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

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

July 31, 2003 (Special Meeting)

July 31, 2003 (Special Meeting)

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Special Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, July 31, 2003
1:30 PM

Special Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Edgar E. Boyd, Kevin Hughes, Lisa Feldstein,
Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT ANTONINI AT 1:33 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian - Deputy City Attorney; Kay Simonson; Geoffrey Nelson; Ben Fu; Tom Wang; Tina Tam; Dario Jones; Carol Roos; Adam Light; David Alumbaugh; Matt Snyder; Mark Luellen; 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.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      1. Commission Comments/Questions

        Re: Status of Director Green's Departure

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        Last week I requested that the city attorney provide an opinion on Director Green's comments about his departure. We have received that but have not had a chance to review it so I wanted to know if it would be appropriate for the City Attorney to walk us through what we have been handed?

        Commissioner Antonini:

        That would be all right with me.

        Deputy City Attorney, Judy Boyajian:

        Commissioners, a lot of the opinion is a description of the legal laws and Charter requirements that apply to the Director's leave and the appointment of people to perform some assigned functions while he is away. I think the short summary at the beginning pretty well sets out the conclusion of the City Attorney, which is that the leave of absence is a policy matter subject to the approval or disapproval of the Commission--the appointing authority. There was some confusion last week I think about who does the appointment, the Mayor or Commission.

        When there is a vacancy in the office of the Planning Director, the Mayor and the Commission share the appointment. The Commission sends over three names and the Mayor selects from that list. There is no vacancy, as I understand it. He will retain the office, he will still be the Planning Director so there is no vacancy.

        The Commission only has the authority to remove the Director. The Mayor can only request that the Commission remove the Director. So because you have the power to remove or retain the Director, that makes you the appointing authority for the purposes of approving a leave. The Director, as the Director has authority to assign certain duties to be performed while he is away. It is within his discretion to select a member of the staff to perform those functions that he can delegate while he is absent.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        So did you say it is the Mayor's responsibility to approve the leave or it's the Commission?

        Deputy City Attorney:

        The Commission's.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        So that is an action that we have not taken.

        Deputy City Attorney:

        Well, you have not disapproved it. I don't think you need to take a formal {action}. It's sort of like the Director going on a long, long vacation. I do not think you need a formal act to approve or disapprove. But it is clearly at your pleasure whether you think that the Director can perform the function of Director as he slated out. He believes he can. It is my understanding that he will be back a week a month and be in constant communication.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        So would it be the opinion of the Office of the City Attorney that the Director is supposed to make that request of the Commission so that the Commission can evaluate whether or not the Director can perform those functions and make that determination? The fact that we have neither made nor approved or disapproved the Director's leave is because we have not actually had this discussion.

        Deputy City Attorney:

        Exactly. I know that I heard the Director make this announcement many months ago. I guess there was some unclarity about who's decision it was. I do not believe you need to take ... He needs to make an official request or an official formal action on your calendar. I think it's at your pleasure. Someone wanted to put it on the calendar, you could debate it and act on it. I don't think that is a legal requirement.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        Okay, I will for the fourth time request that this item be calendared for discussion. I do not need to make a motion. Thank you, Ms. Boyajian.

        Deputy City Attorney:

        We also, in the opinion, did indicate that the Director was fully in power to discuss this with the Mayor and get the Mayor's input. There is no problem with that at all. But, it's the Director's decision who to assign as Acting Director and Acting Zoning Administrator.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        So, the Mayor has input, if the Director seeks the input. The Mayor has input into who the Acting Director and Acting Zoning Administrator is but he [the Director] is not required to seek that input.

        Deputy City Attorney:

        No, he can ask - the Director can seek the input of anyone he wishes in that decision.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        So, the Mayor did not make this decision?

        Deputy City Attorney:

        It is my understanding that the Mayor did not make this decision. Maybe the Director will clarify that in his Director announcements.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        I believe that the Director was clear about this point last week. And perhaps the Director wishes to clarify the statements he made last week. But what I am looking for is an actual legal opinion about the Director's status in this decision making process. And, what you are saying, as I understand it, is that to the best of your understanding this is what occurred. And what I am trying to understand is what is supposed to occur. Whether or not what you understood to have occurred is consistent with what was to have occurred.

        Deputy City Attorney:

        Yes. It is consistent with what... My understanding is that what occurred was consistent with what should have occurred. The only thing that seems to be unclear is whether the Commission wants to take some formal action on it or just let it be, or not object to the leave.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        All right. I have asked, not during Commissioner comments, but I have asked staff to calendar this item before and it has not been calendared to date. Hopefully that will occur at this time.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        Well, I just would like to comment briefly on the leave of Director Green. San Francisco, in my opinion, is one of, or the best city in the country. And when institutions like Harvard have the ability to look at comparable cities that have the same sort of complexities and competing interests, that they have a pool of applicants that are well qualified and highly qualified, that they would select and offer that position or that Fellowship to Director Green, I believe this says an awful lot about his ability and his reputation as a Director. To be recognized by an institution like Harvard, I think is something that is really commendable and should not, in my opinion ... Well what should happen is that you should be able to pursue a Fellowship at a institution like Harvard would be my thoughts on that.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        Re: Changes in CEQA Laws

        - She requested a briefing from the City Attorney's office related to CEQA and what actions the Board can take and what votes are required to take specific actions related to projects, etc.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Calendar for September

        - A point of clarification on the calendar: During September we will alternate weeks between Discretionary Reviews (DR) and Conditional Use (CU) cases. It is his understanding that on some days DRs will be heard first and if time permits, there will be CUs at the end, and the next week it would be reversed. This will be a trial for September and after that it will be at the pleasure of the Chair.

