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

August 28, 2003

August 28, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, August 28, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Kevin Hughes, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lisa Feldstein and Sue Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:31 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director; Jim Nixon - Acting Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Matt Snyder; Michael Smith; Tina Tam; Jonathan Purvis; Dan Dibartolo; Dan Sirois; Jonas Ionin - Acting Commission Secretary (until 3:30 p.m.); Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

      The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

          1. 2002.1021C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

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

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 24, 2003)

            (Proposed for Continuance to September 4, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          2. 2002.0913C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

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

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from regular meeting of July 24, 2003)

      (Proposed for Continuance to September 4, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          3. 2002.0207C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

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

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

          NOTE: On May 22, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to June 26, 2003 with instructions to the project sponsor to: 1) go back and look at the site plans more closely regarding the placement of the store on the lot; 2) start construction within three years or the conditional use will expire; 3) no 24 hour use; 4) no alcohol sales; 5) project sponsor to work with community. One June 26, 2003 this matter was continued to August 28, 2003.

          (Proposed for Continuance to September 4, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          4. 2003.0620D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

      1532-1534 TREAT AVENUE - west side, south of Precita Avenue; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 5524. Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.27.0853 to demolish a two-family dwelling and replace with a new two-family dwelling within an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Demolition.

          (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      5. Consideration of Adoption - Minutes of May 8, May 22, and June 5, 2003.

              Minutes of May 8, 2003:

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

              Minutes of May 22, 2003:

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

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

              EXCUSED: Boyd

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

              Minutes of June 5, 2003:

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued to September 4, 2003

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

      6. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Bill Lee:

          Re: Housing Element

          - He requested a timetable for the Commission and the public regarding the completion of our draft housing element.

          - He requested this conversation take place at the next Commission meeting.

          - He also requested that there be two or three more hearings and adoption on this issue before the end of the year.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: Discretionary Reviews (DR)

          - He requested that we calendar a discussion on Discretionary Reviews.

          - The time spent on DRs takes away from time that the Commission could be looking at long range Planning items.

          - A review of DRs should especially focus on what sort of administrative threshold the Commission might establish that may fall over or under exceptional and extraordinary circumstances with the idea of having some administrative relief from the number of DRs we get.

          Acting Director, Larry Badiner responded:

          - The item on Discretionary Review has been scheduled for September 11, 2003.

          - Jonas Ionin of staff will be giving that presentation. The public hearing will first open a discussions on 1) are there ways that DRs can be handled?...some of them administratively? 2) what criteria should be set? 3) how should this go forward. This would be a non action item so staff would only be seeking comments and input.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He supports Commissioner Bill Lee's comments regarding the Housing Element.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          - She wondered if the Records Retention Policy was supposed to be heard today?

          Acting Director, Larry Badiner responded:

          - This item will be heard on September 4, 2003.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      7. Director's Announcements

      RE: Discretionary Review (DR)

          We are aware of the workload the Commission has. We've clearly heard that there is a desire to consider administrative remedies, that some simple DRs be handled at staff level. If issues still remain after staff action, they would go to the Board of Appeals. There would have to be some legislation that you [the Commission] would have to adopt because "311" requires that you hear all DRs. This would be a proposal for you to consider on 9/11/03.

          RE: Housing Element Schedule

          It is my understand that we are releasing the draft with Commissioner's and other's comments on 9/18. At that time, I believe we are going to propose a schedule of how we get to final adoption.

          RE: Responding to items from last week.

          - When discussing the Housing Element last week and the extensive outreach we were going to do, including a series of ads and mailings to neighborhood groups... There was also a previous request that perhaps we notify all parcels in the City. We did look into that. That would cost approximately $350,000. to do. We don't have that in the budget. It is not required under the code. We are doing a series of public service announcements, ads in a variety of newspapers, etc. But we, nor the City have the money to notify every parcel.

          - Also from last week, Commissioner Bill. Lee asked us about the Housing Demolition Policy and how many buildings were in the backlog and pipeline when we adopted the policy. We will have answers on this in the next week or so and send you a memo.

          - Another thing: As you are aware, the Department has received its budget and we are working through it to understand all the concerns. But one of the things that we know happened is that we lost one of our senior planner positions. We need to respond to that in terms of how we organize the Department. We (senior staff) have prepared a proposal that we shared with staff in a general staff meeting, giving them an opportunity to weigh in with their suggestions. We will then bring it to the Commission.

