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

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

July 17, 2003

July 17, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, July 17, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Kevin Hughes, Lisa Feldstein, 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; Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney; Amit Ghosh; David Alumbaugh; Joy Navarrete; Jim Miller, Mat Snyder; Jonas Ionin; Geoffrey Nelson; Mary Woods; Glenn Cabreros; Kate McGee; Rick Crawford; 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. 2002.0277C (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

        150 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets, in Assessor's Block 344, Lot 4. Request for a Conditional Use authorization to construct a building exceeding 40 feet in height in an R (Residential) District, to determine an appropriate setback at the top portion of the front of the façade of the proposed building, and to allow an Institutional Use in an RC (Residential Commercial Combined) District. The subject property is zoned RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, Combined, High Density) District, is in the North of Market Special Use District, and is in an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to demolish an existing four-story, approximately 88-foot high vacant building originally used as a lodge building for the Knights of Columbus, and most recently as office space. The existing building would be replaced with a new five-story, approximately 78'-0" high building that would house administrative and some on-site service functions of the St. Anthony Foundation which provides a variety of services to homeless and other disadvantaged individuals. The proposed facility at 150 Golden Gate would function as part of a larger campus of St. Anthony's and would specifically provide space for administrative offices, counseling, health and job training services, and, temporarily, some dining services, until a new dining and residential structure could be constructed across the street.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 10, 2003)

    NOTE: On May 1, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued this item to July 17, 2003 in order for project sponsor to continue to work with community by a vote of +7 -0.

        (Proposed for Continuance to September 11, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Michael Nulty - Tenant Association Coalition

        - He agrees with the continuance because St. Anthony's has had several meetings but there is still information we need.

        John Nulty - PILE

        - The proposed building has a historical rating and it would lose its architectural significance if this project is approved.

        Shawn Collins - TSIP/NOMNIC

        - The project is not ready to move forward. Please allow the continuance.

        Elaine Zamora

        - She supports the continuance. St. Anthony's has had several community meetings. This project is definitely moving forward but there is still a lot to be done.

        Otto Duffy

        - He is in agreement with the continuance.

        Susan Bryan - NOMPC

        - She agrees with the continuance until all the issues have been dealt with.

        David Villalobos

        - St. Anthony's has been meeting with the community but there is still no action from them.

        - There is still much to be done before the Commission makes any decision.

        ACTION: Without hearing on the item, it was continued to September 11, 2003

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        2. 2001.0637D (B. FU: (415) 558-6313)

        1352 HAMPSHIRE STREET - west side between 25th and 26th Streets - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.02.13.7451, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 4275, proposing to add a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing single-family dwelling. One additional dwelling unit is proposed for a total of two units on the lot. The property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Proposed for Continuance to July 31, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 31, 2003

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        3. 2003.0457D (T.TAM: (415) 558-6325)

            1223 35TH AVENUE - west side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street, Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 1715. Discretionary Review request for Building Application Permit No. 2002.12.17.3719 to allow a new third story vertical additional to an existing two-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-2 and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

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

            (DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

        4. 2002.0723C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

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

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2002)

              (CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION WITHDRAWN)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Conditional Use Application Withdrawn

        5a. 2002.1258DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

            1708 ANZA STREET - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1536 - Request for Discretionary Review and Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application 2002.05.01.4436, proposing to demolish a one-story, single-family residence in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There are two residential structures on the lot proposed to be demolished. The building proposed to be demolished under Demolition Permit Application 2002.05.01.4436 is a single-family dwelling located at the front of the lot. The replacement project proposes the construction of a four-story, three-unit building on the lot.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

            (PROPOSED FOR INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        5b. 2002.1259DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

            1708 ANZA STREET - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1536 - Request for Discretionary Review and Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application 2002.05.01.5442, proposing to demolish a two-story, two-family residence in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There are two residential structures on the lot proposed to be demolished. The building proposed to be demolished under Demolition Permit Application 2002.05.01.5442 is located at the rear of the lot. The replacement project proposes the construction of a four-story, three-unit building.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        (PROPOSED FOR INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        5c. 2003.0345D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        1708 ANZA STREET - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1536 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.01.5442, proposing to construct a 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 (Demolition Permit Applications `2002.05.01.4436and 2002.05.01.5442) to demolish the two residential structures currently on the lot.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        (PROPOSED FOR INDEFINITE CONTINUANCE)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        6. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - Last Monday night, Commissioners Sue Lee, Bill Lee, Amit Ghosh and he took part in a panel at St. John's Presbyterian Church. It was very well attended and there was a lot of interest from the neighborhood in having similar type events in various neighborhoods. He welcomes these events as an on going process on the Housing Element.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        - She attended the Land Use Committee meeting with Director Green. She would like to have scheduled a review of the Planning Department's work plan. It is important for the Commission as well as staff to provide their input.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

        7. Director's Announcements

        Re: Results of the Budget Process

        - The Board included in it's budget the recommendations given by the Budget Analyst.

        - A Planner V position was lost so personnel actions will have to be done.

        - The department is still going through the process of trying to find a way to get the work done given the budget decisions that were made.

