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

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

July 24, 2003

July 24, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, July 24, 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; Sara Vellve; Elaine Tope; Glenn Cabreros; Mary Woods; Joy Navarrete; Ben Helber; Matt Snyder; Michael Smith; Geoffrey Nelson; 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. (PUTRA/WILSON: (415) 558-6233)

        RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES - 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 is a second hearing on the proposed Guidelines after receiving comments and recommendations from the public at the May 22, 2003 hearing, and meetings with interested neighborhood groups and organizations. This hearing is to provide another opportunity for the public to comment on the draft Guidelines. The Planning Commission requires no action. The Planning Commission may adopt the Guidelines at a future public hearing.

        (Continued from Regular meeting of May 22, 2003)

        (Proposed for Continuance to August 21, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Sue Hestor

        Re: Residential Design Guidelines and Major Exterior Alterations Notification

        - These two items should be put on the calendar together.

        - Policies on these issues need to be sorted out.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 21, 2003

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

        2. 2003.0278C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

              5810 MISSION STREET - north side of the street between Lawrence and Sickles Avenues, Lots 039, 042, and 049 in Assessor's Block 7143 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 304 to allow the amendment of Motion No. 13347 to amend the Planned Unit Development authorization to allow for the conversion of three Below Market Rate (BMR) rental apartments into three (BMR) dwelling units for sale for owner occupancy. The conversion would affect units #202, #205, and #303 in the building, located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 19, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to August 21, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 21, 2003

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

        3. 2003.0042T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

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

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2003)

      (Proposed for Continuance to August 21, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 21, 2003

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

        4. 2003.0636D (F. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

              28 SYLVAN DRIVE - east side between Sloat Boulevard and Ocean Avenue, Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 0636 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.02.3530, proposing to construct a three-story rear vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the building permit as submitted.

        (Proposed for Continuance to September 25, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 25, 2003

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      5. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        Re: Scheduling Cases in September

        - In an effort to explore ways to better prioritize the Commission calendar, she instructed the Commission Secretary to implement a trial procedure in September only that would calendar Discretionary Review cases on a date by themselves and all other cases on alternate hearing dates. In essence, every other Thursday would be for Discretionary Review and the alternate Thursdays would items that are usually on our regular calendar. In early October the Commission would have to calendar an item that would allow us to discuss and analyze the effectiveness of this trial procedure and determine whether or not we want to continue, modify, or abandon it.

        Re: Miscellaneous Questions

        - What EIR's are coming up in September?

        - Can the Housing Element be scheduled as a special meeting again?

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        Re: Director Green's departure

        - She requested to have scheduled on the next agenda, the issue of Director Green's imminent departure and to get clarity and a status report on what the interim management team for the Department is while he is gone.

        Re: Receiving Informational/briefing material in a timely manner

        - She would like informational/briefing material at least one week prior to the hearing instead of the evening before the hearing. This way Commissioners are better prepared to make decisions on the cases before us.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        She requested the following information:

        Re: Workload:

        - Calendar a discussion about workload and calendar preparation. In that discussion, we should explore ways of better managing the calendar, which might include more direct commissioner input into calendar preparation.

        Re: Timeliness:

        - She will be requesting that items be continued if she does not receive updated information in a timely manner.

        Re: Scheduling:

        - Only under emergency circumstances should more than one meeting be scheduled in a week.

        Re: Feedback:

        - She would like to receive the action list (which contains Commissioner's requests) no less than once a month, or whenever any item on it changes, whichever is more frequent.

        Re: Planning vs. Projects:

        - She requested that from this point forward presentations about true planning issues be allocated as much time as the presenters need to make complete presentations.

        Re: Director:

        - She would like to schedule on the calendar the issue of the Commission be given the opportunity for input into the process of who the managing staff will be as Director Green leaves the position of Planning Director.

        Re: Discretionary Reviews:

        - Some months ago, the Commission began to discuss streamlining the Discretionary Review process. She requested that this item be calendared for discussion to move the issue forward.

        Re: 11x17 plans

        - She instructed that project sponsors be responsible for providing to staff/Commission 20 copies of project plans that are 11''x17.''

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - He agrees with what Commissioners have said. He feels that these are items that need to be addressed.

        Re: Informational material in a timely manner

        - He understands that projects are constantly changing that requires updates that need to be sent to Commissioners via faxes/phone calls, often on the morning of a hearing. He feels that Commissioners just need to do the best they can to review that material. Although he agrees that the earlier they can get the material, the better.

        Commissioner Boyd:

        - He also agrees with the request made by Commissioners regarding getting information in a timely manner.

        - Site visits and presentations take a lot of time so scheduling this in a timely manner will help to organize the Commission's calendars.

        Commissioner Bill Lee:

        - He understands the amount of time that Commissioners need and the economic impact. He feels that having more Commission meetings are a good idea. He realizes that Saturdays are a religious holidays for some and that Sundays City Hall is closed.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        Re: Items that get continued

        - He realizes that there are some continuations that the Commission can control and some that they cannot.

        - He advised project sponsor representatives to do their work well.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      6. Director's Announcements

      Re: Efficiency

      - There are a lot of factors involved to receiving information in a timely/efficient manner. The department will do their part on this matter.

      Re: Alternating DRs and Regular Items:

      - The department is fast approaching dates to get things noticed for future hearings. He will act on this quickly.

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

        Full Board of Supervisors meeting of July 22, 2003

        Re: 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 on May 1, 2003 by the Commission). The Board did not feel that the antennae were necessary and desirable, and the CU was overturned on an 11-0 vote.

        Re: 40-50 Lansing Street

        CU appeal of this 82-unit residential project.

