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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

June 12, 2003

June 12, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, June 12, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:45 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney; John Paul Samaha; Amit Ghosh; Teresa Ojeda; Geoffrey Nelson; Marion Chion; Rana Ahmadi; Adam Light; Dan Sider; Jonathan Purvis; Michael Smith; Mary Woods; Ben Fu; Glen Cabreros; Kate McGEe; Dan Dibartolo; 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. 2000.465M (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)

      HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN - Continued public hearing on the proposed update and amendments to the General Plan put forth in the Housing Element Final Draft for Public Review released February 10, 2003. Proposed revisions will update and amend the Residence Element adopted in 1990 and include an assessment of housing needs, new policies to increase housing production such as higher residential densities along appropriate transit corridors and downtown neighborhoods; encouragement of housing development in neighborhood commercial districts; reconsideration of residential parking requirements; and policies supporting construction of new family housing. The Housing Element Final Draft for Public Review incorporated modifications based on comments and other feedback received by the Planning Department on the first draft published in August 2002.

      Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Requested.

      NOTE: Public hearing to receive comments limited to the date, time and place of the next public hearing on this item, at which hearing, comments on the Housing Element Final Draft for Public Review will be heard again.

      (First Public hearing held on May 1, 2003; continued to second public hearing held on June 5, 2003.)

      SPEAKER(S):

      Re: Continuance

      Greg Hylton

      - He requests that this item be continued for 45 to 50 days.

      - There are various neighborhoods that have been absent from the contributory neighborhoods for this document.

      - Do not adopt this document until all neighborhoods have been accounted for.

      Marilyn Amini

      - She would like to have time enough to read and review all the Commissioner's comments and that this information be available on the Planning Department's web site.

      - Adequate notices should be sent to appropriate parties.

      Marilou Lascari

      - She appreciates the Director looking into all the various sites as options to have a hearing on this item.

      - It will be very difficult for people who are new to the Housing Element to come to absorb this information. Would it be appropriate to have the comments of the Commissioners published with a lot of time in order for the public to review?

      - It would also be good to have this information on the web site.

      Judy Berkowitz

      - She echoes the previous two speakers.

      - After the environmental review would be good to have the hearing on the Housing Element since this will affect the document.

      - She requests at least a 90 day continuance.

      Dorcas Maureen Bender

      - She would suggest that it begin at 1:00 p.m. or 2:00 p.m.

      - She would like the item to be time certain.

      - She would recommend the hearing be held on a Saturday for people who work during the week.

      - Time is needed to review and absorb in order to provide comments.

      John Bardis

      - It is critical that the Commission has gone through all the work to provide communication with the public on this item.

      - The environmental review process is still forthcoming.

      - He urges the Commission not to have a hearing on this item until the environmental review process is complete.

      ACTION: 1) Schedule the Housing Element at a special hearing on July 21, 2003, in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 3:00 p.m.

          2) Commissioners Comments shall be submitted by July 7, 2003.

          3) Draft Document to be Published (including electronic format) by July 14, 2003.

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      2. 2002.1268D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          527 23rd AVENUE - west side between Anza and Balboa Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 1566 - request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.05.5649, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the single-family dwelling, a new third floor and a partial fourth floor in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal would create a second dwelling unit and a second off-street parking space.

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

          (Proposed for continuance to July 10, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes, and W. Lee

      3a. 2002.1258DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          1708 ANZA STREET - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 1534 - 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 single-family dwellings on the lot proposed to be demolished. The building proposed to be demolished under Demolition Permit Application 2002.05.01.4436 is 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: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.

          (Proposed for continuance to July 10, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

      3b. 2002.1259DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          1708 ANZA STREET - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 1534 - 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, single-family residence in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There are two single-family dwellings 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: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.

          (Proposed for continuance to July 10, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

    4. 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, within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District as part of Sprint PCS' wireless network. 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. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2 (co-location) as there are two other cellular installations at this site.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

      (Proposed for indefinite continuance)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      5. Commission Comments/Questions

      Commissioner Bradford Bell:

      Re: Scheduling a meeting on a 5th Thursday

      She would like to calendar a meeting on the 5th Thursday of July -- July 31, 2003. This issue should be discussed during the hearing of next week.

      Commissioner W. Lee:

      Re: Housing Element

      He had asked staff last week for an overlay regarding the zoning for housing throughout the city and an overlay on the proposed housing element and increase in density. Based on last week's presentation it is important [to understand] density increases versus transportation. It is important as staff moves into the housing element to consider fazing in the densities if the transportation needs are not there.

      Re: Dr. Rajiv Bhatia - Health Department

      There could be some health concerns with the Housing Element and transportation. He would encourage staff to invite Dr. Bhatia to come and give a presentation regarding possible health impacts and health assessments on increasing density and increasing transportation needs.

      Commissioner Antonini:

      Re: Hearing on July 31, 2003

      - He agrees that the last Thursday in July be set up as a special hearing.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      6. Director's Announcements

      Re: Budget Process

      - Contained in the Mayor's budget is total revenue for the Department made up of general fund fees as well as grant and work orders totaling about $13,585,699.00. This is a slight increase over what the Department originally proposed. This is under the assumption that the Department will be generating a lot more fees than relying on the general fund. The increase is affording the Department to increase full time employees. These positions will be specific to environmental review, neighborhood planning, code enforcement, etc.