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

        BOS -

        Land Use Committee meeting of July 24, 2003:

        - Supervisor McGoldrick held a hearing to review the Planning Department's work plan for this new 2003/2004 fiscal year. It was Supervisor McGoldrick's intention "to assist the Full Board in establishing priorities for the Department as they adopt our Budget." Planning Staff present at the hearing included Director Green; Zoning Administrator Larry Badiner; and Amit Ghosh, Chief of Citywide Policy Planning to respond to questions about the priorities that the department has assigned to the various planning initiatives and projects currently undergoing review. Staff was joined by President Bradford-Bell who made a strong case for a collaborative effort between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in setting the priorities for the Department. The hearing was continued at the call of the chair, and there was discussion about the possibility of a joint hearing between the Board's Land Use Committee and the Planning Commission about reviewing and setting the priorities for the Planning Department.

        Re: Coffee Stores and Drug stores

        The committee also voted out to the Full Board for action on a unanimous vote Supervisor Gonzalez's legislation providing neighborhood noticing for new Retail Coffee Stores and drugstores in Neighborhood Commercial Districts. This had been recommended unanimously by this Commission on June 5.

        Full Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 15:

        Re: Secondary Units

        The Full Board of Supervisors held a hearing on the appeal of the Department's determination that the Secondary Unit legislation is exempt from further environmental review. Single family homes are statutorily exempt from CEQA review according to a new state law. As far as multiple unit buildings are concerned, the department found the potential impact of the legislation on that type of housing stock to be minimal, so staff issued a General Rule Exemption from environmental review for that part of the legislation. The majority of the Board of Supervisors agreed with staff's determination and upheld the exemption on a 6-5 vote. (voting to uphold: Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Gonzalez, Maxwell and Peskin.) Voting for the appeal: Hall, Ma, McGoldrick, Newsom and Sandoval). The legislation will be considered by the Commission on August 21, 2003.

        Re: 270 - 284 Valencia Street CU Appeal

        The Board heard the appeal of the CU authorization of the 28-unit residential project at 270-284 Valencia Street. This project had been approved unanimously by this Commission and had received extensive neighborhood support. The project sponsor, Mr. Spears had voluntarily provided all 2-bedroom units as affordable units to respond the community's desires for affordable family housing. This was appealed by a next door neighbor to the Board with the signatures of 5 supervisors. After a failed attempt to amend the project, the Board voted unanimously to uphold your CU authorization.

        Re: Jackson Square SUD

        To basically protect specialty retail and antique stores from conversion to other uses by subjecting applicants to a CU at the ground floor level. Passed unanimously by the Board.

        Full Board of Supervisor's Meeting of July 22

        40-50 Lansing Street - CU appeal of this 82-unit residential project.

        3725 Buchanan Street - Appeal of a CU authorizing 8 panel antennas and related equipment on the roof of an existing building as part of Verizon's wireless telecommunications network. (Approved +4 -3: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, and Sue Lee voted for and: Bell, Feldstein, and Bill Lee voted against) on May 1.

        3537 19TH ST (19th Street PG&E transformer). Appeal of the CU to authorize six antennas and backup equipment located on the building's rooftop for AT&T wireless. Appealed by neighborhood signatures.

        2026 Lombard Street - Negative Declaration appeal on the Lombard Motel filed with the Clerk of the board on July 14, 2003.

        BOA - None

        9. Rincon Hill Planning Overview and informational presentation. (GREEN)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Reed Bement - Rincon Hill Resident Association

        - He has lived in the area for over 10 years.

        - He is here to ask the Commission to instruct staff to keep to their word.

        - Comprehensive planning for the overall area is what is most important.

        - That means planning for the whole neighborhood.

        - This presentation is the first time that it has been presented to the Commission and to the public.

        - Public input is very important in order to find out what the residents really need and want.

        Ted Chiao

        - He is a resident of this neighborhood.

        - The Planning Commission/Department does seem to have a plan.

        - It is important for the staff to communicate this information to the public.

        - He has read articles in the newspapers stating otherwise.

        - There are still details that he has concerns about: height/separation, rezoning, etc.

        Terry Carlitz

        - She is a homeowner in the Rincon Hill area.

        - She would like to propose that until the department has had the proper input from the public, it would be wrong minded to approve any project that comes before the Commission in the near future.

        - It is important to develop properly the next most desirable neighborhood.

        Tim Tosta - Steffel, Levitt and Weiss

        - When there is a zoning process, there is a degree of difficulty to plan it out.

        - It is hard to keep the original idea and the original enthusiasm as a project or a planning process continues.

        Howard Meadow - Rincon Hill Residents Association

        - He has been a resident of Rincon Hill for about six years.

        - He agrees with comments made by Mr. Amit Ghosh and Mr. David Alumbaugh.

        - He expected development when he moved into the area.

        - It is hard to see so much open space and have delays in development.

        - He hopes that staff will keep to its word in the planning process of this area.

        Ernestine Weiss

        - She would not like "leap frog" meetings in the neighborhood. It is important to have all the meetings involve the public.

        - There is a need for sufficient open space in the area.

        Howard Strassner - Sierra Club

        - It is important to cut down the number of cars. There are many parking structures that are two levels.

        Jim Chappell - President SPUR

        - He has been working on all the plans included in the presentation.

        - There has been a tremendous amount of public input.

        - He congratulated the Planning Department for this very informative and thorough presentation.

        - The supply of housing must be increased.

        - He asked the Commission to provide their help to get these plans moving along.

        Theodore Brown

        - He lives in Rincon Hill.

        - There has been a lot of tough work done on this plan.

        - He displayed maps of the Rincon Hill area and how the presentation given by staff would apply to the project he currently has in the area.

        Bob Meyers - Architect and City Planning Consultant

        - He serves on the Tranbay Citizen's Advisory Committee

        - Any zoning is challenging and takes time.

