Commission and not acting on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco.

          - None of the members of the Planning Commission are obligated to do so.

          - If someone does decide to take on this role, this person should be aware that if this case comes back to the Planning Commission, their role as a mediator may affect their ability to participate in any future decisions. It doesn't necessarily, but it may.

          - She was not able to confirm exactly the liability but the person would be acting independently as an individual.

          BOA

          Re: 2816 Diamond (Glen Park Market Place)

          - A request for re-hearing was denied +5-0 so this is the last time this project will be heard until the building permit is issued.

          Re: Residential Demolition Policy

          - This was heard by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2003.

          - Both Commissioners Schumacker and Chin questioned and were concerned about the difference between alteration and demolition.

          - Commissioner Schumakcer is concerned about the number of Discretionary Reviews before the Planning Commission. He felt that the Planning Commission should only be looking at losses of 4 units or more. The Zoning Administrator (ZA) mentioned that the public [Commission] was concerned about the loss of single-family houses in RH-2 districts. Commissioner Schumacker understood this.

          - Commissioner Harrington was concerned about how the Planning Commission weighed existing buildings that are small vs. the need for family housing. The ZA mentioned that cases are looked at on a case-by-case basis.

      10. (PUTRA/WILSON: (415) 558-6233)

          RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES - Introduction of and informational presentation on the updated and expanded Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) for all residential projects in RH (Residential House) and RM (Residential Mixed-Density) zoning districts. This hearing is for the purpose of officially announcing the release of a draft, and future hearing date. The public may express comments. No action is required by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may adopt the Guidelines at a future public hearing.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Supervisor Dufty

          - He is grateful that these guidelines are before the Planning Commission.

          - This will kick off a public process that is very important for the City and for Planning purposes.

          - He has offered a supplemental measure to try and provide some supplemental resources that will enable the Planning Department to move forward with better Neighborhoods and to complete the Eastern Neighborhoods studies and to hopefully finalize these Residential Design Guidelines that are so important.

          - The Planning Department should not be criticized for not completing projects if they are not funded.

          (+) Sue Hestor

          - This is terrific.

          - She hopes that the Section 311 hearing which is the McGoldrick legislation on major alterations, the hearing on demolitions, and the hearing on adopting these guidelines will result in a real process to resolve cases internally with staff.

          - She is not saying that the Discretionary Review process should be abolished--it just should not be routine.

          (-) John Schlesinger

          - His concerns about this document are: 1) there seems to be a shift of focus and a loss of the big picture; and 2) the document does not take into account privacy and the actual use of rooms in a building.

          - There seems to be limited focus on an item and then loosing the true focus about what this document should really be.

          - This document will increase Discretionary Reviews and it will be more difficult to review cases.

          (-) Shawn Gorman

          - He is an architect and has been working with the Residential Design Guidelines since 1989 when they were released.

          - It is very important to keep in mind that staff has been applying these guidelines for about 12 years now making the process very prescriptive.

          - Some of the concerns he has is that this document will bring more prescriptive solutions instead of more creative solutions.

          - There should not be "cookie-cutter" solutions.

          (+) Bridget Maley - ARG

          - She works in the field of historic preservation.

          - One of her daily tasks is to work with cities throughout California on the issues of neighborhood character.

          - Staff has done a wonderful job with this document and she asks that the Commission update the guidelines this summer.

          (+/-) Jeanene Przyblyski - Friends of Noe Valley, Collingwood Hill

          - These groups have a great interest in these guidelines.

          - She spends hours every week with people who are not happy about their neighborhood.

          - She was very happy when Supervisor Dufty asked her to arrange a meeting with Mr. Green and Mr. Badiner and have them give an overview of these revised guidelines and how they might help them work through the process of understanding development in her neighborhoods.

          - She has not had much time to review them but she will be providing her input to staff.

          (+/-) Ross Levy - Levy Art & Architecture

          - He is concerned that this document is [promoting] anti-contemporary design.

          - He is concerned about this and feels this City should encourage diverse expressions.

          (+/-) F. Joseph Butler, AIA

          - His issues relate to height and bulk and the provision of natural light and exposure from newly remodeled or proposed buildings to those which already exist in a neighborhood.

          - The way to eliminate or reduce the number of Discretionary Reviews is to be firm in applying the guidelines. It is not what is in the guidelines it is how consistently they are enforced.

          (+/-) Mary Anne Miller

          - In 1979 the first version of these guidelines were started.

          - Homes in the Sunset District have been changing a lot.

          - These guidelines have been improved since 1979.

          - The problem is that planners should be very well instructed in these guidelines.

          - Green buildings are important also.

          (+/-) Jonathan Pearlman

          - He emphasized the word guidelines because that is what they should be.

          - He thinks that the only problem with these guidelines is that they are anti-modern and based solely on a past environment.

          - Neighborhoods change and have to grow.

          - He encourages the Commission to look at these like guidelines and not prescriptions.

          (+/-) Arnie Lerner - Lerner and Associates Architects

          - He is concerned about legislating design.

          - He is also concerned about how people determine the scale of a building. He does not believe there is enough emphasis devoted to this principal.