        The Board voted to change the building envelope on the Lansing Street side of the building by eliminating 4 units there. Additionally, they amended the project to place the loading dock on-site as opposed to across the street, which eliminated a total of 5 dwelling units in the building. The total number of units therefore was reduced from 82 to 77, which includes the loss of an affordable unit--reduced from 10 affordable units in the original project to 9 in the revised project. Assuming that the project sponsor keeps the same 70/30% ratio on the type of affordable units as they reflect the total number of units, this will mean a loss of 1 affordable two-bedroom unit.

        Re: 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. This project was overturned by an 8-1 vote, with Supervisor Peskin dissenting.

      8. Set hearing date to discuss the Department's priorities.

        SPEAKERS: None

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Through Commission discussion, it was decided that this item would be calendared for September 4, 2003.

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

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

      SPEAKER(S):

      Re: 1509 Taraval Street

      Reza Kitoshnerisan - SIA Consulting Engineers

      - They had proposed a three unit building and his client is asking for two commercial areas and the two residential units at the top levels. This would bring the required parking to two spaces.

      - Therefore the project has been modified.

      Re: Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority Projects

      Pinky Kushner - Sierra Club

      - She would like to delay the EIR approval because rushing into the approval would delay and make things more complicated.

      - There have been comments put into the document.

      - The EIR should be approved based on what the Commissioner reads and not on what people say.

      Alison Brown - California Academy of Sciences

      - She asks that the Commission act today and certify the EIR.

      Wade Randal

      - The expeditious approval of the EIR is critical.

      - There is a strong majority of San Franciscans that want this garage built and want the pedestrian access to the music concourse.

      Gwyneth Borden - SF Chamber of Commerce

      - It is important to implement what the voters asked for.

      - Having the cars in a garage will eliminate fumes from cars looking around for parking near the park.

      Tomasita Medal - Park Access for All

      - The tunnels are dark and uninviting. Usually they smell like urine.

      - She urges the Commission to certify the EIR today.

      John Laskin

      - If he were a developer he would build parking in high-rises.

      - He is not against the garage but would like a better proposal.

      Re: 201 Folsom/300 Spear

      Michael Nulty

      -- The EIR speaks to the issue of affordable housing because San Francisco needs it and it is quite important.

      - He looks forward to seeing this happen.

From the Addendum:

CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

            2003.0207C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

              1509 TARAVAL STREET - between 25th and 26th Avenues, Assessor's Block 2400 Lot 043 - Request under Planning Code Section 161.(j) for Conditional Use Approval for a reduction of 3 off street parking spaces required for dwellings for a Project with ground floor commercial and 3 dwelling units. This project lies within an NC-2 Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

              NOTE: On July 10, 2003, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove by a vote of +5-2 (Commissioners Bradford Bell and Feldstein voted No). Final Language scheduled for July 24, 2003.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without further hearing, item continued to August 21, 2003.

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

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

                  9. 2003.0444D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        586 LISBON STREET - northwest side between France and Russia Streets, Lot 016A in Assessor's Block 6274 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2002.06.12.8815 to construct a new single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District, 40-X Height/Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

        SPEAKE(S):

        (-) Richard Lane - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - Due to the lack of parking on this block, on July 7, 2003, his neighbor, Scott Adsit, was killed while loading his truck. (He requested a moment of silence in his memory).

        - Parking in this neighborhood is at an already critical situation.

        - The applicant has not been living in this neighborhood for many years.

        - The applicant has provided information in the building permit request that is exaggerated.

        - The neighbors of Lisbon Heights have not had the opportunity to review the plans from the project sponsor.

        - Nowhere on Lisbon Street are there roof decks.

        (-) Barbara Brewster

        - She lives next door to the proposed project.

        - She is concerned about the down hill setback.

        - Because of the increased height, she is concerned with the diminished light and air to her home.

        (-) Matt Househoder

        - He is a member of the Lisbon Heights Neighborhood Association

        - He is not happy to see the character of his neighborhood change because of this project.

        - The project sponsor has accused him of turning the other neighbors against him (the project sponsor).

        - There have been inconsistencies in the information the planner submitted.

        (-) Carlos Lima

        - He is a member of the Lisbon Heights Neighborhood Association.

        - He is totally in support of homeowners upgrading their homes.

        - He requested that the Commission keep this project as close to the character of the neighborhood as possible.

        - He requested any and all information regarding parking.

        - Please keep as many curb sites as possible on the block.

        (+) Collins O'Neal - Project Sponsor

        - He displayed photographs of the rooftops of the homes on Lisbon Street, proving that there have been a lot of people that have made additions to their homes.

        - He feels that the whole neighborhood has turned against him.

        - He will make many changes, which were recommended by staff, and to comply with the requirements by the neighborhood association.

        - He hopes that the neighborhood and he can come to an agreement and they can be united.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Closed. Item continued to
        September 4, 2003.

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

        10. 2003.0638D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

        20 ROSEWOOD AVENUE - west side of Rosewood between Ravenwood Drive and Brentwood Avenue; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3043 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.01.16.5375S, proposing a second story front horizontal extension for an existing single family dwelling within an RH-1 (D) (One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(s):

        (-) William Abend - AIA Architects - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He displayed aerial photographs of the project site showing what the project sponsor is proposing to construct and what the issues are of the Discretionary Review requestor.

        (-) Kathy Hoegger

        - She and her husband have lived in San Francisco all their lives.

        - For over 30 years they have given to the community.

        - They are realtors and their business is concentrated in the community where they live.

        - This home is intended as their retirement home.

        - They have letters from neighbors who are in support of their project.

        - Tenants have the same right as homeowners do.

        - Scaling back is not going to affect the project that much. This would give them and their tenants a little more light and air.