        - This will be on a trial method and [we] may or may not return to the regular way projects have been scheduled.

        Commission Secretary responded to Commissioner Antonini's Comment:

        - On the days where there are Discretionary Review cases there will not be Conditional Uses or any other matters scheduled on the calendar. The alternating days will be on the types of cases. So Discretionary Reviews will be scheduled together on one date and Conditional Uses/Other Matters will be scheduled on another date--not both on the same day.

        Re: Director Green's Departure

        - He wished Director Green well and is happy to work with Acting Director Badiner.

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        Re: Discussion on Director Green's Leave Scheduled

        - She agrees that it is important to have this issue scheduled because the public needs to know what is the "trickle down" effect of Director Green leaving the Department. To her, the issue of the Commission taking an action is irrelevant.

        Commissioner Bill Lee:

        Re: Job Performance Reviews

        - He would like to have scheduled the job performance review for Planning Commission staff and this should be done on a yearly basis.

        RE: Budget

        - He requested budget information and an organizational chart of the Department.

        - He would like to know what money was appropriated to meet the goals/objectives of the Department for this year.

        - He is still confused on what the priorities of the Department are and what are the priorities of the Commission.

        Director Green Responded to Commissioner Bill Lee's Comment:

        - The Commission does have an organizational chart in the work program and there will be a hearing in the near future to set the priorities.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        Re: Director Green's Departure

        - Is today the last hearing the Director will be in attendance?

        - Is there an estimated date of return?

        Director Green Responded to Commissioner Hughes's Comment:

        - This is the last hearing.

        - The program ends in June 2004 and if given the opportunity he would like to return to the Department.

        - There is always the opportunity to review this issue.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        - Will the Director let the Commission know in advance when he will be returning and what Commission hearing dates he will be attending?

        Director Green Responded to Commissioner Feldstein's Question:

        - He will provide this information to the Commission. He will be back in October, November and December and January will not be consistent.

        - A calendar will be printed for staff, and the Commission will be provided with this information.

        Nilka Julio - Local 21

        Re: Director Green's Departure

        - She thanked the Commission for asking questions that support the participatory process. This is the reason there are commissions.

        - On behalf of the Union, she wished Director Green well on his endeavors and offered her assistance to Acting Director Badiner.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      2. Director's Announcements

        Re: His Departure

        - It was never his intent to confuse, mislead or to add to any tension or difficulty.

        - He thought he had all the information.

        - He has not had time to review the information provide by the Deputy City Attorney.

        - His departure is a leave and he apologized for anything that was misleading.

        - He has worked out an arrangement with the Fellowship so that he can return to the office one week out of the month.

        - He hopes that the Commission will schedule the discussion on this issue on the days where he will be at the Department.

        Re: Future Calendars

        - September 4, would be projects that require Conditional Use, Environmental Review Appeals, etc. and September 11 would be a date for Discretionary Reviews only.

        - On days where Discretionary Reviews are scheduled, he hopes that the Commission will agree to schedule presentations/briefings that don't require an action but may help on deliberation for future cases.

        Re: Housing Element

        - The 18th and 25th of September would be target dates to schedule this issue.

        - If the Commission requires this issue to be discussed on the 18th of September then the alternating schedule will be moved back. If the decision is to hear this on the 25th of September then there would be no problem as it falls in line with his previous suggestion to hear non-action items on dates reserved for Discretionary Reviews.

        Marilyn Amini:

        - She requests that the hearing on the housing element not be before October and not to close public comment until San Francisco residents have adequate notice.

        - Daily, she meets people that have not heard about the housing element being scheduled.

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

      BOS - None

      BOA - None

      4. Set future public hearing to receive further public testimony on the Residence Element.

        - August 18, 2003 or August 25, 2003 are proposed dates to have this item scheduled.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Sheila Mahoney

        - She owns her home on Duncan Street.

        - She is concerned about the proposed density height and bulk. If the Residence Element were allowed, there would be no opportunity for the community to comment.

        - She is asking for official notification for property owners who live in a neighborhood commercial district.

        Marilou Lascari

        - She agrees with the previous speaker.

        - There should be proper notification for property owners so that there could be input on the Residence Element.

        - She thanks the Commission and the department for the care they have taken so far on this issue.

        - If there are no resources to make changes to the code, it should not be done until it's done properly.

        Jeff Hagan - Francisco Heights Civic Association

        - He proposed a special hearing on Saturday which would enable concerned parties who cannot take days off from work.

        - He recommended October 4, 2003 as a Saturday for this hearing.

        - Transit corridor has not been defined so it would be good to clarify this during the hearing.

        Allison Howard - Francisco Heights Civic Association

        - She requested more hearing on this issue. She is part of a homeowner's association and did not know about this issue.

        - She agrees with having a hearing on a Saturday.

        - She asked to extend the public hearing and to notify the public.

        Eileen Boken

        - She requested to keep the public comment process open.

        - She would also like to have a hearing on this issue in November or December of this year.

        Mary Beth Starzel

        - She lives in the Richmond District.

        - She urged the Commission to have more than one single hearing on an issue this enormous.

        - This is too immense for just one public hearing.