          - This is a golden opportunity to introduce to the public the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation since they are the guidelines for historic buildings and historic districts.

          - It would be a good idea to put successful projects on the Planning Department's website.

          (+) Daniela Kirshenbaum - Pacific Heights Residents Association

          - She hopes that the Commission adopts these basics of good planning and use them as a lens through which to view the decisions the Commission makes.

          - The challenge will be to apply these guidelines consistently. It will be the consistency of their use that will help reduce Discretionary Views.

          - This type of good work should be on television and she hopes that the Commission hearings will again be broadcasted soon.

          (+) J.P. Harbour - Pacific Heights Residents Association

          - He is in support of these guidelines.

          - They play a really strong role in guiding the prudent and intelligent design of every neighborhood in San Francisco.

          - Protecting historic structures is equally important as constructing new buildings.

          (-) Alice Barkley

          - She feels that these guidelines are so restrictive that they will increase Discretionary Reviews instead of decrease them.

          - One cannot look at a City just by the street or by the buildings next to a proposed construction.

          - It is a shame to not allow future architects to practice in this City.

          (+/-) Kirk Scott

          - He cannot underscore the importance of putting prescriptive illustrations on the guidelines.

          - It is important to emphasize why private views are not protected.

          (+) Courtney Clarkson - Pacific Heights Residents Association

          - She supports the design guidelines, but the big problem is that the individual planners do not always adhere to the design guidelines.

          - She is constantly dealing with the same planners and she is constantly complaining about the same things.

          - She urges the department to have some continuity.

          (+) Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Community

          - The guidelines are a very good start but it needs to go further.

          - More information is needed regarding building scale, depth, rear yards, etc. especially in RH-2 neighborhoods.

          - The issues before the Commission are the second most important issues in this City and it is important that the public be informed by televising the Planning Commission hearings.

          (+) Joe O'Donaghue

          - There are neighborhoods that need to be preserved.

          - The guidelines are just guides.

          - As Commissioners, you will still have to listen to Discretionary Review protests and have long hearings because of the topography and nature of this city.

          - There is no way to legislate what is going to be in the future.

          - The building codes are creating reductions.

          (+/-) Judy Berkowitz - EMIA and CSFN

          - She referenced Page 57, item 8 -- special guidelines for historical and architecturally significant buildings.

          - It is important to have enforcement, and planners have a lot of responsibility for this.

          (-) Tom McDonough

          - Cities are about density.

          - Larger buildings should be built along transit corridors.

          - Dynamic neighborhoods should be creatively designed with families in mind.

          - The City could be much more children friendly.

          ACTION: Public hearing closed for today. No action taken. Meeting will continue at future hearings.

    D. REGULAR CALENDAR

          11. 1999.0410E & 2003.0038E (J. KUGLER: (415) 558-5983)

          450 RHODE ISLAND STREET - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH RETAIL AND 17TH AND RHODE ISLAND STREETS LEGISLATION FOR A GROCERY STORE SPECIAL USE SUBDISTRICT. Public Hearing on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1 which is approximately the whole of the block between Rhode island, Mariposa, 17th and Kansas Streets. The proposed project consists of two elements: the first is two ordinances introduced by the Board of Supervisors amending the San Francisco Planning Code (including Zoning Maps 8 and 8SU) to change the zoning on the block bounded by Rhode Island, 17th, Kansas and Mariposa Streets from M-1 (Light Industrial) to NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial). The proposed legislation would also add Section 781.10, which would create a 17th and Rhode Island Street Grocery Store Special Use Subdistrict applicable to the block described above to permit a neighborhood grocery store with beer and wine sales on that block. The second element is a proposed development that would involve the construction of a five-story building ranging in height from 16 ½ feet to 52 ½ feet and containing about 204,800 square feet of mixed-use residential/retail space. The project would include approximately 168 residential units, approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space, and approximately 34,500 square feet of grocery store space. In addition, a parking garage would partially occupy three levels, providing a total of approximately 323 self-park off-street parking spaces. The new proposed building would step-up the north slope of the Potrero Hill project site (Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1), which is bounded by 17th Street on the north, Rhode Island Street on the east, Mariposa Street on the south, and Kansas Street on the west. The project site is within the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and within a 40-X height/bulk district.

          Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

          NOTE: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on May 27, 2003.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Ron Miguel

          - He lives about three blocks from this project.

          - He urges the Commission to move forward in considering this. The supplemental is complete and is totally sufficient. It will be good for the neighborhood.

          (-) Babette Drefke

          - The lot is very difficult to build on.

          - Her main issue is the height of the proposed building.

          - If the height could be kept down to 40 feet, it would be best for the neighborhood.

          ACTION: Hearing held, no action required by the Commission at this time.

          12. 2002.0207E (L. KIENKER: (415) 558-5970)

          5894 - 5898 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.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Steve Currier - President of the Outer Mission Residents Association - Appellant

          - He received a last minute document that he had to respond to. Unfortunately, this meant he had to submit a letter to the Commissioners at the last minute.

          - The project sponsor wanted to sell alcohol at the proposed gasoline station and the neighborhood is not in agreement with this.

          - There is a 711 nearby.