        - He displayed maps of the Rincon Hill area.

        - Having open space is great but there are too many homeless people and crime activity.

        Jill Howard - Realtor

        - She asked the Commission to really consider the height limitation.

        - She feels very strongly that there is a need for housing.

        - Although there are many projects being proposed now, there are not that many units for families. Housing for families is very important.

        Alice Chung

        - She is a resident of Rincon Hill.

        - She encourages the Planning Commission to support staff's presentation.

        - There are discrepancies between the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency.

        - She also encouraged the Commission not to approve spot rezoning.

        Bobby Carter

        - It seems that there is a tunnel situation here.

        - She tried to get data and could not find out what was being proposed for the area.

        - It would be short sighted to move forward.

        - She was amazed to see the areas of traffic, wind, light and the impact that there will be with raising the height on buildings.

        - The data is somewhat incomplete and needs to be researched further.

        Sue Hestor

        - She did not hear any information from staff on their June 19, 2003 recommendation.

        - There seems to be some contradictions from staff.

        - There is a staff recommendation to increase staff and building separation, etc. yet there is no EIR for all this.

        - There is a lot at stake in this area.

        - She recommended that staff not talk about blocks, but instead talk about feet.

        ACTION: Informational only. No action required.

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.

      RE: Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority Projects - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report

      John Carter

      - He is here in support of certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report

      - This project is very important to students and life-long artist lovers.

      - The parking facilities will serve many of the museums and facilities in Golden Gate Park.

      - He is pleased that the Concourse will be making this project come true.

      Jan Stensland - Department of the Environment

      - The underground garage will enhance the area.

      - The garage will use green technologies that will add benefits to the music concourse.

      - This will become one of the "green" garages in the country.

      - Removing surface parking spaces and landscaping the area will add about 5 acres of green space to the park.

      - The landscape will filter rainwater and flow to lakes.

      - The underground garage will filter fumes.

      - She urges the Commission to support the project.

      Mary Ann Miller - San Francisco Tomorrow

      - The project has changed since the EIR hearings.

      - There were Phases I and II, so it is difficult to certify an EIR when the project description has changed.

      - It is difficult to certify the EIR because it does not apply to Proposition J.

      - The Commission does not have approval rights for this project.

      - The demolition of the pedestrian tunnels has not been discussed in the document.

      Julie Cheever

      - She lives in the Richmond District.

      - She sees the need to have access to the museums.

      - She is concerned about the affect on traffic for the Richmond District.

      - Predictions of future traffic seem to be very uncertain.

      - She urges the Commission to impose conditions on this EIR and keep a watchful eye on the traffic.

      Terry Milne

      - He has not studied the EIR completely but he is concerned about the reforestation of this proposal.

      - He would like to have the section on reforestation removed from the EIR because there should be further study done.

      - There is going to be new improvements everywhere.

      Chris Duderstadt - San Francisco Tomorrow

      - Does this EIR accurately recognize the environmental impacts and then provide solutions?

      - Architectural Heritage, Landmark Board, etc. have concerns that further studies should be done.

      - The garage has not defined how the tunnels will be replaced.

      - It is important to protect the safety of pedestrians.

      Ron Miguel - PAR

      - He is intimately involved and aware of everything that is happening in this area.

      - The EIR is accurate, comprehensive and complete.

      - He has also read the comments and responses, which is one of the largest he has ever read.

      - He urges the Commission to certify it.

      Nancy Conner - Concourse Authority

      - She strongly encourages the Commission to certify this EIR.

      - It has been prepared independently and the subject of a very through review.

      - Since the authority was formed there has been extensive community involvement.

      - They have worked hard to design a garage that would have the least impact to the park.

      Alyce Brown - FDR Demo Club

      - The garage will provide an easier access to the park and will have very little impact on the park.

      - She is always against demolishing historic sites.

      - She encourages the Commission to certify the EIR.

      Sandra Treacy - North Park Neighbors Association

      - This garage is very important to the park.

      - The neighborhood association has read the comments and responses very closely.

      - The responses indicate that there will not be any negative impact to the neighborhood. She certainly hopes that this would be the case.

      - Her association hired a traffic consultant and feels that there will be a negative impact to the park and the neighborhood.

      Jim Chappell - SPUR

      - The June SPUR newsletter is related to Golden Gate Park.

      - Cultures change, cities change, and parks change.

      - This EIR is complete and complies with CEQA.

      - The concourse plan suggests a shuttle that will take thousands of people out of their cars.

      Duncan Kennedy - North Park Neighbors Association

      - He is member of the North Park Neighborhood Association.

      - The neighborhood trees will be impacted.

      - Neighborhood appearance and its operation should receive neighborhood comments.

      Stephen Willis - Alliance for Golden Gate Park

      - There were important facilities that were cut out in Phase II of this project.

      - This is an incomplete vision for a "dirt cheap" garage.

      - He requests that the Commission not approve this EIR and a comprehensive EIR be completed.

      Elizabeth Thompson - North Park Neighbors Association

      - She lives on 10th Avenue.

      - She chose this neighborhood to live because it's an ideal place to raise a family being so close to Golden Gate Park.

      - She supports the improvements planned in Golden Gate Park.

      - She believes that the EIR does not adequately address the impacts on the neighborhood.

      - This issue of dealing with the impact on traffic is being ignored.

      - She feels that there will still be people looking for parking throughout the neighborhood wanting to park for free.