        - It is important to have clear and coherent language that means the same to everyone.

        - This document has out of date statistical data and it should not be approved yet.

        Rebecca Silverberg - Council of District Merchants

        - She is here representing the Council of District Merchants.

        - There are a lot of issues that the Commission has not dealt with: parking near small business, owning a small business, etc.

        Sue Hestor

        - She does want this process to be over, but she would like things to be done correctly.

        - It is important to do creative things with the calendars because items like these need to call out attention to the public.

        - It is time for staff to straighten out the notice process.

        Maria Sousa

        - She supports additional hearings on this issue.

        - She does not support a hearing on October 4, 2003 because additional Commissioners will have comments and a new version will be issued.

        - She supports a hearing on a Saturday but only if more people who are affected actually get a version of the Housing Element.

        Paula Romanovsky - Francisco Heights Neighborhood Association

        - She asked for more time and more hearings in order for the public to find out what this means.

        - She is a member of the Board of the San Francisco Education Fund.

        - She believes that this housing element will force more families to leave the City, which will cause education to deteriorate.

        Steve Currier

        - It is important to get the definition of a transit corridor.

        - This document takes a lot of time to read.

        - The property owners and residents of San Francisco need to be aware of the next meetings.

        - He agrees with having two or three hearings on Saturdays.

        Andrew Griffin

        - This plan is nothing but a first class railroad job.

        - The October 4 date should be in 2004.

        ACTION: Schedule the Housing Element for October 9, 2003 starting at 5:00 p.m. with a regular calendar starting at 1:30 p.m.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

D. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      Procedures governing DR Hearings are as follow: DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the DR Requestor(s) are provided with up to three (3) minutes each. The Project Sponsor is then provided with up to five (5) minutes for a presentation and those in support of the project are provided with up to three (3) minutes each. At the conclusion, each side (not each person) is provided with 2 minutes for a rebuttal.

        5. 2003.0519D (K. SIMONSON: 415-558-6321)

        1111 STANYAN STREET - west side between Parnassus Avenue and Grattan Street, Lot 4 in Assessor's Block 2630 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.02.13.7368, proposing to legalize the merger of two dwelling units to create a single-family dwelling. The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Catherine Kiernat - Project Architect

        - They have done extensive research on this house and found that the original plans for the house were of a single-family home.

        - This project will have no affect on the housing supply of the City because for the last decade no one has been living in the other unit. So there is no tenant displacement.

        - This project is being treated as a historical resource.

        - The owner will occupy the units.

        (+) Tom Sloan - Project Sponsor

        - He is here to answer any questions the Commission has.

        - He is restoring the house to its original floor plan.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

        6. 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.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Cris Ford

        - He displayed an aerial map of the subject property and his home, explaining how the open space in the rear yard would be lessened.

        - He displayed photographs of the 30-foot open space in the rear.

        - Although the project sponsor has reduced the bulk of the building, there are still concerns about light, air and the way the project splits a great asset of the neighborhood.

        (-) April Ford

        - It is difficult to try to determine which is a balance in a neighborhood.

        - They have done a lot of community work; they have met with neighbors, and community works, etc.

        - They are concerned with what is being built in the neighborhood.

        - They just want a design that is compatible with the neighborhood.

        (-) Ilya Berman

        - He is not in support of this project because the structure would block much of the sunlight to his kitchen and bedroom.

        - The project will be much taller than his building.

        - The scale and bulk are just too large.

        - He asked that the new building have an 8-foot clearance form his bedroom windows.

        - He asked that a skylight be installed in the rooms that will be affected. This would be at the cost of the project sponsor.

        (-) Julia Molander

        - She just found out about this yesterday but decided to come to the Commission because she is very concerned about the impacts of this project.

        - The unique character of the block is two and three story residences. There are many trees on the block that which are very dear to the neighbors.

        - She is concerned that the project is out of line with the roofline and the size of the houses. She is concerned with traffic, safety and health.

        - Parking is virtually impossible in the City, and worse in certain neighborhoods.

        (-) Steve Williams

        - This block has been designated as inappropriate for this type of project.

        - This project is two units? There are six and ½ baths.

        - The project is just too out of scale.

        - The existing unit has to be subject to a notice of special restriction for rent control.

        (-) Lisa Bohorquez

        - She has lived in the neighborhood since 1995.

        - She feels that this is a great place for her to live.

        - This neighborhood has a true community feel.

        - She is sad to see her neighborhood be divided by a project that dissects the rear yard.

        (-) Dane Paderson

        - He has lived in a cottage for four years.

        - This is a situation of a developer coming in and exceeding the limits of what the Planning Code allows.

        - He is in favor of taking Discretionary Review.

        (-) John Sun

        - He remembers when San Francisco had a low skyline.

        - People hated the idea of having a skyline looking like New York.

        - He has seen both progress and development in the City. This has brought jobs, people and tourism, but San Francisco is loosing its small neighborhood feel.

        - Tall buildings should be kept in downtown and not in the neighborhoods.

        (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

        - He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project.

        (+) David Chung

        - He apologized for causing such frustration to the neighbors.