      Staff has been asked by Supervisor McGoldrick to give a presentation before the Land Use Committee on July 14, 2003 in order to set priorities as they relate to process.

      The budget committee met yesterday (June 11, 2003), and the department presented the work program. In general we presented what the department is capable of carrying out and what the budget constrains the department from doing. Supervisor Daly provided staff with 14 questions and asked that these questions be answered before the next meeting.

      Regarding the supplemental from revenue the department felt was generating from fees: It was the department's estimate that there would be a balance of about $700,000.00 from fees at the end of this fiscal year. The department felt that it is important to utilize this revenue and apply it to the work program, specifically for the environmental review of the Eastern Neighborhoods. This amount was referred to the Controllers Office and the Mayor's Office. The Controller's Office questions the amount and is not prepared to certify this figure. However, they are prepared to acknowledge that there will be revenue at the end of the fiscal year and did provide this recommendation to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee voted to allow the staff to utilize whatever amount the Controller will certify and apply it the Eastern Neighborhoods environmental process as well as any additional review work that is related to this. The Budget Committee agreed that approximately $3,000 to $4,000 would be released so that the department could prepare for and ultimately enter into an agreement to prepare an EIR for the Eastern Neighborhoods. A remaining balance of about $527,000 would be left in reserve and would only be released after the staff would appear before the Finance Committee to communicate would this revenue would be used for. The figure of $527,000.00 has to be certified by the Controller's office.

      The fee adjustment was not before the Finance Committee for a couple of weeks.

      On June 26, 2003, staff will be before the Budget Committee. Prior to that there will be the budget analyst report.

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

      BOS:

      Land Use Committee Meeting of June 9, 2003:

      Staff responded to Supervisor McGoldrick's resolution urging our Department to make it a high priority to do environmental review on the Housing Element. He gave an update to the Committee that we are still seeking public input and will not issue a decision on environmental review until after the next public hearing on the Element.

      Full Board of Supervisor's Meeting of June 10, 2003:

      Re: 2690 Harrison Street

      This Conditional Use appeal of the 54-unit residential project was considered. The Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition had filed the appeal with support from five members of the Board of Supervisors from the Planning Commission's March 20, 6-1 decision. The appeal was first heard on May 23 and then continued by the Board to this past Tuesday's meeting so that mediation could take place between the project sponsors and the appellants. Bill Sugaya, a member of the Board of Permit Appeals who was not acting as a member of the Board was selected to be the mediator. The parties never actually met, but a shuttle diplomacy of sorts was conducted by Mr. Sugaya who reported to the Board that the appellants did not agree to the changes that were offered by the sponsor.

      What was passed by the Commission:

      Affordable units: 5 one-bedrooms and 2 two-bedrooms.

      As amended by the Board: 4 one-bedrooms and 3 two-bedrooms; And urging that up to three units be made available to Section 8 vouchers and HOPWA recipients.

      Re: J-10 Wharf Project

      The F-Alioto Fish processing tenats of this pier have filed an appeal to the statutory exemption from CEQA review for the emergency demolition that was issued on April 15. The pier had been deemed in danger of imminent collapse by the Port and has been vacated. The Board overturned the Department's exemption from environmental review after hearing from a new expert, a structural engineer who testified on behalf of the project sponsor and who put into question just how imminent is the threat of the collapse. Paul Maltzer from staff had already been working on an EIR for the pier, given the determination that it involved the loss of an historic resource, which, under CEQA guidelines, automatically triggers an EIR. So with the Board overturning the exemption, the Planning Department will now proceed with the EIR on the demolition of the J-10 Wharf pier that was already in progress.

      Re: O'Shaugnessy Dam Negative Declaration Appeal

      There is an effort by a member of the Board to work out a resolution to the appeal. The item was continued until this coming Tuesday, June 17. The appeal has been filed by the group "Restore Hetch Hetchy" and the Sierra Club.

      Board of Supervisors Hearing of June 17, 2003:

      Re: Secondary Units Environmental Exemption Appeal

      The Planning Department's environmental review exemption to the secondary unit legislation has been appealed by two groups: The Coalition to Protect our Neighborhoods and the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods. Assuming that the Board upholds the Department's exemption on June 17, 2003, the Secondary Unit ordinance is to be considered by this Commission the following week on June 26, 2003 when the Commission will have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the Board on the merits of the ordinance.

      Re: 1017 Ocean Avenue

      - The appeal of the Conditional Use was filed by 20% of surrounding property owners. The project is to install three wireless antennas on this 3-story, multi-use structure as part of Verizon's wireless network (NC-2 District).

      Board of Supervisors Hearing of June 24, 2003:

      Re: 40-50 Lansing Street

      - This is a Conditional Use appeal of an 82-unit residential project. The appeal was filed by five members of the Board of Supervisors (Daly, Ammiano, Gonzales, Sandoval and Maxwell). The appeal of the Negative Declaration has already been appealed and upheld unanimously by the Board of Supervisors. Now the CU appeal hearing has been set for the June 24 meeting of the Board.

      Re: 3725 Buchanan Street

      - This is a Conditional Use appeal of eight Verizon Wireless antennas. The appeal was filed by 20% of surrounding property owners.