      Howard Strassner - Sierra Club

      - The Sierra Club did not take a stand on Prop J. Since it was passed, they have been working very hard on a pedestrian OASIS.

      - He urges the Commission not to certify the EIR.

      - There should be a monitor to catch the impacts on 9th Avenue.

      - The pedestrian OASIS is not shown in the EIR. It is important to deal with this.

      Michelle Stratton - PAR, North Park Neighbors Association

      - She lives in the Richmond District.

      - There are still concerns for the residents on the Richmond side.

      - She endorses and supports the comments of the North Park Neighbors.

      - Although the EIR states that there will not be negative impacts to the neighbors, it is really hard to believe.

      - She urges the Commission to certify the EIR with a condition that parking impacts will be minimized.

      Jim Wunderman - San Francisco Chamber of Commerce

      - The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce endorses this project because it is very thorough. He urges the Commission to certify the EIR.

      Sonia Melara

      - She is a resident of the San Francisco Mission District.

      - She feels that it is about time to move on.

      - Accessibility to communities that are left behind is a very important issue.

      - The parking lot is essential when there are children involved.

      - It is very difficult to get on a bus with two children especially if they are disabled.

      - She urges the Commission to approve this EIR and it is time to move forward.

      Gary Freund

      - There is a need to have access to all the museums in Golden Gate Park.

      - It is definitely time to move on.

      - Parking is very difficult on Sundays because JFK Drive closes.

      - Proposition J was passed five years ago so it's time to move on.

      Katherine Howard - American Society of Landscape Architects

      - The trees were planted in 1902 when the band shell was opened.

      - The leaves on the trees are important to provide shade.

      - Removal of the trees would leave a hole in the canopy.

      - If the trees are removed, instead of having a pleasant environment there would only be a "dust bowl."

      Carolyn Blair - San Francisco Tree Council, Member of Urban Forest

      - She asks the Commission to reject the EIR because there is not enough information on traffic impacts, etc.

      Joan Downey - CVIA and Rescue MUNI

      - The park shuttle is the key to the transit plan.

      - There is not enough ridership to fund the shuttle.

      - There is not enough information regarding the "G" line of MUNI.

      - There is not enough information on how there will be a linkage with current MUNI lines.

      - She urges the Commission to reject this EIR.

      Jim Iversen

      - He is extremely concerned because he feels it is totally fraudulent.

      - There will be a negative impact on the traffic.

      - There is not enough information regarding private and public money.

      Harry Parker - Director of the Fine Arts Museums

      - This has been a very long process. It has been the subject of public discussion for about 15 years.

      - They are committed with working with the neighborhood. He realizes that there will be disruption, but they will be working hard to mitigate it.

      - He urges the Commission to certify this EIR.

      Michael Burke - Music Concourse Community

      - The Responses and Comments document has about 800 pages and is the largest he has ever seen. All of these responses and comments have been dealt with.

      - The project description has not changed at all.

      - The pedestrian tunnels and their significance have been address in this document.

      - The circulation pattern was a concern by the Landmarks Advisory Board and not necessarily the tunnel.

      - There will be tremendous opportunity for the public to comment on the design.

      Gloria Tulanowski

      - She has lived in the City for many years.

      - Parking has always been a problem.

      - This project is encouraging automobiles.

      - She has met a lot of people from various places and means that take MUNI.

      - A 10,000-car garage is not important.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

        10. 2001.911E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

        GOLDEN GATE PARK CONCOURSE AUTHORITY PROJECTS - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - The site is between the California Academy of Sciences and the M.H. de Young Museum in Golden Gate Park, called the Music Concourse area. In 1998, voters of San Francisco approved Proposition J, Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act, to improve the landscape and pedestrian environment of the Music Concourse area. Phase I of the proposed project would include an underground parking facility of 800 to 1,000 spaces at the Music Concourse, surface improvements, and transportation improvements in the Concourse area, and throughout Golden Gate Park, as described in Proposition J. Proposition J requires removal of surface parking spaces from the Concourse area, and in locations throughout the Park, equivalent to the number of spaces provided in the new underground parking facility upon completion of the parking facility. In addition to the underground parking facility, the Transportation Implementation Plan includes the following elements: intra-park shuttle, cultural shuttle, traffic calming, parking management, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, road closures, and MUNI service improvements. Phase II of the project would entail construction of an Underground Through Street connecting Fulton Street to Middle Drive East, which would allow for through traffic to be restricted or eliminated from Tea Garden Drive and Academy Drive. The proposed underground roadway would ramp down at Eighth Avenue at Kennedy Drive and would extend beneath the east end of the Concourse and alongside the east side of the California Academy of Sciences, where it would ramp up to Middle Drive East. This underground street would not provide access into the parking garage and would be intended to reduce cross-park vehicular traffic through the Music Concourse. The project site is within the P (Public Use) zoning district and within an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District; Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1.