        - His family is very extensive and this project would allow the family to live together.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

        ACTION: Passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications: 1) design refinement to the façade with modifications to the parapets 2) garage should be modified to be deeper in order to better maneuver around the space and add an additional car; 3) eliminate the crawl space to provide that area for parking; 4) reduce the fourth floor back to be equal to the building of the south. Schedule for Final Action on August 21, 2003.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

        7. 2003.0344D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

            1222 REVERE AVENUE - north side of Revere Avenue between Hawes and Ingalls Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 4762 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.11.20.1933 proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. There are related proposals for a lot subdivision to create two legal lots, and the construction of two new, two-family, two-story over garage buildings.

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

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 19, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Reza Khoshnevisan - Project Engineer/Designer

        - The condition of this building has deteriorated. Over the years it has been neglected-the roof leaks, damage from seismic activity, and lack of maintenance.

        - The foundation on this building is cracked and it's in bad shape.

        - The east and west walls along the property lines on two sides are off the foundation so the building needs to be lifted and the floors leveled.

        - There are many areas in this structure that are dry-rotted. There is fungus and mold. The footings in the garage area have gone through the garage slab from lack of support. And the floor joists and roof rafters are way under design.

        - In order to restore this building, the building needs to be raised. Quite honestly, he is not sure that this building is going to stand this type of movement.

        (-) Kurtis Oaks

        - He is in complete support of the demolition of this building and two new duplexes being built on this site.

        - This project will improve the neighborhood which has been neglected for many, many years.

        - When improvements to the neighborhood like this project are approved, people in the neighborhood feel that someone cares about the Bayview District.

        (+) Mona Barron

        - She is happy to see that this property will have a new face and occupancy, which is badly needed in the neighborhood.

        - There are a lot of riffraff and a lot of calls to the police.

        - There are children playing on the lot and there is danger that the building would collapse.

        - There were a few neighbors who left but are in support of this project.

        (+) Paul Barron

        - He supports the demolition and construction of this project.

        (+) Roque Fernandez

        - This property was in a dilapidated condition when he purchased it. The owner was an elderly person and was not able to maintain the building.

        - The entire framework has dry rot.

        - If there is one property in the City that needs to be demolished it is this one.

        - There are no tenants that will be displaced.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with conditions: 1) increase the garage depth to 30 feet; 2) make an internal connection of the ground level common room so as not to permit an illegal unit on the ground level; 3) flip the two buildings so that the garages are side by side so as to maximize the on-street parking space; 4) mention in the findings the desirability of the units going to section 8 voucher holders and rental.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and Feldstein

        8. 2001.0637D (B. FU: (415) 558-6313)

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

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 17, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Shilpa Shonkan - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - The property is actually a two-story building. It is incorrectly stated as a three-story building.

        - She is not against property owners doing construction on their homes.

        - She realizes that this is a difficult project.

        - She has two key issues: 1) the impact on the character of the neighborhood; and 2) the impact on the rear block open space.

        - There is also an issue with the reduction of light and air because the project would impact many rooms to her home.

        - No matter how this project is modified, she realizes that her view would be block.

        (-) Greg Rassmussen

        - He does not want to deny the project sponsor to build this project.

        - He is just concerned with minimizing the impact of light and air to his property.

        - No other buildings on the block have a third floor.

        - He would like to have the penthouse removed which would allow for less of an impact on light and air.

        (-) Leora Vestell

        - She lives one block from the proposed project.

        - The project lacks good neighbor design elements.

        - The project will have huge impacts on the neighborhood.

        - The roof should be similar to the ones on the rest of the homes on the block.

        - The DR requestor does not have the funds for a land use lawyer but she hopes that the Commission understands the needs and the impact to the Discretionary Review requestor.

        (-) Jennifer Bay

        - She supports the property owners right to expand their home but minimizing the structure could reach the objectives requested by the Discretionary Review requestor.

        - The project is not compatible with the structures on the street.

        (-) Yoke Pearing

        - He moved here from Holland in March of this year.

        - The unit he occupies has only one window and this window will be impacted by the proposed structure.

        - He is afraid that his unit will acquire the feel of a basement.

        (+) Dennis Smith - Project Sponsor

        - The proposed changes the Discretionary Review requestor is making will not reduce the impact significantly.

        - The planning staff states that the building will not be massive and is consistent with the residential design guidelines.

        - He has had many meetings with the Discretionary Review requestor and suggested installing [a] skylight to their home.

        (+) Lalo Cabral

        - This is his mother's property.

        - He has tried to compromise with the neighbors many times.

        - He is moving into this property to take care of his mother.

        - He has two children and his wife, so they really need the space.

        - He has spent hours trying to design and build to the best he could and not impact the neighbors.

        (+) Mathew Clyne

        - He recommends the approval of this project because it will improve the street.

        - He does not believe that this project will set a precedent in the neighborhood.

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

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and Feldstein

        9. 2003.0389D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

        111 LOBOS STREET - south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 7104 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.07.15.1446, proposing to demolish an existing two-story, single-family dwelling (the project also proposes to subdivide the existing lot into two separate lots and construct a new two-story, single-family dwelling on each of the two lots) in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 11, 2003.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

        10. 2003.0597D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

            263 & 265 DOLORES STREET - east side between 15th and 16th Streets; Lot 30 in Block 3556. Discretionary Review request for a Building Permit (No. 2003.02.18.7705s) to allow conversion of existing storage space on the ground floor into a habitable area. The conversion will result in the addition of one new dwelling unit for a total of three units on the subject property. The property is in the RM-1 (Residential, Low Density District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary review and approved as submitted.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Steve Dells

        - He lives on Dolores Street next door to the subject project.