      BOA:

      RE: 1812-1816 Green Street

      - There was a question whether this building was two units or one. If it were a two unit building it would be a dwelling unit merger and it needed to come before the Commission. For about 50+ years the building was a two unit building. There was a tenant that moved between the units until ultimately the Ellis Act forced them out of the building. Permits were filed for modifications to the building that said the existing use was two units and the proposed use was two units. There was a three R report that stated the building was a single-family house (although three R reports are not official reports). There was never a permit that said there were two units with a desire to make it one unit. If this was a dwelling unit merger it needed to go before the Commission. The BOA upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination to suspend the permit so it should go through the process and come before the Commission.

      RE: 111 Manchester Street

      This project came before the Commission under Discretionary Review. The building was three stories over garage. The Commission sent the project sponsor away to work with the neighborhood. The project sponsor made minor changes to the original drawings. The Commission asked the project sponsor to eliminate the top floor and move the building forward which would require a Variance. This is what the neighborhood wanted. The project sponsor did not do that. The Commission started modifying the project and decided to deny the demolition permit and the new construction permit. The Commission was in favor of a demolition but did not want to approve the demolition without a replacement structure. This was appealed to the BOA. The project sponsor submitted new plans that removed the top floor but did not move the building forward. The BOA did overturn the Commission decision and determined to make the building smaller.

      Re: 20 Tank Brewery on 11th Street

      - A new restaurant wanted to go back in at this location because it had nighttime entertainment. The Zoning Administrator determined that there was an illegal use that had dropped the nonconforming nighttime entertainment [permit]. There was a dot com there, so the non-confirming nighttime entertainment permit was abandoned. The Board overruled the ZA determination that the dot come was intended to be an Internet café use and was going to be using the nighttime entertainment use. This was not clear to him. So the project remained as a nighttime entertainment use.

              (M. CHION: (415) 558-6314)

      8. Eastern Neighborhoods Community Planning Process Update

      Jill Fox

      - She lives in India Basin.

      - It is vital that the Planning Commission create a zoning category that provides community benefits. This would include designations for parks, open space, community gardens, recreation centers, athletic fields, historic sites, community centers, public schools, and waterfront and actual bay access.

      - All of these items are proportionately lacking in the East site of town and in the Planning process.

      - Although it is wonderful to increase housing and business opportunities, it is useless to make it at the expense of making this a livable City.

      Douglas Lynn

      - He owns a property between third and fourth on Brannan Street.

      - He attended all of the meetings. They were well attended and very informative.

      - There are some things that need fine-tuning. For example, in South Park due to it's unique nature and its need to be protected, heights are a concern.

      - It would be a mistake to hold back an EIR for the east of fourth street corridor.

      Kate White - Housing Action Coalition

      - She would like to applaud the Planning Department for their diligence on this plan.

      - There is still a lot of work to be done including urban design, looking at public amenities, and refining some of the zoning designations.

      - She looks forward to working with the Planning Department on this plan.

      - Plans B and C are very appropriate for the City.

      - She recommends that the Commission direct staff to move forward with preferred options with each neighborhood, immediately begin the EIR, and approve the emerging Easter Neighborhood Plans.

      - She asks that the Commission really look at housing developments coming before the Commission that are in the Industrial Zoned Areas.

      Bryan Robinson - Bayview Heights/Candlestick Point Neighborhood Committee

      - There are some concerns about rezoning plans. For example, some of the proposals would change the densities and therefore change the character of the neighborhoods.

      - There are some organizations that are working to preserve the fabric of neighborhoods.

      - Some of these organizations have not been adequately heard by the Planning Department to give their input on this plan.

      Julie Milburn - CCAC/7th Street Commercial Association

      - The Showplace Square/Potrero Hill process was very well presented.

      - At the moment there are rumors that it would take many years to get the zoning. And that it will happen permit by permit as it has happened in the past.

      - She would like to know what the time table is and how her organization can help?

      Vikki Hart - SOMA

      - She attended the March 3, 2003 meeting and is representing the Flower Mart area.

      - She would like to know how her organization could be involved in the process?

      - She would like the Flower Mart area changed from commercial to residential category.

      Bill Poland

      - He has been involved in the Showplace/Potrero Hill presentation, which was very well presented and very thorough.

      - There is a vision book that has been distributed to all Commissioners.

      - Everybody wants to see a mixed use in this area.

      - They are in favor of Option 2 with some tweaking as mentioned in the vision book.

      Ed Lortz - Save Potrero

      - He has been living in Potrero Hill for 18 years.

      - His group in going forward in a community planning process.

      - This process takes the best parts of option A and option B.

      - Potrero Hill residents also want mixed use in the area.

      Kepa Askenasy - Save Potreto

      - There have been numerous meetings with the neighborhood. There has been a website developed to receive comments. There is an email list, a mailing list, etc. There will be further outreach through house meetings as well as an 18th Street fair.

      - Heights and density are the only issues for which a lot of discussion still needs to take place because there is some difference of opinions.

      Ada Chan - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

      - 23rd and Harrison is a perfect example of what exactly the community needs and what is actually approved.

      - The community benefits need to match each neighborhood's interests.

      - She would like to suggest a long-range planning check off to make sure they are in the spirit of the long-range planning that is happening in the neighborhood.

      Eric Quezada

      - The Mission is still not finished with their community planning process.

      - There are questions that come to his mind around the issue of transitioning all of the southeast neighborhoods.