        (+) Jim Reuben - Reuben and Alter - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The project sponsors moved to this home 11 years ago.

        - The project sponsor would like to have three full bedrooms for their three children.

        (+) Melissa Welch Barker

        - Her and her husband would like to have more space for their family.

        - She would also like to have space for a home office since currently she works from a hallway.

        - The remodel will not affect the neighbors it will only improve the neighborhood and property values.

        - They have worked diligently with Planning staff in order to have their project be based on the codes.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

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

      11. 2002.0782KRV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PROJECT - Planning Commission Finding Regarding Planning Code Section 295 ("Sunlight Ordinance"). The project is located along Academy Drive in Golden Gate Park, south side of the street and bounded by the Music Concourse to the north, the Rhododendron Dell to the east, the Shakespeare Garden to the west and Middle Drive East to the south, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1700 in a P (Public) District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. Construction of a new California Academy of Sciences (CAS) building on the site of the existing facility in Golden Gate Park is proposed. The project includes demolition of 11 of 12 existing buildings, and would retain Simson Africa Hall. The project proposes a new building, contiguous with a rehabilitated Africa Hall, housing the Academy's facilities in one structure. The new CAS building would have a varying roof height ranging from approximately 40 feet to 67 feet in height. Section 295 of the Planning Code requires, prior to approval of the project, that a determination be made that shading from the structure will not have a significant and adverse effect on lands under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Department. The Commission shall make its determination following a recommendation by the Recreation and Park Commission . (Action by the Planning Commission.)

        Preliminary Recommendation: Find that the shadow impact is insignificant.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Patrick Selick - Academy of Sciences

        - This is a model project for this City.

        - He is available for questions.

        (+) Gordon Chung - Project Architect

        - This project is environmentally sustainable.

        - By use and design, it is up to the standards of urban design.

        - He presented a powerpoint presentation on the architectural aspects of the project.

        (+) Margaret Brodkin

        - This is such a treasure for the children.

        - This is a wonderful gift for the children of San Francisco.

        - The academy has gone through a lot to provide information to the public.

        - She looks forward to a beautiful project.

        (+) Ron Miguel

        - These items are very simple to be approved.

        - There is a very insignificant shadow caused by the trellis.

        - The project is in conformity with the General Plan.

        - This is one of the premier scientific organizations and institutions. It deserves a special location in the park.

        (+) Martha Kropf

        - She is a 30 year resident of the academy.

        - The academy has had long time support for the transit first policy.

        - The architect for the project was chosen because of his sensitivity to the park.

        - To engage the public, the academy relied on its advisory committee.

        (+) Mark Palmer - Department of the Environment

        - The Academy of Sciences is one of the many projects he is most proud of.

        - The building itself will be an exhibit of sustainability.

        - The new Academy far exceeds building standards. It will enhance Golden Gate Park as well as San Francisco.

        (-) John Laskin

        - He is against the parking variance.

        - There will be a lot of parking spaces removed that are very much needed.

        (+) Liz Dunlap

        - She is a member of the Transportation Authority CAC and the advisory group of the Academy of Sciences.

        - The Academy is a transit first institution.

        - The new building will be ADA compliant and will ensure that disabled visitors will have the same wonderful experience visiting the Academy.

        (+) Alex Wong

        - The Academy is a tremendous organization.

        - He urges the Commission to approve this project.

        (+) Jim Chappell

        - Everything is right about this project.

        - The shadow impact is insignificant.

        - There should be a parking variance because there should not be parking.

        (-/+) Cris Dudestadt

        - Staff does not have the capacity to do a full shadow study of it so he did one.

        - Although there are shadow impacts, they are impacts on roadways and pathways and they are very insignificant.

        - The concerns he has are that the floor plan is at a higher elevation and there are no handrails which has significant impact for pedestrians. There are concerns that pedestrians on wheels will have a hard time maneuvering in the Academy.

        (+) Tai Via - Coblenz, Patch, Duffy and Bass

        - The issues that Mr. Dudestadt mentioned are addressed on Pages 29 to 30 of the Responses to Comments document.

        (+) Tom McDonough

        - This is an incredible resource for people living locally.

        - This project will help bring visitors and boost the economy.

        ACTION: Approved CEQA Findings

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

        MOTION: 16616

        ACTION: Determined the shadow impact to be insignificant.

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

        MOTION: 16617

        12. 2002.0782EKRV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PROJECT - Finding of Consistency with General Plan and Planning Code Priority Policies. The project is located along Academy Drive in Golden Gate Park, south side of the street and bounded by the Music Concourse to the north, the Rhododendron Dell to the east, the Shakespeare Garden to the west and Middle Drive East to the south, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1700 in a P (Public) District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. Construction of a new CAS building on the site of the existing facility in Golden Gate Park is proposed. The project includes demolition of 11 of 12 existing buildings, and would retain Simson Africa Hall. The project proposes a new building, contiguous with a rehabilitated Africa Hall, housing the Academy's facilities in one structure. The new CAS building would have a varying roof height ranging from approximately 40 feet to 67 feet in height. Planning Code Section 234.1 and 290 require uses in a P District and an OS Height and Bulk District be in conformity with the General Plan. (Action by the Planning Commission.)

        Preliminary Recommendation: Find that the Project is, on balance, in conformity with the General Plan.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 11.

        ACTION: Found to be in compliance with the General Plan.

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

        MOTION: 16618

      13. 2002.0782EKRV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES PROJECT - Parking Variance Request. The proposal is to remove 73 existing parking spaces and to construct the new CAS building without providing 253 required off-street parking spaces. The project is located along Academy Drive in Golden Gate Park, south side of the street and bounded by the Music Concourse to the north, the Rhododendron Dell to the east, the Shakespeare Garden to the west and Middle Drive East to the south, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1700 in a P (Public) District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 11.