        - The main concern with the project is the open-air parking and the stairs that would invade his bedroom and his neighbor's dining room.

        - This project is contrary to neighbor sensitivity. This project has not been well thought out.

        (-) Michelle Leese - Holy Family Day Home

        - She has had a licensed day care center on Dolores Street for about nine years.

        - She is concerned with the additional parking spaces on Dolores Street.

        - They are worried that the noise and fumes of the cars would be very unhealthy for the children and the teachers.

        - The day care center does not want to be a bad neighbor but their primary concern is the children.

        - She requested that a third party environmental study be done to measure the health risk from fumes that would affect the children.

        (-) James Bowsher

        - He is a long-time resident of Dolores Street.

        - He is in favor of Discretionary Review because he is very concerned about fumes and noise from parking in the rear yard. This would be very close to his dining room.

        - There has never been parking at the location proposed.

        - He is terrified that this lack of management will be repeated on the other side of the block.

        - There have been two "hot" robberies since the developer took over the building.

        - He project sponsor finally decided to install a gate. Security is a huge issue.

        (+) Simon Quan - Project Architect

        - He displayed photographs of the subject property

        - He displayed an aerial photograph of the area explaining the location of the parking lot in comparison to the day care center.

        (+) Sabrina Mo

        - She read statements from tenants at the subject property who are in support of the project.

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

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and Feldstein

        11. 2003.0471D (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

        764 PACHECO STREET - east side between Aerial Way and 12th Avenue, Lot 14 in Assessor's Block 2123A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003/02/18/7720, proposing to construct a two-story, rear horizontal extension to the existing two-story, single-family residence. The subject property is in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        as modified.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Samuel Change - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He lives next door to the subject property.

        - He is concerned with the negative impact the project will have on the light and air coming to his house.

        - All he is asking for is a further setback on the second story addition.

        - The rear yard is unstable so there is a need for the project sponsor to do some landscaping and create a wall so that the soil does not go onto his property.

        - He gets along with the project sponsor but what he is asking for is minimal.

        (+) Nelson Chiu - project architect

        - The problem with this project is that a designer starts building something that somebody probably does not like for whatever reason.

        - His work has complied with all the Planning Department's suggestions as far as the building code and has tried to get this project going.

        - The project sponsor is running out of room for he and his growing family to have decent living space.

        - The options are to add on a room upstairs. The basement right now has 7 feet, less than 7 feet head room clearance, so that makes the addition to the rear of the building without increasing the height of existing building height the best option.

        - He feels that the addition will not block any light and air to the neighbor.

        (+) Kid Chan

        - She has two children and currently her home is very small. She would like to expand to make more room for her family.

        - With the five foot setback on the side, there would be enough light and air to her neighbor's property.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: 1) delete ground floor, 2) issue a notice of special restriction to designate the property as a single-family dwelling; 3) the recreation and family room shall be combined. Deck and the set back should remain as proposed.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and Feldstein

5:00 P.M. 7:15 p.m.

E. 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: 301 Mission Street

      Jeffrey Liebovitz

      - He wants to address the issue as he did last week regarding the Rincon Hill plan and the lack of open space on mechanisms for Recreation and Park to acquire open space.

      - 301 Mission Street is another project that is going to bring 320 residential units located in the south of market.

      - There is no mechanism by which they are paying into the open space fund since there is no open space fund

      - There is a deficiency in the EIR when it comes to Recreation and Park, which is really the provider of open space for the entire city. That's what he would like this Commission to do--to try to formulate a mechanism with the planning department and their staff when the time comes, that the developer agree to pay into a fund so that Recreation and Park gets augmented.

      Sue Hestor

      - She commented on the EIR and left her comments and responses at the office.

      - She wants to talk about the insufficient response about the bridge.

      - This site was adjacent to the freeway on Beale Street. Because there was literally a death count at the intersection because of traffic accidents, the Planning Commission said it would abridge its policy and allow a pedestrian bridge.

      - So there is this rather silly pedestrian bridge that takes up half of the sidewalk width. She would like this EIR to analyze the pedestrian issues.

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

        12. 2001.0792IEKXC (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)

        301 MISSION STREET - south side of Mission Street, Lots 1 and 17 in Assessor's Block 3719 - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for demolition of three existing two- to six-story structures on the approximately 50,417-sq.-ft. project site, totaling about 173,650 gross square feet (gsf), and construction of a 58-story, 605 foot-tall, mixed used development, totaling about 1,156,500 gsf. The proposed development would contain about 130,560 gsf of office space with ground floor retail in a 9-story, 125-ft.-tall structure; and a 120-suite extended-stay hotel; 320 residential units; ground-floor retail and restaurant space in the 58-story structure; a 43-ft.-tall publicly accessible atrium; lobbies; building services; and mechanical space. There would be three off-street loading docks and four off-street van spaces, and 400 spaces of underground parking on four levels.

        NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on April 3, 2003. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Certify

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: EIR Certified

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16621

        13a. 2001.0792IEKXC (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

        301 MISSION STREET - south side of Mission Street, Lots 1 and 17 in Assessor's Block 3719 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Review of Downtown Buildings) for Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions, including: an exception to upper-tower bulk limits (Section 272); an exception to height limits for upper-tower extensions (Section 263.9); an exception to rear yard requirements (Section 134(d)); an exception to ground level wind current requirements (Section 148); and an exception to sunlight on public sidewalks (Section 146); The project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and within a 550-S/400-S Height and Bulk District. The proposed project will be constructed on a site containing three existing two-to-six story commercial structures containing approximately 100,000 square feet of office space with some ground level retail uses. The site also contains a vacant parcel that is the former site of a 126,732 square-foot office building that was red-tagged and demolished after the Loma-Prieta earthquake. A letter of determination dated July 8, 2002 from the Zoning Administrator determined that the development site had an office space credit of 126,732 square feet because the demolition of the red-tagged office building was involuntary on the part of the property owner. The proposal is to demolish the existing three structures and construct an approximately 900,000 gross square-foot structure consisting of a 58-story, 605-foot tall tower on the western portion of the site, containing approximately 320 residential units, approximately 120-units of extended stay hotel rooms, and ground floor retail uses; a 43-foot tall glass-enclosed central atrium; a 9-story, 125-foot tall office structure with approximately 130,000 gross square feet of office space, with ground level retail uses on the eastern portion of the site; and an underground four-level parking garage containing approximately 351 parking spaces.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Glenn Rescalvo - Project Architect

        - This is a world-class residential building.

        - The project will add character to the San Francisco skyline.

        - The outdoor space is a combination of spaces. There is ample space for sidewalks to allow for street furniture.

        - The atrium has ample seating, landscaping and a water fountain.

        - The garden terrace allows for ample seating and is accessible from the street and the atrium.

        - There is retail along the first floor façade.

        (+) Phillip Ahrens - Founding Partner of Millennium Partners

        - The structure will respect the skyline of San Francisco.

        - The project will bring 24-hour activity to the Transbay neighborhood.

        - The project is compatible with the Downtown Plan.

        - They coordinated the design with the surrounding neighborhood associations.

        - There will be 610 full time jobs, there will be millions of dollars to contributions, and there will be annual payments of taxes, which will generate fees to fund the Transbay renovation project.

        - They are investing millions of dollars in improving the streetscape.

        - There will be a transportation broker who will coordinate the transportation services to the area.

        - There is one significant disagreement, which is in the area of parking. Families with children need an independently accessible space for their cars. They are prepared in their compromise to allow the other spaces for the other units to exist as tentative spaces.

        (+) Jim Salinas - San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council

        - He read a letter from Stan Warren who is the president of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council who is in full support of this project because this will open thousands of construction jobs.

        (-/+) Sue Hestor

        - She has issues with the circulation because the project sponsor is asking for a lot of parking spaces.

        - The area is the most congested section of the area.

        - The pedestrian bridge should be removed.

        - She cares more about the pedestrian traffic going from north to south.

        - How is this project going to be an incentive to walk?

        - There should be a requirement to take down the Beale Street pedestrian bridge.

        (+) Anita Hill- Executive Director of the Yerba Buena Alliance

        - This is at last a tangible and high quality project that she expects to be built soon.

        - This project is near ample public parking and public transportation.

        - She read a letter from Charles Edwin Chase, President of the San Francisco Architectural Heritage who is in support of the project.

        (+) Sidney Martin

        - He has been working with Millennium Partners for many years.

        - This project adds to employment, which is needed in the area.

        - This project gives the respectability to Millennium Partners who worked closely with community groups.

        - This is another project that will help and enhance the City.

        (+) John Elberling - Executive Director of Tenants Association

        - He recommends this project because this project will begin to turn the Transbay Terminal area around.

        - There is extreme mediocrity in various buildings that were built in the 80s. This project has design quality.

        - Millennium Partners has always honored their word and kept their promises to the community.

        (+) Don Marcos - South of Market Employment Center

        - The project falls under the City's Hiring program so he is very much in support of this project.

        - Millennium Partners have contributed to training programs.

        (+) Norman Rolfe

        - One of his concerns about this project has been addressed with the accommodations of the Caltrain extension.

        - He just hopes that that is the way it goes.

        - Regarding the parking, he urges the Commission to respect the parking proposed.

        - The residential parking should be raised to 1-to-4.

        (+) Jeffrey Liebovitz

        - This project is a great addition to his neighborhood.

        - He urges the Commission to approve the parking that Millennium Partners is requesting.

        - He requested Inclusionary housing as well and hopes that this will be a condition.

        - The developer should pay into some kind of fund for the residential component.

        ACTION: CEQA Findings Adopted

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16622

        ACTION: Approved as Amended: Work with property owner at 201 Mission Street to facilitate removal of pedestrian bridge and escalator at Beale and Mission Street intersection.

        AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16624

        13b. 2001.0792E!KXC (A. LIGHT: (415)558-6254)

        301 MISSION STREET - south side of Mission Street, Lots 1 and 17 in Assessor's Block 3719 - Request under Planning Code Sections 157, 158, 223(p) and 303 for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow a major non-accessory parking garage not open to the public; and Planning Code Sections 216(b)(i) and 303 for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow hotel use in a C-3-O District. The project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and within a 550-S/400-S Height and Bulk District. The proposed project will be constructed on a site containing three existing two-to-six story commercial structures containing approximately 100,000 square feet of office space with some ground level retail uses. The site also contains a vacant parcel that is the former site of a 126,732 square-foot office building that was red-tagged and demolished after the Loma-Prieta earthquake. A letter of determination dated July 8, 2002 from the Zoning Administrator determined that the development site had an office space credit of 126,732 square feet because the demolition of the red-tagged office building was involuntary on the part of the property owner. The proposal is to demolish the existing three structures and construct an approximately 900,000 gross square-foot structure consisting of a 58-story, 605-foot tall tower on the western portion of the site, containing approximately 320 residential units, approximately 120-units of extended stay hotel rooms, and ground floor retail uses; a 43-foot tall glass-enclosed central atrium; a 9-story, 125-foot tall office structure with approximately 130,000 gross square feet of office space, with ground level retail uses on the eastern portion of the site; and an underground four-level parking garage containing approximately 351 parking spaces. Pursuant to Planning Code Sections 313 and 314, the Department has determined that the project would result in the net addition of 164,800 square feet of gross floor area of hotel use, requiring payments to the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program and the Citywide Affordable Childcare Fund.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, including reduction of the amount of proposed parking.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 13a.