        Since publication of the Draft EIR, the Executive Director of the Project Sponsor, Concourse Authority, notified the Planning Department that the preferred project as analyzed in the DEIR has been revised. The project, as revised, consists of Phase I, the Underground Parking Facility, and the Transportation Improvement Measures ("TIP"), both as analyzed as part of the preferred project in the DEIR. Phase II, the Underground Through Street, has been severed from the project and removed from further consideration. As a consequence, the preferred project, as revised, is Phase I and the TIP elements only. This project was identified in the DEIR as Alternative B. With the severance of Phase II, the project, as revised, has no physical environmental impact on the historic character of the Rhododendron Dell, an area of Golden Gate Park considered individually eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. As a result, the project, as revised, has eliminated the significant unavoidable impact to this resource that was identified in the DEIR.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the EIR as a Final EIR. Please note the public review period for the DEIR ended at 5:00 pm, February 5, 2003. Public hearing has been closed.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Intent to not Certify EIR. Final language July 31, 2003.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        11. 2003.0446Q (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        400 - 410 VALLEJO STREET - northeast corner at Montgomery Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 133 - Public hearing to determine consistency with the General Plan of a proposed six-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision, in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: No Recommendation due to insufficient information

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        David Gellman

        - He would like to request a continuance of this project because the information required for this project is not complete.

        Re: Merits of the Project

        David Gellman

        - He apologized for the typographical error regarding the number of units.

        - It is very difficult to process this information without having all the pertinent information.

        - He hopes that the lateness of the information to the Commission will not impede their decision that this project is consistent with the general plan.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to September 25, 2003. Public Hearing Closed.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        12. 2003.0606C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        2111 MISSION STREET - southeast corner of Mission and 17th Streets; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3575 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.65 and 790.124, to establish a trade shop, aka The Blue Studio, on the fourth floor of a four-story building, within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial Use) District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Michael Tralenger - Project Sponsor

        - He is here to answer any questions.

        ACTION: Approved with the following condition: Project Sponsor shall insure that the 4th floor has direct ventilation to the exterior and no ventilation to other parts of the building.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

        MOTION: 16613

        13. 2002.0430C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        378 10TH AVENUE, A.K.A. 389 9TH AVENUE, AND A.K.A. 4500 GEARY BOULEVARD - 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, 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 July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Bill Stevens - AT&T Wireless Services

        - He is available for questions.

        - He displayed the site plans and some of the justification materials.

        (-) Megan Sullivan

        - This is an undesirable and unnecessary antenna installation.

        - The Richmond District residents are opposed to this installation.

        - AT&T Wireless fails to prove necessity for these antennas.

        (-) Betty Chiao

        - She has lived on 11th Avenue for 13 years.

        - She lives one block from the project site and is opposed to the installation of the antennas because of health concerns.

        - There are schools, libraries and churches near the proposed site. This could be dangerous to the residents.

        - She used to be an AT&T client and never had any problems with her cell phone so additional antennas are not needed.

        (-) Gloria Tulenowskly

        - She is opposed to this project because there are just too many cell phones.

        (-) Chuck Chan

        - It was anticipated that by June 30, 1998 a telecommunications facility master plan would be implemented into the communities facilities element of the City's General Plan. It is five years overdue.

        - The Planning Department is allowing antennas in buildings that do not meet the FCC.

        - The Planning Department does not do the thorough research needed to measure RF emissions and does not consider the usage of multiple fix transmitters that could exceed RF limits.

        (-) Ken Chan

        - On July 10, 2003 there were many people attending a Planning Commission hearing and the hearing was cancelled at the last minute.

        - They have obtained thousands of signatures of people who are against AT&T installing antennas in the neighborhood.

        - The supply of antennas is sufficient.

        (-) Benny Lew

        - The reason he opposes this antenna is that there are over 2,600 signatures of people who oppose this project.

        - AT&T chose summertime for this hearing and many people in the neighborhood have gone on vacation so they are not aware of this project.

        ACTION: Approved with Conditions: (Third party to determine removal of antennae site).

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

        NAYES: Feldstein

        ABSENT: Boyd

        MOTION: 16614

        14. 2002.1144C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        821 LA PLAYA (AKA 800 GREAT HIGHWAY) - between Great Highway and La Playa at the intersection of Cabrillo Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1692 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 710.83, of the Planning Code to install two cellular antennas and one related equipment cabinet on the roof of a commercial structure (Wise Surf Shop), within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed antennas would be within the existing parapet and penthouse wall on the roof of the structure, and the related equipment would be located on the roof below the level of the parapet. Neither the antennas nor the equipment would be visible from below or any neighboring property. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 6 (limited preference site) as it is located in an NC-1 District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jennifer Donelly - Representing Verizon Wireless

        - This site is needed to cover areas of the Cliff House and Golden Gate Park.

        - This site is necessary because there are many dropped calls and no service in the area.

        - The equipment will be located on the roof below the parapet.

        - There was a community meeting and no one from the community attended the meeting. There were more than 300 notices sent out.

        (-) Diane Drosnes - Ocean Beach Homeowners Condo Association

        - She only learned about this project recently. No one in her association received the notice that Verizon supposedly sent out.

        - She only received information when the Planning Department sent out notices.

        - She sees no need for these antennas because there are enough satisfied customers in the area.

        (-) Gerard Serchio

        - He operates the OB1 net which allows Ocean Beach to have access to the internet.

        - He has written to Verizon on short notice because he just recently found out about this.

        - He thinks that Verizon was intentionally misleading.

        - Verizon does not have exposure from the roof to Golden Gate Park.

        - He tried to get information from Verizon and did not receive any help from them. He wanted an assessment to see if their system would interfere with his operation system.

        ACTION: Intent to Disapprove. Final Language: August 21, 2003.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

        NOTE: Director Green exited the room at the call of this item.