          - Members of the police department are here to speak on this item.

          - He has been working with ABC, SFPD and the Planning Department regarding this issue.

          - The neighborhood has many daycare facilities, three schools, recreation and park facilities, and facilities to assist in the fight against drug and alcohol abuse. Selling alcohol perils the neighborhood.

          - He hopes that the Commission denies this project.

          (-) Alex Morillo

          - He purchased the property near this location to try to clean up the neighborhood.

          - There have been people that have vomited and defecated in the area because they have been so intoxicated.

          - There was a store that closed because the owner was selling to minors. He (the store owner) lost his lease and the neighborhood improved a little bit.

          - He does not agree that the gasoline station should sell alcohol.

          (-) Raymond Livera

          - He lives behind the proposed project.

          - The neighborhood is a very nice community and there are children living there.

          - If the gasoline station is open 24 hours, this is cause for a lot of noise and a lot of problems.

          (+) Peter Tate - Tait & Associates, Architects

          - He agrees with the environmental report and with staff.

          ACTION: Mitigated Negative Declaration Upheld

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16582

      13. 2002.0207C (R. CRAWFORD: 558-6358)

          5894 - 5898 MISSION STREET - at Huron Street and Sickles Avenue, Assessor's Block 7143 Lot 033 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 178(c) for enlargement of a gas station with a convenience store open 24 hours a day; and Planning Code Section 229(b) to allow beer and wine sales at a gas station in an NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions to not allow beer and wine sales among other things.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Peter Tobin - Tait and Associates - Architects and Engineers

          - ARCO submitted many letters from the neighborhood and neighborhood associations.

          - This site was built in 1970.

          - The project will eliminate a lot of confusion from people trying to enter from too many driveways.

          - There will be pass-through traffic in three pump locations, there will be easier fueling positions, and the tanks will be completely replaced.

          - The retaining wall will be more of a stucco type wall to match the aesthetics of the neighborhood.

          (+) Donald Firenze - BP - ARCO

          - He submitted a letter that explains the reasons for the request to sale beer and wine.

          - Employees will go through a beer and wine sales training.

          - They will be applying for more beer and wine licenses at other locations.

          (+) Kenneth T. Wickerham - BP - ARCO

          - He is the area Real Estate Manager.

          - All of the facilities in the Bay Area are more than 30 years old.

          - In most cases where there are larger lots, they include a car wash or other amenities.

          - He hopes that this project will be something that the community will be proud of.

          - If there is a maintained 24-hour facility, there is more control than if there is a facility that closes--which can give people the opportunity to sleep there and engage in other negative activities.

          - He would like to have the option to sell beer and wine.

          (-) Gina Haney - Outer Mission Residents Association

          - She does not want to have the facility open 24 hours nor to sell beer and wine.

          - Because this is on the county line, the police from San Francisco can not, or do not do much about any crime activity.

          (-) Sharon Eberhardt - Cayuga Neighborhood Association

          - It only makes good business sense to contact the neighborhood association either via a telephone call or a letter. Her association was not notified of this project.

          - It makes no sense to allow liquor.

          (-) Catherine Pacheco - Outer Mission Residents Association

          - She is opposed to any gas station in any city selling liquor.

          - A lot of kids buy cigarettes and liquor.

          (-) Steven Currier - Outer Mission Neighborhood Association

          - He did speak with representatives of Tait and Associates several times. He just wanted to clear that matter.

          - They have gathered about 750 petitions against this project.

          - His organization has been dealing with land use issues for a long time; this is the first time a project sponsor has not been in dialogue with his association dealing with neighborhood issues. This makes a statement since it means that the project sponsor will not be a good neighbor.

          - He implores the Commission that if this project goes through that there be strict conditions imposed.

          (-) Raymond Rivera

          - It is impossible for ARCO to say that they are not making any money since there is a tanker delivering gas every single day. With the price of gas right now, they should be making a profit.

          - His mother in-law's backyard is right next to the gas station and she has had many problems with this station.

          (-) Officer Anna Brown - Ingleside Police Station

          - A lot of the testimonies from the residents are quality of life issues and these do not get reported.

          - The police are concerned about a gas station that has a mini mart that sells beer and wine and they do not want to support this.

          - They have to listen to what the community wants.

          (-) Alex Morillo

          - There is a Walgreen's about four blocks away, a Safeway about eight blocks away, and an Albertson's about one mile away.

          - ARCO has not been a good project sponsor because they have not communicated with the neighbors.

          - ARCO will be able to get a profit even if they do not sell alcohol.

          ACTION: Public Comment Closed. Continued to June 26, 2003 with instructions to the project sponsor to: 1) go back and look at site plans more closely and develop a placement of the storefront to minimize the impacts on the adjacent property owner; and 2) work with the community. Staff was instructed to include in the conditions of approval the following: 1) construction is to start within three years or the conditional use will expire; 2) no 24 hour use; and 3) no alcohol sales.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          14. 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 24, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Andrew Smith

          - He has about ten people here who are ready to testify.

          - This case has already been continued.

          - If this case is continued again he would like some guarantee that this case will not be continued yet again.