      - There should be some reflection on how this transition happens.

      - The housing element does need to include the zoning changes that happen in the future.

      Cris Durazo - South of Market Community Action Network

      - She would like to speak on the issues spoken by the Director earlier.

      - She is not in favor of starting over again.

      - There are standards already in the neighborhood.

      - She wants safe streets, clean streets, etc.

      - There is existing zoning that people like. The problem is that it has not been enforced.

      Charlie Sciammas - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

      - He would like to speak on the project at 2690 Harrison, only because it sheds light on the larger planning issues that everyone is struggling with. This project was 80% one-bedroom units in a neighborhood that is 70% family households. It was also a project that had a very low level of affordability in a neighborhood that had many low-income residents.

      - There is no mechanism in place to address this. There is a general plan referral but a housing element referral is not happening effectively. He is interested to hear from staff on how this housing element is being referred to.

      Judy West

      - She was interested in the Director's comments on the budget.

      - She would like the Commission to move forward first on the Showplace Square.

      - SOME neighborhood wanted to go back and look at the goals.

      - The Mission District was presented as a whole neighborhood to be looked at.

      - The options for the industrial district should not be moved forward as a preferred option.

      - She likes the idea of community benefit zoning.

      Jim Meko - SOMA Leadership Council

      - Planning in the last five years has hurt SOMA.

      - The community on 6th Street includes a variety of people.

      - There are organizations that have been pulled together to do a better planning job.

      Karen Nolan - SOMA Leadership Council

      - She does not know much about Planning but she would like to have certain improvement to the South of Market area.

      - Community planning process should involve the entire community.

      Quintin Mecke - SOMA

      - He would like to thank the Director for attending the meetings.

      - The important thing right now are the steps to be taken to move things along.

      - He would like a focused process with directed goals.

      - There is a lot of planning knowledge in the SOMA district.

      - His concern is that the department not move forward with SOMA with a preference.

      Betty Traynor - Neighborhood Parks Council

      - They are doing an open space study to find out where there is a need for it.

      - People always want more parks.

      - She agrees with the first speaker to have a community benefit category.

      Robert Mayers - City Planning Consultant

      - He proposed a compromise for SOMA.

      - He has attended all the meetings, which were well presented.

      - He disagrees with the critics of the setting of the goals.

      - Housing with an affordable component plus mixed uses was generally favored especially east of 4th Street was a consensus from the attendees.

      - He strongly disagrees. He proposes a reasonable compromise that the area east of 4th Street be included in an EIR.

      Joe O'Donaghue

      - He feels that staff is concentrating too much on the process not on the job to be done.

      - We have forgotten why there is a process.

      - There is a delivery crisis for building housing.

      - We need to go back and create a housing model.

      Judy Berkowitz - East Mission Improvement Association

      - The workshops in the Mission were a flawed process.

      - She did not even know that anything had been going on.

      - She would like to participate in the process.

      - There has not been full participation in the Mission.

      Sue Hestor

      - The Mission and North Potrero Hill EIR need to go together.

      - Most of the dot coms and live work projects have been done in the SOMA, Mission, and some in Potrero Hill.

      - The problem of notices needs to be solved.

      - There is a need for about 70% of affordable housing.

      Steve Vettel

      - He encourages that by August we should have policy guidelines in place to move forward projects during this interim period.

      - There should be some structure by which the Commission can judge projects.

      - He urges the Commission not to focus on interim controls but to focus on updating policy guidelines that reflects the communities and all the thinking that has been going on.

      ACTION: Public meeting held. No action required.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      9. 2002.0497E (R. AHMADI: (415) 558-5966)

          2026 LOMBARD STREET - Hearing on the Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project includes the construction of a four-story, 40-foot high, 97-room tourist hotel containing approximately 49,000 sq. ft. of hotel area and the demolition of the existing two-story, 30-room tourist hotel/motel of approximately 8,630 gross square feet (sq. ft.). The 13,613 square-foot lot is located on the north side of Lombard Street between Fillmore and Webster Streets (Assessor's Block 0492, Lot 25) in the Marina District of San Francisco. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project would be from Lombard Street. The existing hotel/motel is currently operating, and is a legal non-conforming use as it was constructed in 1955, prior to neighborhood commercial zoning controls. The project site is in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would be required to get Conditional Use Authorization for the hotel use from the Planning Commission under Sections 712.55, 712.11 and 712.21 of the Planning Code.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S):

      Re: Request to continue item later in this calendar:

      Brett Gladstone

      - Some of the speakers will be coming late to the hearing.

      - Patricia Vaughey would like to have this case continued to another hearing date.

      Patricia Vaughey

      - There are people here already and were here on time so they should be allowed to speak.

      - Otherwise, she would rather have this case continued to another date.

      Steve Williams

      - This is the first he has heard about a continuance.

      - He opposes a continuance to later in the calendar, but he does support a continuance to another hearing date.

      Re: Merits of Case

      (-) Steve Williams - Appellant

      - They object to the Preliminary Negative Declaration because he believes it is not ready to be approved.

      - This is an extremely ambitious project.

      - He displayed a map that was released in November of 2002, displaying the area where the project will be constructed and how the soil in this area is in an ultra hazardous seismic area. The map also showed the liquefaction zones.