          Commissioner Hughes asked about changes to DBI's alteration [policy].

      Director Badiner's Response:

          - Yes. It is his understanding that Director Chiu has issued a requirement that any building that proposes a vertical addition of two stories or a major rear addition (not sure how that's defined), needs to be reviewed by his senior staff (that might include him). The concept is that if it meets with their definition of what a major alteration is, but is not a demolition, then they may require two alteration permits - one for the alteration they want to do, and one that is a demolition type permit that doesn't meet the strict requirements of a demolition which removes all studs down to the foundation. It would not fall under a Form 6. We haven't yet seen any of those. I think it's an evolving policy, but a step in the right direction. The down side is, he believes it would raise the number of DRs that come to us. We might have to adjust our draft demolition policy to respond to that.

          Commissioner Hughes requested a copy of the changes to the Major Alteration Policy.

      Director Badiner responded that he would send him what he has.

      Commissioner Antonini's comments:

          As we go through the Housing Element and the draft Demolition Policy we will in fact make recommendations. I'm not sure they will have the force of actual law, but they have the force of recommendation in terms of what we will consider before us for demolition and what we wont. So part of this might evolve into a solution by the time we get to those two things.

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

          None

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

          9. 2003.0449L (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          2924-2948 16TH STREET - the Labor Temple / Redstone Building, northeast corner of 16th Street and Capp Street, Lot 14 in Assessor's Block 3553 -- Request for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution approving the designation of the Labor Temple / Redstone Building as Landmark No. 238, and recommending to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the designation of the Labor Temple / Redstone Building as Landmark No. 238.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Tim Kelley, President of the SF Landmarks Board

          - Pleased and proud to bring this forward. This is the second in what he hopes will be many more labor oriented landmarks in San Francisco. Hopes the Commission will join the Landmarks Board in supporting this and reaching out to many groups that have been unrepresented in the preservation program to date.

          (+) Betty Traynor, Representing the tenants in the building

          - From the time the tenants association was founded, it has been our goal to landmark the building because we recognized its history. We have [broad] support for this, and we look forward to a big celebration.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          MOTION: 16638

          10. 2003.0376C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

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

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 24, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jason Smith, Representing Verizon Wireless

          - Described the project and explained why they need the requested equipment.

          ACTION: Approved as amended: six panel antennas and one GPS antenna.

          AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee

              NAYES: Bradford Bell

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          MOTION: 16639

          11. 2003.0705C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

          3981 ALEMANY BOULEVARD - south side, between Worchester Street and St. Charles Avenue, Lot 9 in Assessor's Block 7126A- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 713.67 for the establishment of a video rental and sale business (Hollywood Video), approximately 5,900 square feet in size, operating between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. The property is in an NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial - Shopping Center) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Steve Vettel, Representing the Project Sponsor

          - Gave a powerpoint presentation on the revitalized shopping center and demonstrated the desirability and need for this project request.

          (-) Claire Sanchez

          - The windows of her home overlook the proposed Hollywood Video site. The hours of operation are un-needed in our neighborhood. They will only bring large gatherings of teenagers. The additional noise and lighting are not conducive to our residential community. They had an agreement last week with Hollywood Video for two backlit signs, now yesterday they have changed it. Who's to say it will not be altered after they make an agreement today?

          (-) Dennis Sanchez

          - Concerned about traffic, parking, illuminated signage, hours of operation, and security. We reached an agreement with them on signage. But last night they changed it.

          (-) Stephen Heide, METNA

          - This is a totally inappropriate use of the center, and I'm very much against this in our neighborhood.

          (-) Nina Godinez

          - I live at 3976 Alemany Blvd. And was distressed to hear that Hollywood Video would move into the vacant retail space. I am very concerned about their hours of operations. I am also concerned that they have now altered our agreement on the signage.

          (-) Leroy Gullette

          - I live directly across from the proposed site. There are four main issues: The drop box was the only issue agreed upon; people are concerned about traffic because with Alemany in front of the store without a left turn...; parking spaces-people don't use the spaces for the apartment building because they are charged for them; the signage was agreed on during the meeting, but now they have changed it around. Most important is the hours [of operation].

          (+) Rick Bartlett, District Manager for Hollywood Video

          - They do have stores that close at 10 p.m. during the week, but all [his] stores close at midnight on the weekends. Our stores are family stores. We provide a service for the community. We don't have a lot of teenage problems. But any problems are addressed immediately with the local authority. We have a wide selection of items in all categories. We are here to work with the community as much as we can.