        15. 2003.0223C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        1275 FELL STREET - southeast corner of Fell and Broderick Streets, extending to Oak Street; Lot 11, in Assessor's Block 1215 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 271, 303, 304, 711.11, 711.21 and 711.95 of the Planning Code to allow a Planned Unit Development on an approximately 50,000 square-foot lot for the construction of a 34 to 56 foot high mixed-use development consisting of up to 95 dwelling units, approximately 16,400 square feet of financial services and commercial/retail spaces (including a new approximately 5,700 square-foot Bank of America branch building and an approximately 10,000 square-foot Falletti grocery store/cafe) and up to 162 independently accessible off-street parking spaces (including after-hours community parking), in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X and 65-A Height and Bulk Districts, including exceptions to the bulk limit, rear yard, and dwelling unit exposure requirements of the Planning Code.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jim Reuben - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This project has a bit of an unusual provenance because it started as a neighborhood effort to get back the store that the neighborhood lost when Emerald Fund started what is now an Albertson's.

        - There are an unusual number of neighborhood associations that have jurisdiction over this project.

        - The Housing Action Coalition supports this project.

        (+) Bob Malon - Project Sponsor

        - He has been developing in the City for over 20 years.

        - The Falletti market used to be at Petrini plaza which is now an Albertson's store.

        - The neighborhood wanted to get a new location to move the Falletti market.

        - There are a number of neighborhood organization who have shown their support.

        (+) Steven Simon - Height Divisadero Neighbors and Merchants Association

        - In Section A, Section 6 - he would like to change that the project sponsor be required to make community parking available after hours.

        - In Section C, Item 1 - he would like to specify that if the owners and renters don't use up all the parking, he would like it to be available for rental by the neighbors.

        - In Section C, Item 5 - Representatives of the neighborhoods should be included in the meetings to discuss traffic mitigation.

        - In Section G, Item 1 - Signage - he would like the signage to be approved by the neighborhood organizations.

        - In Section I, Part 3 - project representatives should meet with neighborhood representatives on a regular basis.

        - Limit Saturday construction hours to start at 10:00 a.m.

        - The neighborhood would like to have these units named as condos.

        (+) Sue Valentine - President of the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association

        - Any support for this project is the result of their desire for the neighborhood to have a grocery store.

        - Much of the opposition to this project is because of a project made by the developer because of it's cheap appearance.

        - She would like to have proof of quality construction conditions so that the windows would have trims and recess glazing. She does not want vinyl windows. The display windows should not be covered.

        - Not more than 25% of the windows should be covered with advertisements.

        - She would also like to limit the construction hours.

        - No yellow loading zone curb adjacent to the project.

        (+/-) Cynthia Marcucci - Haight Divisadero Neighbors and Merchants Association

        - One of the neighbors involved in putting this deal together is a real estate broker who then served as a paid consultant to this project and stands to make a great deal of money from it's success.

        - The developers refused to enter into an agreement with the neighborhood association.

        - In order to preserve the character of the neighborhood, there should be no national or regional franchise businesses be put in the complex.

        - The developers have given a very narrow list that does not protect the small businesses in the neighborhood.

        - She asked to have the square footage reduced for liquor sales.

        - They do not feel that the developers have worked with the neighborhood association in good faith.

        (+/-) Margaret Robbins - Safe Passage

        - She has a concern about pedestrian and bicycle safety.

        - She is concerned with the heavy traffic in the neighborhood.

        - Although the neighborhood is in support of a mixed use project, there are intersections that are very dangerous.

        (+/-) Bob Spjut - Alamo Square Neighborhood Association

        - The units be no less than 700 square feet.

        - The project should contribute to the stability and beauty of the neighborhood.

        - The tenants and owners of the units should be people who move in and stay in the neighborhood for a long time.

        (+) Rick Osmon

        - He spoke to Tick Falletti and suggested they put out a petition to see if the neighborhood was interested in keeping Felletti Foods in the neighborhood. They received many signatures.

        - This project will allow us to keep a very popular market, and allow residential units and parking for the neighborhood.

        (+) Tick Falletti

        - He has been in the food market for several years.

        - The neighborhood did come to them asking them to stay in the neighborhood.

        - They have put together a new project which has a grocery store--upscale and high quality. It will have an open cafe and courtyard.

        - He is committed to not having hard liquor--only beer and wine, and cutting the square footage.

        (+) Dominic Falletti

        - He is trying to make something for everyone, even though this is not always easy.

        (+) Jamie Falletti

        - He read a letter from Ann Marie Miloslavich who is in support of the project.

        - This will be a small neighborhood oriented market.

        (+) Alan Miloslavich

        - He started working at the market as a bagger.

        - This new plan is an exciting project and will bring a true grocer back to the City.

        - The Falletti's have always given a lot to the community.

        (+) Toby Levy - Project Architect

        - Part of the design came out of community meetings.

        - One of the primary concerns was to continue the retail façade.