          Gary Nerby - Representing Project Sponsor

          - The project sponsor has requested a continuance in good faith.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 26, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Antonini and Boyd

      15. 2003.0120C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          3927 LAWTON STREET - south side between 45th and 46th Avenues, Lot 043, Assessor's Block 1898 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 209.3(f) to locate a child care facility providing less than 24 hour care for 13 or more children in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning; 40-X Height/Bulk Districts. The proposal is to establish additional outdoor recreation space for up to 25 children of the existing child-care facility within the Kids Kollege, located directly adjacent at 3939 Lawton Street. A separate child-care facility will not be established on the subject property. The existing structure will remain residential.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Lenos Michaels - Pastor

          - The church has been at this location since 1958.

          - The children they serve are between 2 and 6 years old.

          - He would like to have his backyard serve as a play area for up to 24 children.

          - They have not had any complaints from the neighbors.

          - He sent out a letter to various neighbors so they could meet with him and express their concerns.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          (+) Donatella Yelda - Kids Kollege

          - She is here to support this project.

          - It is important for the community to have this project.

          - She mentioned the names of the people who are here supporting this project.

          - There were other supporters who were here but had to leave.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16583

      16a. 2002.0897CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          130-134 RIPLEY STREET south side between Folsom and Alabama Streets; Lot 101 in Assessor's Block 5549 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121(f) to subdivide a lot into two lots, creating one lot of less than the minimum 25-foot width, creating one lot with an existing two-family dwelling without off-street parking, and another lot with an existing single-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces, also requiring a Parking Variance, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) James Kelley - Project Sponsor

          - The reason for this project is so that he can take care of his elderly mother.

          - It does not change the neighborhood.

          - Terry Milne from the East Slope Design Review Board supports this project.

          (+) Joe O'Donaghue

          - Nothing is really changing here other than the ownership.

          - The neighborhood does not seem to be against this project.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          NAYES: Feldstein

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16584

      16b. 2002.0897CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          130-134 RIPLEY STREET - south side between Folsom and Alabama Streets; Lot 101 in Assessor's Block 5549 - Request for a Parking Variance to subdivide the above lot into two lots, creating one lot with an existing two-family dwelling without off-street parking, and another lot with an existing single-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 16a.

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

      17. 2002.1175C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          680-686 VALENCIA STREET - previously occupied by Busy Bee Market, west side between 17th and 18th Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 3577 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish approximately 5,500 gross square feet of full-service restaurant / bar use that will be divided into two restaurant entities, in the tenant space previously occupied by the Busy Bee Market. Conditional Use authorization is required for: (1) the establishment of a bar use within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District (a full-service restaurant that has a full liquor license is also defined as a bar by Planning Code Section 790.22); and (2) the establishment of a use greater than 2,000 square feet (Board of Supervisor's Resolution No. 500-02 - The Mission District Interim Controls). Besides being within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, the subject site is also within a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict, and the area subject to the Mission District Interim Controls.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Navin Singa - Project Sponsor

          - His plan is to remodel the inside of the restaurant.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          - He has been in the Mission District for many years.

          - His architect is here if there are any questions.

          (+) Greg Miller - Project Architect

          - He displayed a photograph showing the frontages of the properties next door.

          - The proposed location has been vacant for about three years.

          - He displayed a photograph of how the Busy Bee market used to look as well as a diagram of what the proposed restaurants would look like.

          (+) Phillip Lesser - President of the Mission Merchants Association

          - The association is ecstatic to have Mr. Singha own businesses in the neighborhood.

          - Mr. Singha has done his research and the association approves the restaurant.

          - This building has been in a sorry state and Mr. Singha's project will definitely improve the site.

          (+) Eric Quesada - Mission Housing

          - He is very concerned not because of the restaurant but because of the liquor license.

          - This could cause noise and interruptions to the senior housing project nearby.

          - He supports the project but as businesses open in the neighborhood, they should be responsible for the neighborhood.

          - He would like to have a condition to have valet parking.

          (+) Zoila Velez

          - She is concerned with the sale of liquor.

          - There are already disruptions with the Elbo Room.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16585

      18. 2002.1041C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          103-111 SAGAMORE STREET - southwest corner of Sagamore Street and San Jose Avenue, Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 7147- Request by Cingular for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 710.83 to install three antennas on the rooftop and two associated equipment cabinets within the storage room of a commercial building located in a NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and 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 Limited Location Preference 6 site as it is a building within a NC-1 District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Tony Kim - Representing Cingular Wireless

          - Cingular Wireless is in compliance with the Department of Public Health in their five year plan and their project implementation report.

          - The purpose of this installation is to provide service in the Ocean View, Outer Mission, and Ingleside Heights areas as well as Interstate 280.

          - These areas have poor to no coverage.

          - There were two location preference 1 locations: a fire station on Capital Avenue and the Fellowship Bible Church on Plymouth Avenue. The fire station is too short to be technologically feasible, the church would require a higher installation to propagate the signal. So these locations would not be feasible.