-

          (-) Herbert Panaszewiez

          - I oppose the video store at the proposed location. Albertson's supermarket is already renting and selling videos at Ocean view Village. Traffic and parking are a concern. Security on the property is haphazard.

          (-) Carina Brewer

          - I live at 201 Chester, about a block away from the proposed site. This [Hollywood Video] is not desired by the community. This center was dropped on the neighborhood. This is not something that was requested by our neighborhood. The hours of operation are a big concern by the folks that live in this neighborhood. Security is an issue with this center. Parking is a problem with what they have designed. Not opposed to Hollywood Video coming in if they can abide by the neighborhood.

          (+) Alastair MacTaggart, Emerald Fund

          - We are no longer the owners of this site, but we were the developers. With all due respect, "I" did go to the community meetings and listened when they told us to bring in an independent video store. Our broker contacted all independent video store owners west of Twin Peaks. We tried to find anybody who would go in there. We tried to find a restaurant. Despite what the neighborhood may think, this is not the easiest area of the city to rent retail in. 75,000 out or roughly 90,000 square feet in this center is already open to midnight. So this will not be the only store open. The incremental traffic we're talking about if fairly minimal. We have adequate parking per the planning guidelines, and we have 24 hour security in our parking lot. When the neighbors told us they didn't like the firm managing the security, we changed it. We live in a city and I don't think there will be an enormous amount of traffic.

          (+) Oz Erickson, Emerald Fund

          - We were brought in by OMI Neighbors In Action to redevelop this center. We were supported by all four major neighborhood associations when we did this. METNA was formed after we did this. We have made every effort to make this place a really nice place. This is an urban center..., and to make it a success we need these tenants. We made every effort to bring in an independent video store. The people who live in the center want this video store. They also want the restaurants to come in. On the hours of operation, we are talking about 10 p.m. to midnight. There is no traffic.

          (-) Mark Christensen, Merced Extension Triangle Neighborhood Association

          - The former Commission approved this. There are three stores in operation in this center: Albertson's, Rite Aid, and Post Net. These stores are setback more that 100 feet from Alemany. Only Albertson's is open until midnight. Rite Aid closes by 10 p.m. and Post Net closes earlier in the evening. Also, as you heard, other Hollywood Video stores close by 10 p.m. We believe that 10 p.m. is reasonable. We agreed to two signs, now they want three signs. We hope that if you grant this application, you go back to the original signage and that you approve the hours of operation to close no later than 10 p.m.

          (-) Joe O'Donaghue

          - I agree with Mr. Christensen. Over 1,000 people opposed this proposal when it was first presented over four years ago. The developers intensified the use. Developers have an obligation of good neighbor policy. Hollywood Video made an agreement to have two signs. Do not allow them to go back on that agreement. When there is an agreement, we all have an obligation to keep to that agreement. If it is going to be broken, then we should continue the meeting and go back to negotiations. The hours of operation should be kept to 10 p.m. We were guilty four years ago and didn't speak out. Now we are [speaking out].

          (+) Markus Welcher, Construction Manager for Hollywood Video

          - The reason for changing the signage is because Hollywood corporate decided this. We have eliminated the A-1 sign shown on your site plans. We will agree to eliminate that sign and add the A-2. So we are only proposing two signs at this point. [He also talked about what the B sign would look like at night time by showing a color photo (the illumination component was not clear)]. There is approximately 90 parking spaces under the residential units that will become available when these major tenants open. There is 24 hour security provided by the landlord.

          -

          ACTION: Approved as amended: 1) The hours of operation will be between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight Friday and Saturday; 2) Two wall signs in the locations designated A.1 and B on Drawing 03-0433 in Exhibit B plans shall be permitted; no sign shall be permitted in the location designated A.2 on Drawing 03-0433 or on façade of the store directly abutting Alemany Blvd. All sign illumination shall be turned off when the store closes in the evening; 3) The property owner and tenant shall make good faith efforts to assure there is adequate security during store operating hours to prevent disruptive behavior in the Center's parking lot.