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

14a. 2002.1301CV (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

        230-242 TURK STREET - "The Salvation Army Turk Street Center", north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets; Lots 024 & 006 in Assessors Block 0338 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303 to construct a new eight-story building approximately 79 feet high that will contain 109 units of affordable housing for adults in recovery and older foster care youth. The project includes a gymnasium, pool, chapel and multipurpose room on the ground floor, and social services offices, and youth recreational area on the second and third floors, all built over an underground parking level accessed from Turk Street and containing at least 32 off-street spaces. A structure containing 36 dwelling units and 74 rooms of group housing would be demolished. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and located within the North of Market Residential Special Use District No. 1, and is in an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. The existing building is a contributing structure to the National Register Eligible San Francisco Apartment and Hotel District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without Hearing, item continued Indefinitely

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

      14b. 2002.1301CV (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

        230-242 TURK STREET - "The Salvation Army Turk Street Center", north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets; Lots 024 & 006 in Assessors Block 0338 - Request for a rear yard modification in accord with Section 134(f) to provide an equivalent yard area elsewhere on the lot, and for variances to provide 32 parking spaces where 88 are required, and to reduce the glass area in bay windows required by Section 136(c)(2)(C), are sought as part of a project to construct a new eight-story building approximately 79 feet high that will contain 109 units of affordable housing for adults in recovery and older foster care youth and facilities for associated services. The project includes a gymnasium, pool, chapel and multipurpose room on the ground floor, and social services offices, and youth recreational area on the second and third floors, all built over an underground parking level accessed from Turk Street and containing at least 32 off-street spaces. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and located within the North of Market Residential Special Use District No. 1. The existing building is a contributing structure to the National Register Eligible San Francisco Apartment and Hotel District and is in an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider these requests.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without Hearing, item continued Indefinitely

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

        15. 2002.1219C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        1770 - 1780 FELL STREET - north side between Ashbury Street and Masonic Avenue; Lot 18, in Assessor's Block 1209 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.1(h) and 303 of the Planning Code to convert the existing building on an approximately 5,000 square-foot lot from a residential care facility to five (5) dwelling units, at a density ratio of one dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area, in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) David Silverman - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This is a building that was built in 1908 and has significant architectural merit.

        - This project will allow 5 residential units with 5 off street parking spaces.

        - This project is located in a residential neighborhood. The building envelope will remain the same.

        - The interior will be remodeled and the exterior will be restored.

        - The building will receive new plumbing and electrical systems, a new roof and new structural support beams on the ground level.

        (-) Miki Yoshimura

        - She has lived on Fell Street for nine years.

        - She was only notified of this project when they received a notice from the Planning Department. She had to travel to the Planning Department to get information on the project. She does not know how to read plans and has never been before the Commission.

        - She has issues related to noise and light. She is glad that the roof deck will be reduced.

        - She is happy that there will be sound proofing done but she still has an issue with the east side doors.

        (-) Alex Adams

        - He lives next door to the project in question.

        - He is surprised that the project sponsor did not contact him.

        - He would like the Commission to put off a vote until the neighbors have been contacted.

        - The project has a monstrous size roof deck; he is concerned with the landscaping, etc.

        - The two doors on the east side is a major problem for him.

        (-) Mr. Licko

        - His issues are related to noise and privacy.

        - He asked that the rear yard be made into a green open space by removing the existing brick and concrete pavement.

        - There is no existing deck on the project.

        - If the deck would be allowed, he asked that it be reduced in size.

        (-) Doug Comstock

        - He never received notice of this project.

        - This project represents a decrease in density.

        - This project will create market rate condominiums.

        - He hopes that the people that moved out will get first chance in moving back into the units.

        - He would like to retain as much of the open space as possible.

        - He would like to meet the developers just to get a feel of the project.

        ACTION: Approved as Amended: 1) Reduce roof deck to not be more than 600 feet and require a setback equally from East and West walls; 2) delete ground floor door; 3) allow a closure on the 2nd level door; 4) require a mechanism on 2nd floor door in order for it to be more quiet; 5) adequate soundproofing to be required (including RC channel); 6) require landscaping.

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

        MOTION: 16619

        16. 2002.1021C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        2525 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side, between Steiner and Pierce Streets, Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 0655 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 718.11 for a development with a lot size exceeding 5,000 square feet in area. The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story commercial building and construct a four-story building with up to 16 dwelling units on the three upper stories, up to 4,999 square feet of retail space (Other Retail Sales and Services per Planning Code Section 790.102) on the ground floor, and up to 24 parking spaces in a basement garage, within the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Bruce Bauman

        - He would like to have this scheduled for July 31, 2003 instead of August 28, 2003 since the planner will be going on vacation the month of August.

        - He wished Gerald Green well on his future endeavors.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 28, 2003.

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

At approximately 5:15 p.m. the Planning Commission considered item 17 below.

      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 the Final EIR.

      SPEAKER(S):

      Margaret Mori - ASLA

      - She is very concerned with the trees that will be affected by this project.

      Ron Miguel - PAR

      - Maybe because of his long involvement on this project, he has background knowledge.

      - They are willing to get together with the neighborhood and discuss the parking and work the issues out.

      - The problems can be worked out.

      - Everyone is committed to taking care of the problems.

      Cris Duderstadt

      - The question here is what type of document the Commission will be putting out.

      - The tunnels are deteriorating beyond repair.

      - He urges the Commission to get the document correct before approving it.

      Greg Miller

      - He is a strong advocate for preserving all the trees when this project is constructed.