          (+) Nicholas D'heedene - Raskin Real Estate

          - He read a letter from World Impact Association who supports this application.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          NAYES: Bradford Bell, Feldstein

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16586

      19. 2002.0778E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

          150 BROADWAY (AKA 190 BROADWAY) - Construction of Affordable Housing, Childcare Facility, Retail Space and Parking. Lot 011 of Assessor's Block 0141 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed new construction of 87 affordable housing units, 41 off-street parking spaces (including 3 spaces for the City CarShare Program), a 3,500 square foot childcare facility, a community room, multi-purpose room and offices associated with the residential use, 2,000 square feet of retail space, and one freight-loading space. The proposed project would consist of three separate buildings: one building would be three-stories tall, or approximately 40 feet in height; a second structure would be five-stories tall, or approximately 50 feet in height; and the third structure would be eight-stories tall, or approximately 80-feet tall. The proposed structures would contain approximately 128,000 gross square feet. The site is approximately 30,948 square feet in size and located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Battery Streets, with additional frontage on Front Street. The site currently contains a ground-level asphalt parking lot on a portion of the site and the remainder of the site is vacant. The site was also the former site of the Embarcadero Freeway off-ramp, and is owned by the City and County of San Francisco. The project site is located within a C-2 (Community Business) zoning district, the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 3, the Northeastern Historic District, and an 84-E height and bulk district. The proposed project requires Conditional Use Authorization and a Certificate of Appropriateness.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Andrew Zacks - Attorney for Appellant (Citizens for Better Streets)

          - There are several reasons why this item should be continued. One is the pending litigation against the City and County of San Francisco over the right of the City and County of San Francisco to transfer this property to the developer. The matter which is currently pending in court may well result in a determination that the City and County of San Francisco does not have the right to enter into a lease agreement that has been proposed by way of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

          - This litigation involves a claim under the California Streets and Highway Code that the lease, which calls for a 50 year lease at ten thousand dollars a year to the developer, violates the Streets and Highway Code.

          - The developer who has filed an environmental evaluation application and a conditional use application does not have standing under the provisions of the City Planning Code to seek such permits since only an owner has the right and power to file for a conditional use application. It is clear that CCDC (the developer of this case) is not an owner of the property nor have they been authorized by the existing owners (the City and County of San Francisco) to file a permit application.

          - If this matter is not continued, the Planning Commission is continuing in a matter where there is no jurisdiction.

          (did not state name) - representing Jerlanni, Inc.

          - He supports the request for a continuance.

          - It is clear that the Mayor's Office of Housing does not have jurisdiction over this parcel. The jurisdiction is under the Department of Public Works. MOH does not have authorization to give to the developer.

          - The Deputy City Attorney is not the appropriate person to give advice to the Commission and he objects to her participation in this matter since she is representing the MOH in litigation.

          The Zoning Administrator responded:

          - This item is in court. There is litigation about whether the transfer is proper however the City prevailed on a request for a temporary restraining order. There was no temporary restraining order. From consultations with the City Attorney, the department believes that it is appropriate and that the hearing should go ahead. The economic issues on whether it was an appropriate transfer under the State Traffic Code is not before the Commission. What is before the Commission is the project. The question about the economic issues and the amount of the lease is not before the Commission either. What is before the Commission is if the environmental impact is adequate, the general plan issues, historic district issues and the conditional use.

          - He submitted a letter of authorization from the Mayor's Office of Housing to the project sponsor who filed the Conditional Use and it includes the Real Estate Division authorizing the Chinatown Community Development Center to apply for a Conditional Use. He consulted with the City Attorney on these issues.

          The City Attorney responded (Audrey Pearson):

          - What is before the Commission is an appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. The litigation and the Negative Declaration have nothing to do with each other.

          - The Commission is able to go forward on this project.

          - The city can also designate another department to allow the MOH to authorize CCDC to apply for the Conditional Use.

          MOTION: Proposed for Continuance

          ACTION: The Motion did not receive a second. The Motion died.

          RESULT: Item will be heard

          Re: Merits of the Case

          (-) Andrew Zacks - Attorney for Appellant

          - There is no questions that this project involves a major land change for the waterfront district.

          - The project is going to affect traffic and air quality in a highly dense urban environment.

          - There are other projects which have been proposed that will sit very near this project.

          - The negative declaration does not evaluate the cumulative impacts on any of the issues that are required to be evaluated under CEQA.

          - There are other projects that have parking issues. There was no specific parking study for this particular project.

          - They are concerned about the size of the building because it will block light and air. There is no evaluation on this in the negative declaration.

          - The transportation assessment relied on a report that was done for the Embarcadero/Broadway hotel project that he suggests creates a cumulative impact.

          - At a minimum, there should have been a parking study.

          - There will also be an increase in noise, but the negative declaration does not state that.

          - He believes that a full environmental impact report should be issued.

          (-) Richard Wall - Representing 100 Broadway Associates

          - His building will be surrounded by this project.

          - He feels that not having parking is negative to the neighborhood.

          (+) Dan Talbot - San Francisco Tomorrow

          - He feels that because there are no assigned stalls for the residents that this could actually be good environmentally.

          - San Francisco Tomorrow analyses cases on a "case by case" basis.

          (-) Erik Foraker - Giurland, Inc.

          - His concerns related to the negative declaration are the setbacks and the light and air.