        ACTION: Approved with Conditions as Amended:

          1. Reduction of independently accessible parking spaces from 280 to 184.

          2. Increase in tandem parking spaces from 71 to 171.

          3. Minimum of four car share spaces with the potential to expand to eight car share spaces if demand warrants.

        AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee

        NAYES: S. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16623

        14. 2000.1229EK/2003.0596ZMCK (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)

        BRYANT STREET RESIDENTIAL TOWER - on the western side of Seawall Lot #330, being an approximately 22,600 square-foot-portion of Assessor's Block 3771, when subdivided in accordance with a Purchase and Sale Agreement approved by the Port Commission on March 25, 2003, and by the Board of Supervisors July 15, 2003. The block is bounded by Bryant Street, Beale Street and The Embarcadero. -- Request to adopt the CEQA findings for a proposed reclassification of the site's height and bulk district from 105-F to 220-G and conforming General Plan Amendments. The zoning is Heavy Industrial (M-2) and Waterfront Special Use District No. 3. The Planning Commission certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for a Cruise Terminal Mixed Use Project, including this site, in November 2002.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Byron E. Rhett - Planning Director for the Port of San Francisco

        - The condos on the site are a mixed-use development with general office, maritime office, etc.

        - The development will generate economic benefits like union and blue-collar jobs, etc.

        - This project will generate funds to sponsor the Bryant Street Warf.

        - He feels that they have arrived with a win-win project.

        - There will be millions of dollars invested in the pier renovation.

        (+) Dan Howard - Vice President Freedman Architects

        - This location is a spectacular location.

        - The building will contain 136 units.

        - They have incorporated below market rate units as well as market rate units.

        - The building has two distinctive shoulders, these shoulders allows the glassy corners to appear light and airy.

        (-) Sue Hestor

        - The building has a mechanical room at the top of the building that does not look very good.

        - What is missing is the perspective when one is driving across the bridge.

        - She passed to the Commissioners the fundamental requirements for downtown buildings.

        (+) Jim Salinas - San Francisco Buildings and Trade Council

        - He is here to support this project because it will greatly benefit San Francisco.

        - He is asking that the Commission approve this project because the project sponsor is committed to making all jobs union.

        (+) Andrew Brooks - Rincon Point/South Beach Homeowners Association

        - The association is in full support of this project.

        - This is the result of almost three years of work from the Port, the Planning Department and neighborhood associations.

        - They did not get everything that they wanted but the important issues have been met.

        - This project fits well with the Northeast Waterfront Plan.

        (+) Jim Haas - Senior Member of the Rincon Point CAC

        - The developer has worked very closely with his association over the last five or six years.

        - There are great public benefits from the project.

        - His organization was eager to have a full block of affordable housing.

        - Putting affordable housing on this property is going to be very time consuming and would require State legislation. The developer indicated that they could not take on the task. The port indicated and promised that as soon as the cruise terminal project is approved and on it's way, they would take on the development of the rest of the property for affordable housing and take all the complicated steps to do this.

        - He urged the Commission to approve this project today and begin the promised development of an affordable housing unit structure.

        (+) Elen Jonk - Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay Planning Coalition

        - This project represents two important aspects of planning. This project is not an isolated one. It represents a very exciting and emerging shoreline. This is a perfect example of merging different ideas. The regional agencies all looked at this and balanced the needs of public trust considerations.

        (+) Jeffrey Leibovitz

        - The developer has done an excellent job for the City.

        - This is something that many people can be proud of.

        - This project will pay millions of dollars to develop the Bryant Street Warf.

        ACTION: CEQA findings adopted

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16625

        15a. 2003.0596Z (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)

        BRYANT STREET RESIDENTIAL TOWER - on the western side of Seawall Lot #330, being an approximately 22,600 square-foot-portion of Assessor's Block 3771, when subdivided in accordance with a Purchase and Sale Agreement approved by the Port Commission on March 25, 2003, and by the Board of Supervisors July 15, 2003. The block is bounded by Bryant Street, Beale Street and The Embarcadero. -- Request by the Port of San Francisco to amend the Zoning Map (Planning Code Section 302) to reclassify the height and bulk districts for part of Seawall Lot 330 from 105-F to 220-G. The zoning is Heavy Industrial (M-2) and Waterfront Special Use District No. 3. The Port has requested to amend Map 2 referred to in Policy 10.26 in the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the City's General Plan (Planning Code Section 340) to reflect the requested height and bulk change from 105-F to 220-G. The Planning Commission certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for a Cruise Terminal Mixed Use Project, including this site, in November 2002.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 14.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        RESOLUTION: 16626

        15b. 2003.0596M (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)