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

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          MOTION: 16640

          12. 2002.1105C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

          4039 18TH STREET - south side, between Hartford and Noe Streets, Lot 81 in Assessor's Block 3583 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 186, 715, and 151, to allow (1) conversion of an existing nonconforming large fast-food restaurant (Hot n' Hunky's) to a full-service restaurant, (2) demolition of an existing two-bedroom unit on the second floor, and (3) addition of one new dwelling unit without providing any off-street parking. The property is in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

              (+) Alan Toma, Project Architect

          - Gave a brief 12 year history of the project sponsor's business in the neighborhood, and his vision and desire to continue that business and expand it at the proposed site.

          (-) Alex Blanchard

          - We are the sole tenants of 4041 and the project sponsor has not considered the impact on our lives, the local economy, and affordable housing. The proposed plan would negatively impact us by raising our rent by 50% when we have to move out. The project will cause noise problems, and the City will lose affordable housing. The new units will not be under rent control and will not be affordable. It will also cause parking problems. When the project sponsor went out seeking signatures of support, the community was mislead into thinking that they were only supporting the restaurant conversion, not the whole building.

          (-) Ana Martinex

          I live with Alex. 18th and Castro is really congested now and a full service restaurant will only make it worse. I am also very concerned about the loss of affordable housing. It is going to be really hard to find another unit that gives us the space we have now at our current rent.

          ACTION: Intent to approve the restaurant conversion but not the residential conversion. Final action scheduled on September 11, 203.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes

              NAYES: W. Lee

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          13. 2002.1306C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          1155 TENNESSEE STREET - east side south of 22nd Street; Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 4172 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 711.38, to convert a dwelling unit into office space on the second floor of a three-unit, three-story-over-garage building, within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Shawn Gorman, Project Architect

          - Explained the desire and need of the project sponsor to convert vacant dwelling space-that was once occupied by the sponsor-into needed office space for the sponsor's existing on-site business. This is a small family business and is an asset in San Francisco. There are other compatible uses in the area. The approval will not change the building.

          (+) Regan Carol, Project Sponsor

          - It was stated that the neighborhood was largely residential in character. That is not true. [ He showed various photos of commercial or not-residential uses in the neighborhood that would complement the proposed use of his property.] He walked the neighborhood and presented a signed list of people supporting what he wants to do with his business on his property.

          (+) Joe O'Donaghue

          - What's important about this project is that there is no tenant displacement whatsoever. It has always been occupied by the sponsor.

          -

          ACTION: Intent to approve. Final action scheduled on September 25, 2003.

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

              NAYES: Boyd

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          14. 2003.0440C (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          845 JACKSON STREET - south side between Stockton and Powell Streets; Lot 041 in Assessor's Block 0192 - Request by Verizon Wireless for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 812.82 of the Planning Code to install twelve panel antennas and associated equipment cabinets on the roof of the existing 70-foot tall ("New Chinese Hospital") building, located in a CR-NC (Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-N Height and Bulk District. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a location Preference 1 site, as the structure is a publicly used hospital.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

          SPEAKER(S):

              (+) Jason Smith, Representing Verizon Wireless

              - Described the project and explained why they need the requested equipment.

              (+) Kenny Silverman, Verizon Wireless RF Engineer

          - Responding to the question of why Verizon needs 12 antennas. The 12 antennas will address our need today for six antennas, and because of the dense populated area, the other six will address our future needs. We wanted to address our immediate need and what we feel we would need in the very near future without coming back to the Commission.

              MOTION: To approve six (6) antennas

              AYES: Antonini, Boyd, W. Lee

              NAYES: Bradford Bell and Hughes

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

              RESULT: The motion failed

          ACTION: Approved four (4) antennas

          AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee

              NAYES: Bradford Bell

          ABSENT: Feldstein and S. Lee

          MOTION No. 16641

F. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      At approximately 6:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

          15. 2001.0840D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

                454 RALSTON STREET - east side of Ralston Street, between Holloway & Garfield, Lot 037 in Assessor's Block 6995--Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001.04.18.7135, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also includes the construction of a new single-family dwelling) 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 the Demolition.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Tony Sanchez

              To repair this structure would cost more than 50% of the replacement as proposed.

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

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

          ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein, and S. Lee

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

      At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the ite8 is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

          The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the

      posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

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

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

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

                      SPEAKERS:

                      (Did not state his name)

          - Re: Coit Tower Mural Revivalists--local, grassroots artist movement.

          Adjournment: 6:12 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2003.

      SPEAKERS: None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      EXCUSED: Feldstein, and S. Lee

      ABSENT: W. Lee

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