        ACTION: Approved as Amended: including:

            1) reduction to the number of residential dwelling units to 89;

            2) the project's parking spaces will be contained within two levels, one at grade, with egress onto Oak Street (designated as exiting only) shall not be permitted from the retail parking level during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.;

            3) Section C(5) shall include the following language: The Project Sponsor and construction contractor(s) shall meet with representatives of the neighborhood groups, the Traffic Engineering Division of the Department of Parking and Traffic, the Department of Public Works, the Fire Department, MUNI's Street Operation and Special Events office and the Planning Department to determine feasible traffic mitigation measures to reduce traffic congestion and pedestrian circulation impacts during construction of the Project and to ensure that construction activities do not impact MUNI bus stops or routes in the vicinity;

            4) Section C(6) shall include the following language: Construction on Saturday shall not commence before 9:00 a.m. and shall be completed by 5:00 p.m. There shall be no construction work on Sundays;

            5) Section D1(e) was reworded to state the following: All BMR units shall be rented or sold to qualifying households in accordance with the procedures established in the Procedures Manual for a period of at least 50 years, commencing from the date of issuance of the first Certificate of Temporary Occupancy;

            6) add Section E(4) which shall state the following: Parking and open space on the Broderick Street side shall be of patterned paving and screened (which could include landscaping or trellis) from the seating area;

            7) add Section G(2) which shall state the following: The Project Sponsor shall work with representatives of neighborhood groups on reviewing signage although they shall not have final approval;

            8) insert the Board of Supervisors in Section H(1) and H(2);

            9) Section I(3) shall be revised to read the following: The Project Sponsor shall appoint a community liaison officer to deal with issues of concern to neighbors related to the operation of this Project, and to meet with the neighbors on a regular basis until construction is completed. The name and telephone number of the community liaison shall be reported to the Zoning Administrator;

            10) Section J shall be added which reads like the following:

              J. Additional Conditions Pursuant to Project Sponsor's Agreement with Neighborhood Groups. Neighborhood groups, when referenced below, shall consist of the following:

                i) Alamo Square Neighborhood Association;

                ii) Buena Vista North Neighborhood Association;

                iii) Haight Divisadero Neighbors and Merchants Association;

                iv) North of Panhandle Association, and

                v) Planning Association for Divisadero Street.

              (1) A notice shall be recorded against the property that the owner of the property in perpetuity shall notify the Neighborhood Groups, prior to submitting application, of any proposed changes to the Project which would require a modification to the Conditional Use authorization for the Project requiring Planning Department approval.

              (2) The Project Sponsor has agreed that the Falletti family or an affiliated company of the family shall be a partner in the Project and shall create a neighborhood grocery market, similar to the original Falletti's Market at Fulton and Masonic Streets.

              (3) The Project Sponsor has agreed to designate up to 2,000 square feet of the commercial/grocery store floor area for liquor sales, specifically, beer and wine shall be allowed for off-sale.

              (4) Display windows shall not be covered and no more than 25 percent of the retail store front will be covered with advertisements. No refrigeration appliances or other large objects shall block the display windows.

              (5) The Project Sponsor shall apply for a condominium subdivision map for the Project.

              (6) The Project will have an on-site resident manager. The resident manager's name and contact information shall be provided to the Neighborhood Groups.

              (7) Daily time for start of construction shall comply with City ordinances (Monday through Friday at 7:30 a.m.; Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and no construction work on Sunday.).

              (8) The Project Sponsor has agreed that good faith efforts will be used to develop a security and traffic safety plan with the Neighborhood Groups.

              (9) The Project Sponsor has agreed to contribute up to $2,500.00 toward the actual costs incurred to relocate the tree situated at the southwest corner of the existing Bank of America branch.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        MOTION: 16615

F. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      At approximately 6:11 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

Item 16 was taken out of order and followed item 11.

        16. 2003.0588D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        1532-1534 COLE STREET - east side of the street and south of the intersection of Cole and Carmel Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1293 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.12.20.4027 proposing to demolish a two-story, two-unit dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Construction of a two-story, two-unit building with two parking spaces is also proposed under a separate permit.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This is a great proposal for a replacement house.

        - There were a lot of problems that were not properly solved.

        - He gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the project showing how there are large homes in the neighborhood.

        - This project is fully code compliant, there will be no significant increase in building size, quality architecture will be used, and the project is popular with neighbors. All the neighbors are happy that the current house will be demolished.

        - This property is not legally two units.

        - This is an ideal project for replacement.

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

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

        NAYES: Feldstein and Hughes

        ABSENT: Boyd

        17. 2003.0227D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        542 - 8TH AVENUE - east side between Anza and Balboa Streets, Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 1550 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.12.09.3108 proposing to demolish the existing three-story, single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A four-story, two-unit replacement building with two parking spaces is proposed under a separate permit.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Tony Kim - Project Sponsor

        - In 99 years a total of four permits were issued. Three of those permits were for cosmetic work, and the other for plumbing work.

        - There is a notice of violation stating that this building is structurally unsafe.

        - The cost analysis and the repair cost analysis prove this violation.

        - All adjustments have been made in accordance with this violation.

        - The building has been vacant because of its poor condition.

        - This building is not habitable and is over 100 years old.

        - The replacement building fits the neighborhood and will provide two units of sound housing.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and denied the demolition

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

        NAYES: W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd

        18. 2003.0412D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

            572 SAN JOSE AVENUE - west side between 27th and Duncan Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6595 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.11.04.0682 proposing to add a horizontal and vertical addition to a duplex and to add two parking spaces. The subject property is located 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 project as proposed.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 26, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Sue Hestor - Representing Discretionary Review Applicant

        - This project is across the rear of St. Luke's Hospital.

        - The neighborhood is a working class neighborhood.

        - The project will dislocate the tenant until the completion of the project.

        - There is not a very well thought out solution since the project will be jacked up.

        - There is a waste of low-income housing.

        - The tenant already pays about 80% of his salary to rent.

        - She is asking to not allow this much demolition of the interior, and require a rational alteration to allow the tenant to stay in place. The tenant will not be able to come back because the rent will be much, much higher.

        (-) Jose Morales

        - He has been living in the property since 1982.