          - He feels that there has not been a proper shadow study done.

          - Regarding the request for setbacks, the variance should not be approved.

          - The setbacks are not appropriate for the upper floors.

          (+) Rose Pak - Chinese Chamber of Commerce

          - She does not understand what air quality or parking problems people are talking about.

          (+) Gordon Jim

          - The people he is representing will speak on item 20 only.

          (+) Henry Musto - Vice President - Joseph Musto Estate Co.

          - He requests that a full environmental impact report be done on this project.

          ACTION: Mitigated Negative Declaration Upheld

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

          NAYES: Antonini

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16587

          20a. 2002.0388R (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558- 6478)

          150 BROADWAY (aka 190 BROADWAY) - "Broadway Family Apartments," north side

          between Battery and Front Streets; Lot 011 in Assessors Block 0141 - The proposal is to construct a new mid-rise building that will contain 87 units of affordable housing with retail, childcare, and community spaces, built over an underground parking level accessed from Front Street and containing up to 41 off-street spaces. This project is proposed for land that is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, which is currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and is partially leased to a parking vendor. The Board of Supervisors previously approved in principle the transfer of the property from DPW to the Mayor's Office of Housing for the development of affordable housing. A General Plan Referral is needed at this time in order for the Board of Supervisors to consider (a) lease disposition and development agreement that will allow the affordable housing developer, Chinatown Community Development Center (Chinatown CDC), to move forward with development activities, and (b) a future ground lease between the City and Chinatown CDC to be entered into at the start of construction. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Business), is in the Northern Waterfront S.U.D. No. 3, and in a 84-E Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Gordon Chin - Executive Director for the Chinatown Community Development Center

          - This project will be very important for San Francisco, especially for working families.

          - Two thirds of the units will house families earning up to $46,000 a year. This means teachers, nurses, hotel and restaurant workers, etc.

          - There was a very thorough community input process and a very good and diligent citizen's advisory committee.

          (+) Daniel Solomon - Project Architect

          - He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the architectural aspects of the project.

          (+) Tai Ann Know - Chinatown CDC

          - There are numerous supporters here and there are about 40 letters of support for this project.

          - She asked all the supporters in the audience to stand up. Most everyone in the room stood up.

          - There are several members of community groups in the audience.

          (-) Andrew Zacks - Attorney for Citizens for Better Streets

          - He is not against affordable housing.

          - This particular project has a lot of problems from a legal stand point.

          - The property that the developer proposes to build housing on is not owned by the developer.

          - There was an appeal filed today on this project.

          - This particular piece of property has serious legal problems.

          - There are problems with this process, there are problems with this project, and he asks that the Commission take this into account when considering the project.

          (+) Li, Shao Zhen

          - She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          - The Broadway Family Housing has the support of many neighborhood and business organizations.

          - This project will be near downtown and civil service agencies.

          - This project will alleviate many of the housing problems in San Francisco.

          - Children will be able to move into affordable housing.

          (+) Araceli Lara

          - She would like to thank the Commission for allowing the community to speak.

          - She lives in a small apartment with her family and other people. Although conditions are not good, it is at least a place to live.

          - She understands the needs for immigrant families to find dignified housing.

          - She works as a coordinator of Mission Agenda who helps low income families.

          - There is a strong need for housing in various communities in San Francisco.

          - She would like to have the project on Broadway be approved to allow people to live in affordable housing.

          (+) Jim Haas

          - It is sad that it has taken so long for this project to come forward.

          - This is a very good project for this location because there hare many amenities near by and people do not have to use their vehicles.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          (+) Flor Ramos

          - She is a community worker.

          - She works with the immigrant community. One of the main problems immigrants have are affordable housing and high rents.

          - It would be very beneficial for many people if this project would be approved.

          - She is not a lawyer or an architect but she is the voice of many people who would benefit from this project.

          - Please take immigrant people into account as this project is considered.

          (+) Kate White - Housing Action Coalition

          - There are very few opportunities to build housing that people really need.

          - This parcel provides a unique opportunity for low-income housing.

          - Mixed income neighborhoods are good locations.

          - Chinatown Community Neighborhood Association is a wonderful manager for affordable housing.

          - This location is perfect for people to walk to various amenities.

          - She is a founding member of City Car Share. The project sponsor approached them and has gone the extra mile so that car sharing is a key component of this project.

          (+) Ted Dienstfrey - Gerson Baker & Associates

          - Gerson Baker and Associates is one of the many organizations who support this project.

          - Almost all of the affordable housing projects that come before the Commission come with a certain amount of controversy. Yet when the projects are approved, the neighbors do not have any problems.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          (+) Keith Saggers - Transportation for a Livable City

          - This is a great affordable housing project for the community that is close to public transportation.

          (+) Jackie Chang and Evelyn Pang

          - Evelyn's mom could not stay.

          - She read a letter from her mom stating the benefits of this project and hoping that the Commission will approve this project.

          (+) did not state name

          - He read a letter from Sister Bernie of the Religious Witness for Homeless People.

          - This is the opportunity to do something about homelessness.

          - He hopes that the Commission will not make them jump through hoops and allow this project to go forward.