      - There will be a tracking problem from documents and/or reports produced.

      (+) Brett Gladstone - Representing Project Sponsor

      - The Building Department would have to provide a report on Structural Engineering issues regarding the negative affects to adjacent buildings in case there was any stress on the proposed structure.

      - It is premature to draft detail-engineering drawings.

      - There is no intent to do anything unusual to this project.

      - There is an underpinning agreement with an adjacent neighbor.

      - He is working on the same agreement with the other neighbor.

      (+) Eric Cabanion - Geotechnical Consultant

      - He explained the geotechnical engineering aspects of the project.

      (-) John St. Cricq

      - He has lived behind the project for about 60 years.

      - The issue he has is that a project of this magnitude is out of character with the rest of the street.

      - It is also quite a dangerous project since there will be deep excavation done.

      - There are about eight or nine properties that are not in support of this project.

      - He submitted a liquefaction map of the area.

      - The 1989 earthquake did a lot of damage to the soil in the area.

      - He recommends that the Commission speaks to Mr. Calzia of the GS Geological Group in Menlo Park to obtain more information on the soil of the proposed project.

      (-) Patricia Vaughey

      - There are a lot of discrepancies in this document and if she has to go to the Board of Supervisors, they will.

      - She is looking for Conditions of Approval to protect the neighbors.

      (-) Robert Bardell

      - The main point is that a subterranean garage will be a cause for retention of water.

      - There was a river that went though the project site.

      - The project would negatively impact neighborhood parking and traffic.

      ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      MOTION: 16595

      10. 2002.0497C (G.NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          2026 LOMBARD STREET - north side of Lombard Street between Fillmore and Webster Streets, Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 0492 - Request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Sections 712.55, 712.11 and 712.21 of the Planning Code to construct a four-story, 40-foot high, 97-room tourist hotel containing approximately 49,000 sq. ft. of hotel area and 78 off-street parking spaces on an approximately 13,613 square-foot lot within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, in the Marina District of San Francisco. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project would be from Lombard Street. The proposal is also to demolish an existing two-story, 30-room tourist hotel/motel of approximately 8,630 gross square feet.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Brett Gladstone - Representing Project Sponsor

      - This project will be a great benefit to the City because it will provide affordable housing.

      - The project sponsor will provide jobs to people who are coming out of welfare.

      - Project sponsor will provide benefits to the workers.

      - The project sponsor has agreed to having this design provide setbacks in order to not block light as much as possible.

      - There is a light well designed as well to provide light.

      (-) Robert Bardell

      - He urges the Planning Commission to deny the Conditional Use permit for this project.

      - Approval of this project will set an unwelcome precedent in the area.

      (+) Singrid England

      - She is the Project Sponsor.

      - The Lyons club provides services to the needy.

      - She is distressed by the remarks that she is an out of tow developer.

      - She has always supported the community. This hotel will service the Marina as a whole.

      (+) Rene Kapik

      - She is the daughter of the project sponsor.

      - The motel no longer complies with the required codes.

      - They will not provide very expensive accommodations.

      - The fewer the rooms the higher the price for these rooms.

      - She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

      (+) John Love

      - He gave information on hotel economics.

      (+) Eric Debanian - Geotechnical Engineer

      - This project can be done without tiebacks.

      - This site is at the edge of a site liquefaction zone. But this is not unusual.

      - The construction has nothing to do with liquefaction.

      (+) Tim Mathison

      - His expertise relates to excavation.

      - The geotechnical report was quite thorough.

      - He is available for questions.

      (+) Collin Russell - Project Architect

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

      (+) Dr. Bernard Bauer

      - The key argument in this case is similar to a case last week.

      - They hired an independent analyst and came to the conclusion that 60 rooms would equal 26.9% of the rate of return.

      (+) Mohamed Shaikm

      - He and his brother have leased the hotel for a few years.

      - The project sponsor will not be displacing them.

      - The hotel has been difficult to rent because it is in bad shape and they support the project as it is currently presented.

      (-) Patricia Vaughey

      - She submitted a list of the hotels, motels and lodgings in the area with the total amount of rooms.

      - Please send this back for a compromise. She does not want to lose this project.

      (-) Orlando Bandoni

      - The project is too large for the neighborhood and it should be reduced in size.

      - 70 feet of building will greatly change the character of the neighborhood.

      (-) Carmene Amoroso

      - He has lived on Chestnut Street for many years.

      - This project will change their lives negatively.

      (-) Andy Fields

      - He lives on Chestnut Street, in back of the proposed building.

      - This building is about the same size as the Marina Safeway.

      - Motels as this, should be placed away from residential properties.

      - This building will decrease property values. There should be a building that will increase property values.

      - He urges housing instead in the area.

      (-) John St. Cricq

      - He is concerned with the added flow of traffic happening on Lombard Street.

      - There will be great congestion in the area because of this project.

      (-) Steve Williams

      - He was delighted that Planning recommended having additional setbacks to the project.

      - The neighborhood is asking for cutbacks so it steps up from the rear.

      - This would not affect the project since the motel will still be able to make a profit.

      - This is not a permitted use under the Code.

      (+) Jim Maxwell - President of the Marina Merchants Association

      - He lives and works in the Marina.

      - It was overwhelmingly approved that the project will improve the Lombard Street corridor.

      - The owners have made significant changes to reduce the impact on adjacent neighbors.