        - Because of rent control he has been able to live there affordably with his family.

        - He is a senior citizen and with both his Social Security check and income as a tennis instructor, he is able to pay his rent.

        - He is asking the Commission to have consideration of his situation.

        (-) Lora Traveler - Park Merced Presidents Organization

        - The issue here is fairness. She is deeply concerned that if this project is approved it will result in both displacement and an affordable rent unit being eliminated.

        - This will cause economical and emotional distress.

        - The Discretionary Review requestor's situation does not permit him to move to another location or pay higher rent.

        (-) Chester Zemany - SF Tenants Union

        - He has known the tenant for many years.

        - It is a terrible thing to displace an elderly person.

        - After being involved in this case, he believes that the real reason for this is to increase the rent of a rent controlled unit.

        (-) Steven Shubert

        - He urges the Commission to deny the permit.

        - This is a displacement of a senior citizen on an extremely limited income who has been active in the community as well as a valued neighbor.

        - Homelessness is a real concern right now.

        - There are ways that this project could be done.

        - Ms. Hestor has come up with real alternatives.

        (-) Sam Dodge

        - He has known Mr. Morales for many years.

        - It breaks his hear to force this person out of the community.

        - This building is very historically significant so there are ways to preserve the building.

        - Mr. Morales was involved in fighting for the rights of a senior citizen in a similar situation in the Western Addition so it is ironic that he is here fighting for Mr. Morales now.

        (-) Ted Gullicksen - San Francisco Tenants Union

        - This is a loss for diversity, and senior citizens are very vulnerable.

        - A senior citizen will lose his home.

        - Many tenants do not return after such evictions.

        - Granting this approval will be the decision to evict Mr. Morales.

        (-) Bob Coleman - Golden Gateway Tenants Association

        - This case caught his attention because of the great contributions of Mr. Morales.

        - He is proud with what Ms. Hestor has done on the case.

        (-) Leon Low

        - He is here to speak on behalf of Mr. Morales.

        - The point here is that Mr. Morales is close to the edge. It is just about dollars and cents.

        (+) Ara Tehlirian - Project Sponsor

        - He purchased this property a few years ago but was not living there. He now wants to move back to San Francisco and live in this property with his wife and child.

        - Mr. Morales has the right to claim financial hardship.

        - He is willing to do everything that is required of him as a landlord.

        - Everyone who has spoken and are in support of taking Discretionary Review do not live in the neighborhood.

        - He urged the Commission to not delay this project further.

        (+) Charles Ng - Project Designer/Contractor - Best Design Construction

        - The project sponsor has no intention of evicting Mr. Morales.

        - This project is an alteration and not a demolition.

        - The project will provide better conditions for the tenants and will provide parking.

        - The building has a brick foundation so there is a lot of structural work that needs to be done.

        - He urges the Commission to approve the project as proposed.

        (-) Miguel Williams

        - The reason he opposes this project is the issue of affordable housing.

        - There is nothing enforceable to evict the tenant.

        - There will be a curb cut, which will make it not pedestrian friendly.

        - He urges the Commission to oppose this project.

        ACTION: Hearing held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to October 16, 2003

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        19. 2003.0183D (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 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.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 22, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) David Silverman - Project Sponsor

        - Staff supports the analysis of this demolition.

        - The replacement unit will have three off street parking spaces.

        - The new project will be a harmonious addition to the City.

        - The proposed units will be larger than the existing units, making them more suitable for families.

        - The permit should be approved and Discretionary Review not taken.

        (-) Gloria Tulanowsky

        - Mr. Williams is an attorney who works in Oakland and is very respected.

        - She believes that this proposal is not in order and has to be looked into more thoroughly.

        ACTION: Hearing held and public comment closed. Item continued to September 18, 2003.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        20a. 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 June 26, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Lou Blazej

        - The public benefits of this project are: 1) the building will remain as a two-unit building; 2) the reconfigured replacement unit will likely be more affordable than the existing units; 3) The original historic interior will be preserved and restored; 4) the building will be returned to its original single-family configuration; 5) the exterior front façade will be restored to reflect its original Victorian architectural style and integrity--in keeping with neighborhood character; 6) The building will undergo seismic upgrade and updating of plumbing, electrical and heating systems; 7) approximately 1,000 square feet of new residential space will be created, consequently expanding San Francisco's housing resources.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project per the amended plans with further amendments that include the addition of a window in the bathroom above the shower and a window in the light well.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        20b. 2002.1171DV (M. WOODS: (415) 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 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 June 26, 2003)

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

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

        21. 2003.0195D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

        1 PALO ALTO DRIVE (AKA 1 AVANZADA; AKA 250 PALO ALTO) - Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 2724 - 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 all 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 Approval with Conditions.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 22, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Gene Zastrow - General Manager of Sutro Tower, Inc.

        - They have agreed with the stipulations regarding satisfy the concerns of the neighborhood association.

        (+) Siu Ling Chen

        - Through the efforts of Gene Asros, this is a momentous occasion for this neighborhood.

        - Mr. Asros and the neighborhood association have worked hard together to work on these agreements. The understanding is that even though these are stipulations rather than agreements, they are binding to both Sutro Tower and the neighborhood and especially important is the 10th item which addresses the Wind Vortex shutting analysis. The neighborhood association is happy with this stipulation.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve staff's recommendations.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

      None

Adjournment: 11:16 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2003.

      SPEAKERS: None

      ACTION: Approved

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

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