          (+) did not state name

          - She is here to support this project on behalf of many, many low-income families.

          (+) Wayne Hu

          - He was one of the founding directors of this non-profit housing development corporation. It has been a long time that they have produced a lot of housing.

          He urges the Commission to approve this project since it is desirable and necessary to the neighborhood.

          (-) Paul Utrecht - Giudani, Inc.

          - The exceptions that this project is asking for are not justified by it's affordable housing character.

          - Affordable housing is not bad, it's just that affordable housing should play by the rules that everyone else plays by.

          - The project sponsor wants to get things that directly affect the neighbors. Things like a rear yard variance and an exception from the parking requirements.

          - Assuming that the residents will not have cars is a very serious assumption.

          (+) Joel Lipsky - Housing Development Director - Mayor's Office of Housing

          - He is here to respond if there are any questions regarding any issues related to the Mayor's Office of Housing.

          - He supports the kind of action that the Commission is asked to take. Low income housing is desperately needed.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16588

          20b. 2002.0065KAC (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558- 6478)

          150 BROADWAY (aka 190 BROADWAY) - Broadway Family Apartments, north side of Broadway between Battery and Front Streets. Assessors Block 141, Lot 11. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Business) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction within the Northeast Waterfront Historic District. The proposed project is a Planned Unit Development that will consists of three mid-rise buildings that will contain 87 units of affordable housing with retail, childcare, and community spaces, built over an underground parking level accessed from Front Street and containing 41 off-street parking spaces.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

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

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16589

          20c. 2002.0065KAC (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558- 6478)

          150 BROADWAY (aka 190 BROADWAY) - Broadway Family Apartments, north side of Broadway between Battery and Front Streets. Assessors Block 141, Lot 11. The subject property is zoned C-2 (Community Business) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project requests a Conditional Use authorization for a Planned Unit Development to construct three new mid-rise buildings that will contain 87 units of affordable housing with retail, childcare, and community spaces, built over an underground parking level accessed from Front Street and containing 41 off-street parking spaces.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

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

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16590

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      At approximately 9:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

          21. 2003.0044D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

                458 - 11th AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 1534 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application 2001.09.17.8447, proposing to demolish a two-story, two-unit residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The replacement project proposes new construction of a four-story, two-unit building.

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

          NOTE: On April 3, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to May 8, 2003, instructing the project sponsor to provide supporting information on the soundness report. Public hearing remains open on any new information provided.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 12, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          22. 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: Take Discretionary Review and approval with conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Kamiko Burton Cruz - 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

          - This has been going on for a couple of years. They were at the Board of Permit Appeals and that Board suggested they obtain a mediator. The community and the project sponsors went to a mediator. They made a great deal of progress yet there were still issues to deal with.

          - She hopes that the Commission will take staff recommendations.

          (-) John Spencer - 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

          - There are about 100 residents who have signed petitions against the club.

          - The police went through and looked at the compliance and the impacts, the police determined that the club was very impactful to the residents and that the use was out of character with the local residences.

          (-) Cris Cole

          - This is about late night noise.

          - The parties did an excellent job about narrowing their differences yet he believes that the Commission should take staff recommendations.

          (-) Joe Boss

          - It is fortunate that the parties have narrowed down their differences. It is obvious that both sides cannot agree completely but he agrees with staff recommendation.

          (-) Dick Millet

          - He was one of the parties in the mediation but they were not able to agree with the hours.

          - This new use is very different because it is a late night use.

          - This is not a neighborhood-aimed use.

          - They will have to be doing a lot of policing if this gets approved and they are not used to this.

          (-) Philip Keppeler

          - He lives near the lounge so he is very concerned with the noise.

          - Even thought people live in a City, it does not mean that everyone should have to stand a late night atmosphere.

          (-) Jerome Barulich

          - He has lived on Connecticut Street since 1930.

          - He is immediately next to the property so he is concerned that the crowds leaving late at night will cause loud noises.

          (-) Joe Russack

          - He has lived in Potrero Hill for about five years.

          - It is very noisy at night and he would not like to have it get worse.

          (-) Tony Kelly - President of Potrero Boosters

          - The Boosters have worked well with clubs in the neighborhood to ensure friendly neighborhood operations. This has not worked well with the lounge.

          - They do not want to limit the business of the lounge yet they are only discussing the hours of operation.

          - There are many areas in the City that limit the uses of nightclubs.

          (+) Mark Renny - Representing Fray Margolan (attorney for the Lingba and the Tony an Sally Restaurant).

          - He introduced the owner of the Lingba Lounge, Cody Robinson.

          (+) Fray Margolan - Owner

          - He admitted that in his first year of operation he made many mistakes.

          - He had never been cited or warned by the Police. He never received a letter or email from any neighbor and he never heard from the Potrero Boosters.

          - He has initiated and participated in the mediation. He gave his cell phone and email to the immediate neighbors.

          - He put a new sound system that meets Police noise abatement requirements. He installed air conditioning and has permanently closed all movable windows in the closed position. He installed a sound-proof curtain on the front door and has put up signs asking patrons to respect the neighbors. He has installed outdoor lighting, changed his recycling schedule, and hired new security.