      - The 97 rooms will allow visitors to come to the Marina, which will help small businesses.

      - He recommends that the Commission approve this Conditional Use permit.

      (-) Joan Girardot - Marina District Homeowner Improvement

      - There are about 900 hotel rooms already in the corridor.

      - She is concerned with the light and air being blocked to the neighbors.

      - This project will also set a precedent for all other hotels to come to the Planning Commission.

      - Lombard Street is a highway. Anything that the Commission does to throw the traffic to the residential streets will be a negative impact.

      (-) Kent Johnson

      - He lives behind this hotel.

      - Everyone is trying to make this the least negative as possible.

      - He will be losing his view of Pacific Heights with this project.

      - There is the issue of light and the issue of privacy.

      - He is asking for more setback or slope so that there is more light.

      ACTION: Approved with Conditions as Modified: 1) further setback of 10 feet on the third floor; 2) remove the roof deck and elevator that goes to the top of the building unless it is required by DBI; 3) locate the air conditioning units towards the East part of the building, enclose them and have noise shields on them; 4) add the mitigation measures; 5) final design details shall be reviewed by the department specifically with details and materials; 6) housing impact fees as established in Planning Code Section 351(e)(1).

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      MOTION: 16596

      11a. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - A request for Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for two alternate, mutually exclusive uses, both of which would demolish three un-rated buildings located on the project site, construct an addition connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovate that existing building, rated as Category IV under the Planning Code. The proposed addition and renovated 150 Powell Street building would have four stories, approximately 65 feet tall, and would include retail space, and an approximately 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard and lobby on the first floor. Both alternatives require a determination of compliance with the Planning Code pursuant to Section 309, with an exception to loading requirements. No parking would be provided as part of the Project. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. Option (1) would provide ground floor, basement, and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for up to 50 dwelling units, all uses permitted as of right. This alternative requires an additional exception under Section 309 (rear yard), and also must obtain variances from residential parking (13 spaces), dwelling unit exposure, and open space requirements, at a concurrent hearing before the Zoning Administrator. Option (2) would provide ground floor and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for up to 50 units of time share condominiums, categorized as a "hotel" use under the Planning Code and requiring a Conditional Use authorization. The basement would be used as accessory spa and gymnasium space for the time-share residents. This alternative has no parking requirements.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions of both Options 1 and 2.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) John McNolty - Project Architect

      - This project will provide up to 50 residential units.

      - The design of the building respects the integrity of the buildings in the block.

      - This project is located on one of San Francisco's busiest corners.

      (+) Steve Atkinson - Representing Project Sponsor

      - Both uses, residential and timeshare are appropriate for the area.

      - He requests that the Commission approve this project.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      NAYES: Boyd and Feldstein

      ABSENT: Hughes

      MOTION: 16597

      11b. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - A request for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow up to 50 units of timeshare use (classified as a hotel) under Sections 216(b)(i) and 303 of the Planning Code. The proposed project would demolish three unrated buildings located on the project site, construct an addition connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovate that existing building, rated as Category IV under the Planning Code. The proposed addition and renovated 150 Powell Street building would have four stories, approximately 65 feet tall, and would include retail space, and an approximately 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard and lobby on the first floor. No parking or off-street loading would be provided as part of the Project. The project would provide ground floor and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for the 50 units of time share units. The basement would be used as accessory spa and gymnasium space for the timeshare residents. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 11a.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      NAYES: Feldstein

      ABSENT: Hughes

      MOTION: 16598

      11c. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - A request for variances from (1) residential parking requirements (a 13 space parking variance); (2) residential open space requirements (a proposed courtyard that provides the required square footage does not meet the light and air standards for common residential open space); and (3) dwelling unit exposure requirements. The proposed project would create up to 50 dwelling units by demolishing three unrated buildings located on the project site, constructing an addition connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovating that existing building, rated as Category IV under Article 11 of the Planning Code. The proposed addition and renovated 150 Powell Street building would have four stories, approximately 65 feet tall, and would include retail space, and an approximately 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard and lobby on the first floor. No parking would be provided as part of the Project. The project would provide ground floor, basement, and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for up to 50 dwelling units, all uses permitted as of right. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 11a.

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

      12. 2000.778C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

          1414 VALENCIA STREET (a.k.a. 1416 VALENCIA STREET - being a through lot to Poplar Alley, between 25th and 26th Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 6531 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow [1] the expansion of a non-residential use size in excess of 2,999 square feet pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.2, 726.21, and 790.130, and in excess of 2,000 square feet pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 500-02 (Mission District Interim Controls) and [2] the establishment of an `other institutions, large' use on a second floor pursuant to Planning Code Sections 726.81 and 790.50(d). The proposal is to expand an existing church ("Tabernacle of Faith Missionary Baptist Church") by approximately 1,800 square feet on the ground and second stories. The property is within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and the Valencia Street sub-area of the Mission District Interim Controls.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

      MOTION: 16599

      13. 2002.0477C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          351-363 SHOTWELL STREET - east side between 17th and 18th Streets; Lot 067 and 113 in Assessor's Block 3574 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to: 1) allow a nonconforming use under Planning Code Section 185(e) to change from a light industrial use to a non-profit arts activity known as Oberlin Dance Collective/San Francisco; and, 2) to allow the replacement of a production-distribution-repair (PDR) use with a non-PDR use under the Mission District Interim Controls (MDIC). The site is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within the MDIC Area.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Brenda Way - Artistic Director of ODC

      - The current location of the dance collective is getting very crowded.