        BRYANT STREET RESIDENTIAL TOWER - on the western side of Seawall Lot #330, being an approximately 22,600 square-foot-portion of Assessor's Block 3771, when subdivided in accordance with a Purchase and Sale Agreement approved by the Port Commission on March 25, 2003, and by the Board of Supervisors July 15, 2003. The block is bounded by Bryant Street, Beale Street and The Embarcadero. -- Request by the Port of San Francisco to adopt conforming amendments to Map 2 referred to in Policy 10.26 in the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan of the City's General Plan to reflect the requested height and bulk change from 105-F to 220-G. The zoning is Heavy Industrial (M-2) and Waterfront Special Use District No. 3. The Port has requested height and bulk change from 105-F to 220-G. The Planning Commission certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for a Cruise Terminal Mixed Use Project, including this site, in November 2002.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 14.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        RESOLUTION: 16627

        15c. 2003.0596C (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)

        BRYANT STREET RESIDENTIAL TOWER - on the western side of Seawall Lot #330, being an approximately 22,600 square-foot-portion of Assessor's Block 3771, when subdivided in accordance with a Purchase and Sale Agreement approved by the Port Commission on March 25, 2003, and by the Board of Supervisors July 15, 2003. The block is bounded by Bryant Street, Beale Street and The Embarcadero. The zoning is Heavy Industrial (M-2) and Waterfront Special Use District No. 3. -- San Francisco Cruise Terminal, LLC, has requested (1) Conditional Use Authorization under sections 240.3, 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to permit a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the construction of a new 22-story, 220-foot tall, condominium tower with 135 to 145 condominium units (final number of units being determined as design develops); and (2) PUD modifications under Planning Code section 304 for the following: rear yard setback requirement (Planning Code Section 134); the required independently accessible parking spaces (Planning Code Section 151) to allow up to 10 of the required on-site parking spaces to be tandem; on-site loading spaces (Planning Code Section 152) to allow loading from on-street loading areas where 2 on-site spaces are required; dwelling unit density (Planning Code Section 215) and associated floor area ratio (Planning Code Sections 240.3 and 124) to allow increased dwelling unit density and floor area ratio. The Planning Commission certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for a Cruise Terminal Mixed Use Project, including this site, in November 2002.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 14.

        ACTION: Approved with Conditions to amend the car share language (in the event the Planning Commission adopts new streetscape controls or guidelines within 18 months of the date of approval.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16628

        16. 2003.0244C (M. SNYDER: (415) 558-6891)

        2101 BLOCK OF BRYANT STREET & 2830 20TH STREET - (the site formerly referred to as Bryant Square), located on the block bounded by Bryant, 19th, York, and 20th Streets; Lots 60, 62, and 63 in Assessor's Block 4080 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow [1] the construction of dwelling units in C-M (Heavy Commercial) and M-1 (Light Industrial) Districts pursuant to Planning Code Section 215(a), [2] an exception to Bulk Limits pursuant to Planning Code Section 271 and [3] a Planned Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304 to modify Code Sections including (i) the dwelling unit density limits of Section 215, (ii) the rear yard requirements of Section 134, (iii) the dwelling unit exposure requirements of Section 140, and (iv) the usable open space requirements of Section 135. The subject property is within both a C-M and an M-1 Zoning District and a 65-B Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Dan Kingsly

        - He is a partner with SKS Investments who is the project sponsor.

        - Over the past five months, they have met with approximately 60 neighbors to the project.

        - What they are proposing has been well received by the neighbors.

        - They have also been given some constructive design criticism that they are doing their best to respond to. In addition, they have met several times with representatives of the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition.

        - SKS and the Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition have been working well together. And collectively they feel it would be beneficial for them to have some more time to continue their discussions and explore ways of resolving their differences.

        - This is the reason why they are requesting this project be continued to September 18.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 18, 2003

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Boyd and Feldstein

        17. 2002.1010C (M. LUELLEN (415) 558-6478)

        1300 POLK STREET on the northeast corner of Polk and Bush Streets; Lots 004A & 004B in Assessor's Block 0668: Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303 for nonresidential use size of 3,000 square feet and above; and use above the ground floor for a place of worship. The proposed project is to construct a two-story (plus mezzanine ) church ("First Congregational Church of San Francisco") 50 feet in height (excluding steeple), that is intended to contain about 160 seats and approximately 13,000 square feet in area. The existing one-story over basement commercial building containing a bar and two vacant storefronts would be demolished. The proposed new structure will contain community meeting rooms, a fellowship hall, a chapel, a mezzanine, and an approximately 40-foot high sanctuary. No off-street parking is proposed or required. The subject property is in the Polk Street NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) zoning district and a 65-A height and bulk district.

      Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Joe Story - Representing Project Sponsor

        - A church is permitted at this location.

        - This will be their 5th building.

        - The church does extensive outreach in San Francisco.

        - He displayed a diagram of the project, explaining the architectural aspects of the building.

        - They have been communicating with various neighborhood organizations and they are all in support of this project.

        (-) Jim Jonas

        - He is concerned about the potential significance of the building. He believes that the building is more significant than was stated in the report.

        - He is a librarian and has done research.

        - The building was built earlier than the architectural report indicates.

        - In the 1970s, the building won an architectural award and it had a significant sign on the outside. That wasn't included in the report.

        - He would like to have a plaque be put on the building that states its architectural significance.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

        MOTION: 16629

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: 11:05 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