          - The one point he is still concerned about is the schedule. Ceasing all entertainment at 10:00 p.m. will kill his business. He needs to be granted the hours he originally requested in order for his business to progress.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve the hours of operation he requested.

          (+) Mark Renny

          - They have gone through nine hours of mediation and have agreed to most of the requirements.

          (+) Michelle Gascoigne

          - She is a musician and this lounge is a very special place for her to go and visit.

          - She likes that it's a lounge and it is much more mellow.

          - It is a place that is fun, relaxed and very cultural.

          (+) Green Dale Figueroa

          - She works at the Lingba Lounge.

          - She is in agrees that there should be good relations with the neighbors.

          - Her friends work in other night clubs that close at 2:00 a.m.

          (+) Isaac E. Newton

          - He has been living in Potrero Hill for about five years.

          - Prior to the Lingba there was another nightclub that would be frequented by a lot of people.

          - He supports the bar because it's a place he goes to a lot.

          (+) Joseph Perrault

          - He has been a Potrero resident for about 20 years.

          - He has been going to the Thai restaurant for many years.

          - There have been a lot of businesses that have closed in the area recently.

          - He can walk to the lounge because he lives close.

          (+) Adam Shandobil

          - He works for the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

          - He has always liked going to the Lingba Lounge and the Thai restaurant.

          - The proprietor and staff have always been very cordial.

          - He has never seen any problems outside or inside.

          (+) Jerrod Howard

          - He is the new head of security at the lounge.

          - He has worked at a lot of nightclubs in the bay area and this is the most calm place he has worked as a bouncer. He has been offered other higher-paying jobs but he has turned them down.

          - He is surprised at how many people are at the lounge that live in the neighborhood.

          - At about 12:00 a.m. or 1:00 a.m. there is not that many people there.

          (+) Blue Figueroa

          - She lives with her sister next to another bar in Potrero Hill.

          - She believes in being friends with neighbors and working with them.

          (+) Terrance Alan - Chairman of the San Francisco Late Night Coalition

          - He would like to say that the owner was young and stupid when he first opened his business.

          - The Cody Robinson is not the one causing the problems today.

          (+) Ken McDonald

          - He works as a police officer on Potrero Hill.

          - He can say that there are no problems there.

          - This club is very laid back with no problems.

          (+) Peter Glikshtern

          - He has owned businesses and bars in the Mission, the South of Market Area and the Tenderloin Area.

          - He supports this project entirely.

          (+) Irwen Zuriski

          - He owns the building where the Lingba Lounge is.

          - He has never had any problems with the owner.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve the hours in order to make this business survive.

          ACTION: Take Discretionary Review with the following amendments and conditions:

          1. Hours: hours of entertainment will be limited on weeknights Sunday to Wednesday to 12:00a.m., Thursday, Friday, and Saturday until 1:00a.m.

          2. `Other Entertainment' is only for the use of `DJ's' to provide the entertainment.

          3. Capacity: will remain under 49 persons. The use is permitted for the Lingba Lounge only.

          4. Security: will be provided each night that there is live entertainment.

          5. Outreach: the project sponsor shall appoint a Community Liaison to address issues of concern.

          6. Maintenance: the main entrance and abutting sidewalk will be kept in a clean condition and garbage will be disposed of properly, doors and windows will remain closed, cleanup will occur each evening of DJ entertainment

          7. Community Liaison: will be appointed to address community concerns

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      23a. 2002.1171DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          2312 WEBSTER STREET - east side between Washington and Jackson Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 604 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.04.5572S, proposing to reconfigure the existing two-unit building to a single-family configuration with a new small auxiliary unit at the garage level in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed reconfiguration of units.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 12, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      23b. 2002.1171DV (M. WOODS: (4150 558-6315)

          2312 WEBSTER STREET - east side between Washington and Jackson Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 604 - Rear yard and non-complying structure Variances sought: Approximately fifty percent of the rear building wall of the lower two floors of the existing three-story over garage, two-unit building is within one foot of the rear lot line and the existing rear exit stairs are less than two feet from the rear lot line, thus making the building non-complying. The proposal is (1) to expand the garage level such that the entire garage level is within one foot of the rear lot line; (2) to rebuild the rear exit stairs in the southeast corner with one-hour fire rated walls up to the third floor level; and (3) to construct a new fire escape stairs in the northeast corner with one-hour fire rated walls at the fourth floor level. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, the Zoning Administrator continued this item to June 12, 2003.

      24. 2003.0253D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          5126-5130 ANZA STREET - south side between 42nd and 43rd Avenue; lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3684, proposing the demolition of a two-story two-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.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 19, 2003.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      25. 2003.0195D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          1 PALO ALTO DRIVE (AKA 1 AVANZADA AKA 250 PALO ALTO) - Assessor's Block 2724 Lot 003 - Staff initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 9927276 for the voluntary seismic retrofit of Sutro Tower pursuant to Planning Code Section 306.9 requiring mandatory Discretionary Review of a Building Permit Applications for the Sutro Tower site. This project is within the RH-1, Residential House, One Family District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with Conditions.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 17, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

      None

Adjournment: 10:20 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:06 PM