      - They are looking forward to making their new location be a place where the artists can feel creative.

      - The neighborhood is in support of this project.

      - She read a letter from a resident who is in support of the project but was unable to stay.

      (+) Richard Marquez - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

      - He is in support of this project.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      MOTION: 16600

      14. 2003.0166C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          2068-2070 MISSION STREET - west side between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 3569 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.54 and 790.60, to establish a massage use as part of a personal service use on the second floor of a two-story building, within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District, a 80-B Height and Bulk District, and within the Mission District Interim Controls Area.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Christopher Hall - Counsel for Applicant - Sheri Duchin

      - This is not a massage parlor.

      - There will be facials, manicure/pedicures, waxing, etc. Along with these services there will be massages done by licensed massage therapists.

      - This is a necessary and desirable service for the area.

      - The project sponsor is a licensed cosmetologist as well as a massage therapist.

      - The project sponsor has also had a business similar to the proposed project in Palo Alto.

      (-) Richard Marquez - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

      - This project should not be allowed in this family-oriented area.

      - This is not a necessary or desirable use.

      (+) Patrick Kong

      - He is a former employee of Sheri Duchin.

      - He came because the lady he has worked with for four years is just trying to make an honest business.

      - Ms. Duchin has been trained in massage from her father.

      - This is a good project and the owner is an established role model.

      (+) Marion

      - The project sponsor is very professional.

      - She recommends the project sponsor because she has been a very good employer for about 5 years.

      (+) Van Lee - Project Architect

      - She is available for questions.

      (+) Sheri Duchin

      - She wants to provide a healthy service for the public.

      - She inherited this from her grandfather who was a master acupuncturist.

      - There are a lot of people who need a massage.

      - The salon will provide many services like: facials, waxing, manicure/pedicure, etc.

      ACTION: Intent to approve. Final language: June 26, 2003.

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

      NAYES: Antonini

      ABSENT: Hughes

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

    At approximately 8:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

      15. 2003.0398D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          4386 26TH STREET - north side of the street between Douglass and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 6556 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.11.12.1134, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition on a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      SPEAKER(S):

      Re: Continuance

      Harry Conick

      - The reason for the continuance request is that the attorneys could not be present.

      - The project was then continued to June 26, 2003 but he will not be present on that date.

      - There are a lot of questions that still need to be answered.

      - For all these reasons he would like to have a continuance of this project.

      Matt Webber - Goldstein, Gelllman, Melbostad, et. al.

      - He opposes a continuance because he feels that there is a sense of stalling the project.

      - Most everyone is here to discuss the project right now.

      - There have been a lot of discussions with the neighborhood and no one opposes the project.

      - The DR requestor asked for a continued date earlier.

      - He urges the Commission to hear this matter now.

      Steve Webber

      - Everyone is here to hear the project today.

      - He would like to get on with the project.

      Bek Young Ahn - Project Architect

      - He is not in support of a continuance.

      (did not state name)

      - It is really late already and she did not make arrangements for childcare.

      - It is very difficult for her to stay so late.

      Re: Merits of the Project

      (-) Howard Conick - Discretionary Review Requestor

      - They purchased their home with the understanding that the window in question is a legal window.

      - There is any number of plans that could be proposed that would compromise.

      - The project sponsor has not made any good neighbor concessions.

      - They have even proposed to pay for the redrawing of architectural plans if there would be compromise.

      (-) Liz Conick

      - They purchased the house as it was.

      - Although the window in question is not the only window in the room it will create some inconvenience for them.

      - The window is in a room that is enjoyed by the entire family.

      - They have been willing to speak to their neighbor but he has not been able to compromise.

      (+) Mathew Webber - Representing Project Sponsor

      - This project is entirely a family project.

      - The Discretionary Review requestor has tried to stop the project simply because of the lot line window.

      - What possible solution is there? What possible good neighbor gesture is there?

      - The Discretionary Review requestor is just trying to stall this project.

      - There is only 900 square feet in the addition.

      - This is a case in which Discretionary Review should not be exercised.

      (+) Baek Young Ahn - Project Architect

      - He described the architectural aspects of the proposed addition and the various options that were considered.

      (+) Steve Webber

      - The proposed project has been their family home for many years.

      - More and more of family affairs happen at the proposed home and they would like to continue using this as a family home.

      - He hopes that the Commission will allow this project to go forward.

      ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      16a. 2002.1171DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

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

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 22, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      16b. 2002.1171DV (M. WOODS: (4150 558-6315)

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 22, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Zoning Administrator continued the item to June 26, 2003.

      17a. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

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

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2003)

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

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      17b. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          891 CAROLINA STREET - east side, between 20th Street and 22nd Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Request for a front setback Variance for the construction of a new second story in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project proposes an increase from one to two dwelling units.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2003)

          NOTE: On March 20, 2003, the Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to April 3, 2003. On April 3, 2003, the Zoning Administrator continued this item to April 24, 2003. On April 24, 2003, the matter was continued to May 15, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, the Zoning Administrator continued the item to June 19,2003

      18. 2003.0393DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          1336 18TH AVENUE - east side between Irving and Judah Streets, Lot 004H in Assessor's Block 1772 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.18.3787 proposing to add a new third floor and a partial fourth floor to a two-story single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project also proposes to add a second dwelling unit and a second parking space.