      - The EIR does address the issue of the trees. It states that the removal of the trees will not constitute an impairment of the landmark status.

      - He recommended that the Commission look at this closely.

      Katherine Howard - ASLA Historic Preservation - Landscape Architect

      - The draft EIR states that the landscaping of the project will remove many trees.

      - The trees are of historic significance and should be preserved.

      Mary Anne Miller

      - She believes that the tunnels are a historic resource.

      - In the document, it states that the trees are a historic resource.

      - She requested that the Commission make a finding today on the issue of the pedestrian tunnels.

      Jim Chappell - President of SPUR

      - The job of the Commission is to determine if the EIR is accurate and complete. There is no question that this document is complete and should be certified.

      - The trees are not part of the project response. Removal of the trees is not part of the project.

      - The tunnels will be eliminated for new 21st century use.

      - There will be an improvement on the traffic impact.

      - He urged the Commission to certify this document.

      Sandra Treacy - North Park Neighborhood Association

      - She appreciates the improvement measure added to the EIR.

      - She has been assured that as the parking garage is implemented there will be recourse remedies.

      John Laskin

      - He is in favor of parking garages.

      Nancy Conner - Golden Gate Concourse Authority

      - Since May of 1999, there have been meetings at City Hall; there have been neighborhood design meetings, etc.

      - She also loves trees but the plan that is referenced in the comments and responses is not part of the document that is up for certification today.

      - She is also concerned of what the park will look like in the future.

      - She feels that the garage solution is inconspicuous, effective and will be a great boom for future generations.

      Carolyn Blair - SF Tree Council - Urban Forest Council Member

      - She is confused because the Environmental Impact Report states the removal of the trees.

      - The public has clearly made it known that there is a concern about the trees.

      - She would like to have removed the statements related to the removal of trees before the document is certified.

      Terry Milne

      - He would like to commend the previous speaker's remarks.

      - He hopes that this Commission will do something about it so that this project will not go on for years.

      Tom Harramy

      - This process has not been going as well as proponents have tried to make the Commission believe.

      - Right now there is a will, so now the Commission needs to find the way.

      - The EIR should be brought up to what was promised.

      Michael Burke

      - The Commission is not approving a particular project. What is before the Commission is if the document should be certified or not.

      - No one is proposing to remove any trees from the Concourse.

      - There are now 85 holes where trees have died, these trees would be replaced if the project is implemented.

      Catherine Roberts

      - She is glad that the Commission rejected this EIR.

      - This is a public park and there are public resources at stake here.

      - She is really concerned with pedestrian safety.

      - She is concerned that parking spaces will be taken out from the park and there is no indication of where they will be put.

      Josey Mooney - President of the San Francisco Labor Council

      - She urged the Commission to certify the EIR.

      - Everyone should be able to have access to the park. It is important for families to come to the park by car and park there.

      17. 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.

        NOTE: On July 17, 2003, the Commission passed a motion of intent to not Certify the EIR by a vote of +6-0. Commissioner Boyd absent.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: EIR Certified

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

        NAYES: Feldstein

        MOTION: 16620

E. REGULAR CALENDAR - CONTINUED

        18. 2000.1073E (B. HELBER: (415) 558-5968)

        201 FOLSOM STREET - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - The rezoning of parcels in the Rincon Hill neighborhood (the "rezoning project") and a residential development of approximately 1,500,000 gross square feet (gsf) at 201 Folsom Street (the "development" project). The property is currently used as a paved parking lot by the United States Postal Service (USPS) Annex and other government agencies for 270 vehicles. The rezoning project includes rezoning part of Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3746 and Lots 1 and 8 in Assessor's Block 3745 from the existing P (Public) to a zoning district that allows private development. The requested rezoning is from P (Public) with height limits of 150 and 200 feet to RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined: High-Density) with a 300- and 400-foot height limit. In addition, a Planning Code text amendment is requested to create a new Residential/Commercial sub-district under the Rincon Hill Special Use District overlay, and amendments to the Rincon Hill Area Plan, a part of the San Francisco General Plan. The request for rezoning has been made in conjunction with development proposed at 300 Spear Street on Assessor's Block 3745, Lot 1, that would be a part of the rezoned area. The third parcel requested to be rezoned is 345 Main Street, Lot 8 in Assessor's Block 3745, the remaining privately owned lot in the existing P district. The development portion of the project would consist of up to 725 residential units (about 825,000 gsf) and about 38,000 gsf of retail space. It would include about 753 enclosed parking spaces and four loading spaces for the use of the development, and about 272 enclosed replacement parking spaces for the use of the USPS and other government agencies. An 80-foot-tall building base would cover the site. Two residential towers would rise above the building base to total heights of approximately 350 feet and 400 feet above the ground level. The project would require a subdivision of Lot 1 to separate the development site from the Postal Service Annex.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the EIR as a Final EIR. Please note that the public review period for the Draft EIR ended at 5 pm, December 2, 2002. Public Hearing Closed.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 26, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jim Chappell - President of SPUR

        - He has read and studied the EIRs in reasonable detail and he is confident that they are adequate and correct and should be certified.

        - There is a terrible shortage of housing and this is causing families to leave the city.

        - There are singles that are doubling, tripling and quadrupling in units because they cannot afford to live in single units.

        - He hopes that the Commission will certify the EIRs.

        (+) Jeffrey Leibovitz

        - The EIRs only state that the projects will not shadow South Park.

        - Revenue needs to be captured from these projects.

        - The EIRs are not adequate addressing the impacts this will have on the Park and Recreation properties in the Rincon Hill neighborhoods.

        - The immediate parks don't have adequate facilities, and that is what he is asking the Commission to do.

        (-) Reed Bement - President of the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association

        - He urges the Commission to "do the right thing".

        - He believes in this area and that is why he lives there. This area should be developed.

        - These projects are not in a position to be developed.

        - There are still a lot of matters that have not been discussed in the EIRs.

        (-) Andrew Brooks - General Manager of Baycrest Residential Association

        - The Comment and Responses section of the EIR under the visual quality and urban design section shows photo simulations of alternatives B, C and D. However, all of the viewpoint locations called for in the EIR were not added.

        - In the Transportation section of the EIR: under the Intersection Operating Conditions, it states that turning movement volumes were counted prior to the closure of Beale Street. CEQA requires the EIR to represent conditions as they currently exist at the time of evaluation and/or approval. New updated figures need to be included to give an accurate representation of Intersection Levels of Service. Under the Construction Traffic section, it states that the Giants Ballpark construction was not identified as a significant impact. This response is not accurate and is in error.

        (-) Patrick Malone - Rincon Hill Residents

        - He is here to support the Rincon Hill neighbors and request that you not certify the EIR.

        - Public input has not been given and there is no comprehensive plan.

        - The EIR is insufficient because it fails to adequately address the cumulative affects on the construction of the projects.

        - It does not address the Bay Bridge retrofit project.

        - It does not address the traffic problems that were set by the 9/11 incident.

        (-) Bobbie Carter

        - She lives in the SOMA area.

        - She is very concerned about the EIR.

        - One of the greatest concerns she has is the height of the buildings. Forty stories will definitely impact the neighborhood.

        - This is a very limited area in the city that should be preserved.

        - There are many issues that need to be addressed so she urges the Commission to not certify this document.

        (-) Henry Kleinhenz - Baycrest

        - Many of the residents who live in Rincon Hill are not against development or housing.

        - Whatever projects go on should conform to the existing density that is already established in the Rincon Hill plan.

        - He is very concerned that there will be four buildings that are too tall.

        (-) Sue Hestor

        - There is a lack of a plan or an analysis of this EIR.

        - The EIR slides over the issue that there is no plan.

        - There are other developments in the area which are either going on or are planned yet they are not mentioned in the EIR.

        (-) Jo Howard

        - She asked the Commission to seriously look at the impact of changing the height limit for a specific project before Rincon Hill has been evaluated.

        - It is unfair to give the benefit to developers, to have more units with higher heights in the area.

        - The financial district is the financial district but this project is residential housing.

        ACTION: Passed a Motion of Intent to approve certification. Final language September 4, 2003.

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: W. Lee

        19. 2000.1090E (B. HELBER: (415) 558-5968)

        300 SPEAR STREET - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) -The project includes rezoning of parcels in the Rincon Hill neighborhood (the "rezoning project") and a mixed-use development of approximately 1,560,000 gross square feet (gsf) at 300 Spear Street (the "development project"). The property is currently used as a paved parking lot for 290 vehicles. The property was formerly owned by Caltrans and under lease to Golden Gate Transit for daytime commuter bus layovers. Golden Gate Transit buses were relocated a few blocks away in 2000. The rezoning project includes rezoning Lots 1 and 8 in Assessor's Block 3745, and part of Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3746 from the existing P (Public) to a zoning district that allows private development. The requested rezoning is from P (Public) with height limits of 105, 150 and 200 feet to RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined: High Density) with 300- and 400-foot height limits. In addition, a Planning Code text amendment is requested to create a new Residential/Commercial subdistrict under the Rincon Hill Special Use District overlay, and amendments to the Rincon Hill Area Plan, a part of the San Francisco General Plan. The request for rezoning has been made in conjunction with the proposed development at 201 Folsom Street on Assessor's Block 3746, Lot 1, that would be a part of the rezoned area. The third parcel requested to be rezoned is 345 Main Street, Lot 8 in Assessor's Block 3745, the remaining privately owned lot in the existing P district. The development portion of the project would consist of up to 820 residential units, about 36,000 gsf of retail and about 890 underground parking spaces. Two 80-foot-tall building bases would be built to the property lines on Spear, Folsom and Main Streets; the building bases would surround a landscaped courtyard beginning at the courtyard (third) level. Two residential towers would rise above the building bases to total heights of approximately 350 feet and 400 feet above the ground level, respectively.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the EIR as a Final EIR. Please note that the public review period for the Draft EIR ended at 5 pm, December 2, 2002. Public Hearing Closed.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 26, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18.

        ACTION: Passed a Motion of Intent to approve certification. Final language September 4, 2003.

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: W. Lee

        20a. 2000.1326MZT (M. SNYDER: (415) 558-6891)

              300 SPEAR STREET, 160 HARRISON STREET (aka 365 MAIN STREET), AND 201 FOLSOM STREET (aka 314-390 MAIN STREET) - the northern half of the block bounded by Folsom, Spear Street, Harrison Street, and Main Street, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3745; the northeast corner of Harrison Street and Main Street, Lot 8 in Assessor's Block 3745; and the northern half of the block bounded by Harrison Street, Beale Street, Folsom Street, and Main Street, the northern half of Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3746, respectively -- Zoning Reclassification of Property, Planning Code Text Change, and General Plan Amendments sought. The applicants have requested approvals for: (1) the reclassification of these properties from P (Public) to RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density), Districts and the establishment of a "Residential/Commercial Sub-district" within the Rincon Hill Special Use District under Section 249.1 of the Planning Code, pursuant to Section 302 of the Planning Code; (2) the adoption of amendments to the Rincon Hill Area Plan (part of the General Plan) pursuant to Section 340 of the Planning Code; (3) the adoption of modifications to the existing height and bulk limits, including increasing the current height limits from 200-feet, 150-feet and 105 feet to 400 feet for 201 Folsom Street and 300 Spear Street; and from 105 feet to 300 feet for 160 Harrison Street; and (4) the adoption of text change amendments to the Planning Code and General Plan that would change the requirements for density, use, usable open space, parking, parking location, street frontage , site coverage, tower separation and dwelling unit exposure, and other matters at the subject sites.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Recommending to the Board of Supervisor's Approval of the Proposed Text, Map and General Plan Changes.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 26, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Clark Manus

        - He gave a powerpoint presentation on the merits of the project.