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

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Teresa Yee- 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

      - Her family has lived in their home for about 12 years.

      - She was shocked when the Planning Department told them that her neighbor wanted to add two floors to his house.

      - Two neighbors and her presented a petition to the Project Sponsor detailing their concerns and proposed modifications to the project.

      - They tried very hard to come to a solution of their differences.

      - All the buildings in the block are either two or three stories. This project will create the first four-story house and change the character of the neighborhood.

      - This project will also have a traffic impact on the neighborhood.

      (-) Cheryl Schudel - 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

      - This project will affect the light coming into her home.

      - There is a neighbor who could not attend the hearing but is also concerned about diminishing light.

      - She hopes that the Commission will not approve the project.

      - There are neighbors here who are not in support of the project.

      (-) Joel Silverstein

      - The project sponsor has never met with the neighbors.

      - Traffic and parking are an important community issue.

      - The project sponsor states that one of the reasons for this project is to make it earthquake safe, he believes that to do that you just have to bolt the foundation and not create a 4th story or a unit in the basement.

      (-) Shirley Silverstein

      - The proposed project will only add to the already congested neighborhood.

      (-) Marianna Gorelik

      - She shares the same concern as her neighbors.

      - This project will negatively affect the neighborhood character.

      (-) Abraham Jen

      - There is a fire station nearby and the proposed project would cause more traffic, which would impede the access of the fire trucks.

      - He is concerned also that the proposed project will change the character of the neighborhood.

      - His wife is pregnant and she is due in September, the construction noise will disrupt his wife and future child.

      (-) Melinda Yee

      - She is the daughter of Teresa.

      - She opposes the fourth floor.

      - By granting the demands of the project sponsor, the Commission will be ignoring the concerns of the neighbors.

      (+) Yevgeniy Bogodist - Project Sponsor

      - He started this project to make more space for his son.

      - The fourth floor will be a small bedroom in the back of the house.

      - This addition will cost him a lot of money and will be loosing his sunroom.

      - The attic will not shed shadow to his neighbors.

      - His building will not change the neighborhood because there are houses that have fourth floors in the neighborhood.

      (+) Clyde Bogodist

      - The parking space might create a traffic problem. But this will only happen in the morning when parents are dropping off children at the school.

      - There is a lot of parking available during different times and different days of the week.

      (+) Wilson Ng

      - He has met with the appropriate departments regarding the design aspects of the project.

      (+) (did not state name)

      - The proposed project will not affect his property.

      - When the school is closed there are no parking spaces on that street

      ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications: 1) Remove the proposed fourth floor; internally connect the habitable space in the ground story with the dwelling unit above.

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      19. 2003.0044D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

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

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

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

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 22, 2003)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Jeremy Paul

      - The house, which will be demolished, was modified in the 40s and it has substandard living conditions.

      (+) Patrick Buscovich - Structural Engineer

      - This building is beyond help.

      - The proposed structure has foundation problems because it was originally built as a one storage cottage and then a second story was built.

      - There is a legal addition, which has no windows. The living room has no window, etc.

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      20. 2002.0902D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

          843 SAN JOSE AVENUE - east side between Kingston and Brooke Streets; Lot 35 in Assessor's Block 6660 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.07.25.2294, proposing to demolish the existing one-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the proposal.

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Steve Saco - Project Sponsor

      - The foundation and electrical system are in very bad condition.

      - The structural engineer can say the same thing.

      - This project will create a two-unit building and will add more character to the neighborhood.

      (+) William Gilmore - Project Architect

      - He is available for questions.

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

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

      NAYES: Feldstein

      ABSENT: Hughes

      21. 2003.0252D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

          2130 24th STREET - north side between Rhode Island and De Haro Streets; Lot 36 in Assessor's Block 4217 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.06.2942, proposing to demolish the existing one-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the proposal.

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      22a. 2003.0346DV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          701 LOMBARD STREET - bounded between Lombard and Mason Streets and Columbus Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0074 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001.12.20.5662S, a proposal to demolish a parking lot and to construct a new four-story, mixed-use building containing nine dwelling units, ground floor retail, and nine off-street parking spaces. The subject property is located in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

      ABSENT: Hughes

      22b. 2003.0346DV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          701 LOMBARD STREET - usable open space variance sought. The proposed project is to demolish a parking lot and to construct a new four-story, mixed-use building containing nine dwelling units, ground floor retail, and nine off-street parking spaces. The subject property is located in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider a request for a variance from requirements for usable open space.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, the Zoning Administrator continued the item to June 26, 2003.

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

    Sue Hestor

    Re: packets to Commissioners

    - She has a case that will go before the Commission next week.

    - There should be rules established on what has to be submitted by developers to allow people to submit information.

    - There are situations when the project sponsor does not submit 11x17 plans.

    - It is difficult for her to submit her briefs without seeing/getting readable plans.

    - Projects should not be scheduled until all the information has been submitted including the 11x17 plans.

Adjournment: 10:00 p.m.

    THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2003.

    SPEAKERS: None

    ACTION: Approved

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

    ABSENT: Boyd

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