        (+) Jim Chappell - President of SPUR

        - There must be a public plan for improvements. There have been several changes to these projects in the last several weeks.

        - The intent of the Rincon Hill plan includes tall buildings.

        - Supply and demand works, and San Francisco really needs the supply of housing.

        - He urges the Commission to approve these projects with conditions.

        (+) Carl Shannon - Tishman Speyer Properties

        - There is an empty lot that is zoned public, which is essential to the City because it will create housing--pecifically affordable housing. This project is near public transportation and will make the neighborhood works.

        - Union jobs will be created.

        - The project will incorporate the needs of the United Postal Service and will have retail as well.

        - This project will permanently enhance property tax roles.

        (+) Martin Dalton - Union Property Capital

        - The area should be rezoned to include residential.

        - There were 50 public meetings and the City conducted various meetings as well.

        - The project creates up to 820 units, up to 140 affordable units, retail, public open space, union jobs and an enhanced streetscape.

        - This project will enliven the City as well as Rincon Hill.

        (+) Barbara French

        - Since they began their community outreach, they contacted about 80 community organizations.

        - As a result, they produced an outreach packet that include 18 written endorsements from various organizations.

        (+) Amee Albertson - SF Chamber of Commerce

        - The San Francisco workforce needs a place to live.

        - Companies want to locate where they can find a good workforce.

        - All this cannot happen if the amount of housing is not increased.

        - The project will allow density in transit corridors.

        (+) Stan Warren - San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council

        - Various projects were constructed with the best craftsmanship.

        - These projects offer long-term benefits to the City.

        (+) Mike Theriault - Iron Workers Union

        - These are beautiful projects that will benefit the City greatly.

        (+) Doug Perry - Building and Construction Trades Council

        - The projects are good for the economy of the City as a whole.

        - Employment has declined and this project will provide quality jobs to many people.

        - San Francisco should maintain its regional importance in the Bay Area in regards to jobs.

        (+) Jim Salinas - Carpenters Local 22

        - He is here representing thousands of carpenter union workers.

        - It has been his desire to always remain in San Francisco.

        - He is asking for the support of the Commission to approve this project and allow jobs to be developed.

        (+) Alexander Clemens - City Car Share

        - He read a letter from a member of the public who could not stay but is in support of the projects.

        - He also read a statement from Kate White who also could not stay but is in support of the projects.

        (+) Michael Sweet

        - He is a resident of South Beach.

        - He is a strong advocate for this project because it will build more housing in the center of the City.

        - Currently there are thousands of units in deficit in the City.

        (+) Jeff Leibovitz

        - He is not concerned about the loss of view he will have because of this project.

        - He is concerned about the process of this project.

        - He feels that this project will be appealed at the Board of Supervisors, so he asks that the Commission be very thoughtful in their deliberations. The Commission needs to be ready to standup when the time comes when this project is appealed at the Board of Supervisors, otherwise this project is destined for failure.

        (+) Rev. Arelious Walker - Faith Based Housing

        - Recently there were a number of units approved near the church where he is pastor.

        - He asks the developers of this project not to forget the low-income residents of the various neighborhoods in San Francisco.

        - This project should be approved because it will allow affordable housing units.

        (+) Rev. Ted Frazier

        - If there is housing in this area, it will not go to waste.

        - He is speaking in favor of these projects going forward.

        - He has not heard of anyone making history by doing nothing.

        (+) Carl Alexander

        - This project has a domino affect for the Bay View community.

        - He would love to move back to San Francisco and this would be an opportunity to bring young folks back.

        (+) Rev. Arnold Townsend - Faith Based Housing

        - Most of the points have been made.

        - This project is extremely important for San Francisco because there is a housing crisis going on.

        - Yes, this project is different but is beneficial.

        - It is important for working class folk to have the opportunity to purchase a home.

        (+) Alvin Selva - Bayview Hope Housing

        - He is in support of this project because it will allow he and his wife to own a home.

        - He and his wife make too much money to be allowed grants, but do not make enough to purchase market rate housing.

        - This location will allow for his family to be near homes and churches.

        (+) Ricardo Bell

        - He is a potential homebuyer.

        - He and his wife have been looking to purchase a home for the last three years and this project will give them an opportunity to do so.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

        (+) Rev. Eugine Lumpkin

        - Almost every month people come to him announcing that they will be moving because they could not purchase a home.

        - He is looking forward to retiring and this would be an opportunity for him to purchase a home.

        (+) Dave Figueroa

        - He was born and raised in San Francisco.

        - This project will be 100% union.

        - People that will live here will be able to walk or take public transportation to work.

        (+) Judith Patterson - South Bay/South Beach Citizen's Advisory Committee

        - She is a fourth generation San Franciscan.

        - Her husband and son work in the City.

        - She is in support of these projects if they are done correctly.

        - There's been no mention about schools in the neighborhood. Most of the units are two bedrooms. There are not that many units that have three bedrooms.

        - The public meetings were presentations, there was no room for creative thinking or talk about what the neighborhood wants or needs.

        - These buildings are too high.

        (+) Shawn Leonard - NCCRC

        - Rincon Hill is an underutilized neighborhood.

        - The project will give a boost to the local economy.

        - She urges the Commission to approve this project without further delay.

        (+) George Williams - SPUR

        - What is proposed now is the next logical evolution of what was proposed in 1989.

        - These projects will provide lots of housing and are very well designed.

        - His concern is that there is a need to make Rincon Hill a real neighborhood.

        - What is needed is a sense of how the whole neighborhood will be improved.

        (-) Patrick Malone

        - Planners should plan for San Francisco and not for other cities.

        - Although there is a need to create union jobs, these projects will last forever and should not be taken lightly.

        - Development in Rincon Hill is necessary but this is just piece-meal rezoning of certain parcels.

        - He is asking to be part of the community planning process for this area.

        - This project is not good for the neighborhood.

        (-) Reed Bement - President of the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association

        - He believes in high density housing but this area is not a "waste land".

        - The area has developed quite nicely, but if there are to be improvements, they should be planned out intelligently.

        - The towers totally overwhelm everything in the area.

        - The towers will also create a visual block to people coming into the City.

        - There are still many problems to deal with.

        (+) Tim Tosta - Steefel, Levit and Weiss

        - There is a list of schools that are nearby.

        - They have carefully developed the plans for these projects over a number of years.

        (-) Dorothy Dana

        - This project, of course, will provide jobs, low-income housing, etc.

        - This is not housing that will be affordable.

        - Spot zoning should not be allowed just because these units supposedly will be affordable.

        (-) Bobbi Carter

        - She read a letter from Supervisor Chris Daly who is not supporting these projects.

        - She read a letter from a member of San Francisco Beautiful who is not in support of this project.

        - The area should be developed in a smart way.

        (-) Sue Hestor - Rincon Hill Residents Association

        - The last community meeting of Rincon Hill was July of 2001. Nearly two years. Yet according to the developers, they have been having monthly meetings with planning staff.

        - This is all backwards. There is no comprehensive plan related to how pedestrians are going to move through this large area.

        - How is there going to be open and desirable space?

        - People are going to get in their cars and drive a couple of miles to get someplace and the Planning Department does not have a plan for this.

        ACTION: Passed a motion of intent to approve.
        Final Language September 4, 2003.

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: W. Lee

        20b. 2000.1073C (M. SNYDER: (415) 558-6891)

        201 FOLSOM STREET (aka 314-390 MAIN STREET) - the northern half of the block bounded by Folsom Street to the north, Main Street to the east, Harrison Street to the south, and Beale Street to the west, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3746 - Request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 253 to allow construction of a building taller than 40 feet in an R (Residential) District. The proposed Project would consist of up to 820 residential units in about 775,000 gross square feet, about 38,000 gross square feet of retail space, and up to 845 off-street parking spaces for the residential and retail uses and up to 272 replacement parking spaces for United States Postal Service. The project would include two towers that would be approximately 400 and 350-feet tall. The project is currently within a P (Public) District and within 200-R and 150-R Height and Bulk Districts. (A Public Hearing for a Planning Code Text, Map and General Plan Amendments for this site will be considered immediately before this hearing).

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 26, 2003)

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

        ACTION: Passed a motion of intent to approve. Final Language September 4, 2003.

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: W. Lee

        20c. 2000.1090C (M. SNYDER: (415) 558-6891)

        300 SPEAR STREET - the northern half of the block bounded by Folsom Street to the north, Spear Street to the east, Harrison Street to the south, and Main Street to the west, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3745 - Request for (1) conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303 and 253 to allow construction of a building taller than 40 feet in an R (Residential) District; and (2) an exception under Section 271 of the Planning Code to permit the project to exceed the maximum plan length. The proposed project would consist of up to 820 residential units in about 910,000 gross square feet, about 35,000 gross square feet of retail space, and up to 890 underground parking spaces. The Project would include two residential high-rises with overall heights of approximately 400 and 350 feet; and two lower buildings with an overall height of 85 feet. The project is currently within a P (Public) District and within 200-R and 105-R Height and Bulk Districts. (A Public Hearing for a Planning Code Text, Map and General Plan Amendments for this site will be considered immediately before this hearing)

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 26, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 20a.

        ACTION: Passed a motion of intent to approve. Final Language September 4, 2003.

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

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: W. Lee

      21. 2003.0376C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        5630 MISSION STREET - north side of the street between Naglee and Whipple Avenues, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 7098 - Request by Verizon Wireless for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 711.83 to install eight (8) antennas on the rooftop and associated equipment cabinets within the interior storage room of a motel (The Mission Inn) located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and 40-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a location Preference 4 site as it is a wholly commercial building within a NC-2 District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 28, 2003.

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

        ABSENT: W. Lee

        22. 2002.0913C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        2001 UNION STREET - southwest corner at the intersection of Union and Buchanan Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 0541 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 725.83, of the Planning Code to install six (6) cellular antennas and five (5) related equipment cabinets on the roof of the Union Street Plaza Building, as part of Sprint PCS' telecommunications network within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed antennas would be flush mounted to an existing rooftop penthouse, and the related equipment would be housed in a new mechanical penthouse that would be partially visible from the street below. The site is considered a Preference 2 under the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, as it is a "co-location" site. However, due to a prior Planning Commission action and approved Motion No. 16084 for case no 2000.0385C the site had been deemed a Preference 6. The Planning Commission will consider under which Preference (2 or 6) to review the application. Sprint has also modified the location of the proposed rooftop mechanical penthouse from their original proposal.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from regular meeting of June 12, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 28, 3003.

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

        ABSENT: W. Lee

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 ite8 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: 11:28 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2003.

      SPEAKERS: None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

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