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

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

February 05, 2004

February 05, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, February 5, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Edgar E. Boyd

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:27 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Paul Maltzer; Matt Snyder; Kate McGee; Jim Miller; Joan Kugler; Nonnie Turrell; Michael Li; Jonas Ionin; Diane Lim; Costolino Hogan; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

          1. 2003.1077C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

                1970 McALLISTER STREET - north side between Central Avenue and Lyon Street, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1159 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 185 to extend indefinitely the operation of an existing nonconforming automobile repair garage (Carlos Exclusive Auto Service) in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed District, Low Density) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

                (Proposed for Continuance to February 19, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 19, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          2a. 2003.0295CV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner at Larkin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0020 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.1 and 228.3 of the Planning Code to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project site was formerly a service station and is now in use as a parking lot. This proposal requires Conditional Use authorization because 1) it proposes a dwelling unit density of greater than 3 units in an RH-3 District and 2) it proposes to convert a service station use to residential use. This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, case No. 2003.0295CV.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to February 19, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 19, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          2b. 2003.0295CV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0020 - Request for Variance from Section 134 of the Planning Code to construct a 4-story residential building into the required rear yard. Section 134 of the Planning Code states that the minimum rear yard depth in an RH-3 District shall be equal to 25 percent of the total depth of the lot on which the building is situated. Rather than leave a 22' wide gap in the North Point Street frontage, the proposal is to construct an approximately 40' X 22' portion of the project fully into the rear yard along North Point Street, leaving a comparable rear yard to the interior of the lot of approximately 1,480 square feet.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to February 19, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 19, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      3. 2003.1091C (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        2696 GEARY BOULEVARD - northeast corner of Geary Boulevard and Emerson Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1071 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and an 80-D Height and Bulk district, upon the roof of an approximately 84-foot tall self-storage building. As per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2, as it is a co-location site.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

            (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      4. 2003.1038C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          1490 MASON STREET - east side above the Broadway Tunnel, Lot 046 in Assessor's Block 0159 - Request for conditional use authorization to construct a wireless telecommunications facility for Sprint PCS within an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The facility will consist of four antennas and associated equipment cabinets on the roof of the building. The proposed facility meets Location Preference 1 of the WTS Guidelines.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Cristina Kimmons

          - She is confused on what this case is about.

          - There are a lot of teenagers and adults that use the healthcare center.

          - Is there a significant reason why the property is being torn down?

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 19, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          5. 1999.0233E (B. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

          833 - 881 JAMESTOWN AVENUE - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project sponsor proposes construction of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would consist of 198 one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate condominiums on an approximately 6.9-acre lot, located at 833-881 Jamestown Avenue on Assessor's Block 4991, Lot 277, on the northern slope of Bayview Hill. The site is currently used as an overflow parking lot for events at Candlestick Park, which is approximately one-third of a mile southeast of the project site. The site is bordered by Jamestown Avenue (and single-family homes on the north side of Jamestown) to the north, another vacant lot to the east that also is used for parking for major events at Candlestick Park, the hillside to the south, and single-family housing to the west. Although the area proposed for development is mostly flat, development would require excavation of up to approximately 30 vertical feet at the base of the hill. The project would consist of 11 separate three- and four-story buildings: seven buildings of 12 to 18 units each along Jamestown Avenue and four buildings to the rear, at the base of the hillside. Of these latter four structures, two (36 units each) would be built atop one-story gated parking garages, while smaller buildings (one of eight and one of 10 units) would flank the garages. A total of 216 independently accessible parking spaces would be provided. The proposed project would include landscaping along Jamestown Avenue, construction of a 10-foot-wide sidewalk, two off-street freight loading areas, and about 28,900 sq. ft. of common open space, including two rear yards at the base of the hillside totaling about 7,250 sq. ft. and podium- and ground-level patios. The project also would remedy an existing drainage problem on Bayview Hill above the project site, on Recreation and Park Department land. The project site is located within the South Bayshore Plan area, in an RH-2 (Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As a PUD, the project would require review and approval by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 303 and 304 of the Planning Code.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 18, 2003)

            (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

      6. 1999.0233C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          833-881 JAMESTOWN AVENUE - south side from Ingalls to Griffith Streets; Lot 277 in Assessor's Block 4991 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.1(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code for a Planned Unit Development with up to 198 dwelling units, including one-, two- and three-bedroom units within eleven separate three- and four-story buildings. The project would include up to 216 off-street parking spaces within two garages at the base of two interior residential buildings, and two screened off-street freight loading spaces. The site is 6.9 acres on the northern slope of Bayview Hill and is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

            (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      7. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of January 8, 15, 2004.

      SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved with the following correction: For the minutes of January 8, 2004, on page 5 item 9 should be 899 North Point and not 699 North Point.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      8. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commission Secretary:

          Re: Correspondence to Commissioners

          - She emphasized that any electronic correspondence sent to the Commission should be copied electronically to her. She reminded the public that her email address is on the front of every agenda (linda.avery@sfgov.org).

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: Budget

          - When will the Commission go over the budget?

            Acting Director Badiner Responded:

            - This item will be on the February 12, 2004 calendar and then again on the February 19, 2004 calendar.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      9. Director's Announcements

          None

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

          Board of Supervisors Meeting of January 27, 2004

          Re: 1160 Mission Street

          - The Commission heard this case on December 4, 2004.

          - The Board upheld the Commission's decision with modifications.

          - There was an agreement between the project sponsor and the appellant. This agreement consisted of the following: 1) increasing the number of bicycle parking stalls; 2) mitigation measures on the commercial parking garage entrance and it's impact on the sidewalk and the bus lane; and 3) an agreement for four (4) stories for parking structure of that building instead of five (5).

          Re: 899 North Point Street

          - This item was continued to the meeting of February 10, 2004.

          Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 3, 2004

          Re: 201 Folsom and 300 Spear Street

          - There was a final reading with a vote of +10 -1 with Supervisor Ammiano dissenting for the General Plan Map and Text Amendments for 201 Folsom and 300 Spear Street.

          - This matter was heard as a committee as a whole.

          Land Use Committee Meeting

          - There was no Land Use Committee meeting this week.

          - The matter of demolitions for 20 units or more will be heard this coming Monday.

          - This was an ordinance by Supervisor Daly.

          - This matter was not able to come before the Commission because the time period was not extended.

          Other

          Re: Ordinance

          - Supervisor McGoldrick is drafting an ordinance on Public Benefit Zoning.

          - He is trying to get some input on drafting this ordinance.

          Re: Server's crashing

          - He mentioned that one of the reasons much of the work the Planning Department has been working on has been delayed is because during the holidays, the server at our 30 Van Ness Avenue site for the Major Environmental Group crashed.

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          Re: Folsom/Spear Project

          There was an article in the newspaper regarding the Folsom/Spear Project and the economic analysis of these projects performed by the Department. Supervisor Ammiano is proposing legislation to require such an analysis.

            Acting Director Badiner responded:

            - This information was made available to the Commission on the August 29, 2003 draft of the Rincon Hill plan that was released as a public record, but was never officially released as a Department document.

            - There was a minor analysis done on it.

            - Many people have told him that the analysis does not make a whole lot of sense. Staff states that it does.

            - He is trying to coordinate with staff on what this analysis is and how accurate it is.

            - It is a chart that analyzed up-zoning in general.

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          - It sounds like the analysis was done specifically for the Folsom/Spear Street project.

            Acting Director Badiner Responded:

            - He believes that the analysis was not specific to the Rincon Hill projects but generally regarding Rincon Hill.

          Commissioner William Lee:

          Re: Rincon Hill

          - He would like to receive a written document of the Department's interpretation on this issue and the Sedway Report.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Rincon Hill

          - He agrees with Commission Lee. He read the Sedway Report.

          - It is important to respond to the Department on this issue.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Rua Graffis - United Taxicab Workers

          - She is the Chairperson of the United Taxicab Workers.

          - There is no taxicab zone at the project proposed at Rincon Hill.

          - She requested that any time a hotel or a large apartment building is built there be a taxicab zone and handicap stands.

          BOA -

          Hearing of January 28, 2004:

          Re: 1238 Masonic Street

          - The Commission took Discretionary Review and disapproved this merger.

          - The Board overturned the Commission's Decision by a vote of +4-0 to allow the merger to take place.

          - This was a structure that was originally a single-family home and later converted to two units.

          Hearing of February 4, 2004:

          - Elections were held for President and Vice President.

          - Kathleen Harrington was elected as President and Hisashi B. Sugaya as Vice President.

          Re: 355 Country Club Drive

          - The Commission took Discretionary Review and reduced the project size to 900 feet instead of 1,500 feet.

          - The Board allowed an 1,100 foot addition by a vote of +5-0.

          Re: 2518 Union Street

          - A settlement was reached and it was no longer before the Board.

          Re: 529 21st Avenue

          - The Commission modified this project and approved it.

          - The Board upheld the Commissions decision by a vote of +4-1 with one condition modified: that the entry conform to neighborhood character and required reflective paint on property line walls.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          - For the Board of Appeals hearing of January 28, 2004, there was a case scheduled regarding 341 Arkansas Street which was an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a Variance. He would like to know what happened on this case?

            Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas responded:

            - He consulted with staff and the situation was that the applicant submitted a code complying solution which obviated the need for a variance. The case was not withdrawn but the appellants did not show up for the hearing so the Board upheld the decision to deny a variance.

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

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

      Bruce Bauman

      - He supports the Conditions of Approval.

      - Regarding the findings, item No. 3: the project sponsor has an agreement with the adjacent neighbor.

      - This agreement is to deed the land to him so instead of an easement there should be a lot line adjustment.

    E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

      11. 2003.0892C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          1350-1352 THOMAS AVENUE - north side between Ingalls and Jennings Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4791 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121(f) to subdivide one lot into two lots of less than the minimum 25-foot width for the construction of two single-family dwellings. The existing lot is 37.5 feet wide, and the two newly created lots would be 18.75 feet wide, with an area of 1,875 square feet. The site is within an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

                NOTE: On November 13, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to January 15, 2004, to allow a presentation before the Bayview PAC. The vote was +4 -1. Commissioner Feldstein voted no. Commissioners Boyd and William Lee were absent.

                NOTE: On January 15, 2004, the Commission entertained a motion of intent to approve and continued the matter to February 5, 2004 for final language by a vote +6 -1. Commissioner Feldstein voted no.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved with the following change to the findings: replace easement with a lot line adjustment.

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

          NAYES: Feldstein and S. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16718

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

      12. 2003.0868C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-5891)

          540 VALENCIA STREET (A.K.A. 542 VALENCIA STREET) - Blondie's Bar and No Grill, west side between 16th Street and 17th Street, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 3568 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow "other entertainment" (as defined by Planning Code Section 790.38), which includes live amplified music entertainment and DJs, in an existing bar, Thursday through Sunday. No change to the exterior of the building is

          proposed. The subject property is within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Philip Lesser - President of the Mission Merchant's Association

          - This is proper land use.

          - The integrity of the owners are pioneers in the area.

          - The owner's have created a garden spot in their area.

          - The Mission has become one of the most desirable places to visit in San Francisco.

          - The weekend actually starts on Thursday nights.

          (+) Niky Dweld - Project Sponsor

          - She has been manager for 11 of the 14 years they have been in business.

          - She has been a Mission District resident for 22 years.

          - She monitors street activity and cleanliness.

          - The Mission District is very rich in culture and diversity.

          - Many of her patrons have expressed to her that they would like to have live music at the bar.

          (+) Capt. Greg Corrales

          - He has been in command of the Mission District for over two years.

          - They have always tried to work with the businesses that have permit and the public to deal with disputes and disagreements.

          - The project sponsor has always complied with everything the police department has requested.

          - He would like all businesses in the Mission to flourish as well as provide a safe environment for everyone.

          (+) Inspector Ganster - SFPD

          - She is in support of this project.

          - She was a police officer in the Mission when this application started.

          - It is important for businesses to flourish and to make neighborhoods continue to be vibrant.

          - There are many businesses that have turned over falling apart locations into established businesses.

          (+) Roberto Hernandez - Mission Neighborhood Center

          - A few month's ago he was asked by the Visitor's Bureau to give a tour of the Mission District nightlife.

          - One of the locations was Blondie's.

          - It was a pleasure to go into this establishment.

          (+) Molly Cornell - Blondie's Bar and No Grill

          - She read two letters from residents who live very near the bar and are in full support of the project.

          (+) Mauricio Aviles

          - Blondie's is not just an asset for the Valencia corridor; it is an asset for San Francisco.

          - It would be crazy in these troubled economic times, to put controls on established businesses.

          (+) Gregory Epley

          - He has had a flat above Blondie's for about nine years.

          - He has never had any problems from the bar.

          - The owners have done extensive soundproofing of the bar.

          - Sound engineers come to the bar frequently to test the sound decibels.

          - The area has become a vibrant urban neighborhood.

          (+) Kevin Parker - Blondie's Bar and No Grill

          - He is in support of this project. The bar is a very clean place to work.

          - He has been a musician in San Francisco for many years. He has seen a lot of the live band venues close down or move out of San Francisco.

          - Musicians and artists should be allowed to live and work in San Francisco.

          (-) Richard Schumer

          - He lives and works across from the bar.

          - There is a lot of car and foot traffic on that street.

          - People illegally park on Valencia Street.

          - If Blondie's is not economically viable without having a live band when the bar next door is, then that is the problem of the project sponsor.

          - There was a deadly incident in the past where a bouncer from Blondie's was involved.

          (+) David McCarthy

          - He is a native and a resident of San Francisco.

          - He has been going to Blondie's for many years.

          - He has watched the bar improve many things.

          - He would like the Commission to give the project sponsor a chance on this.

          ACTION: Approved as Corrected: Condition No. 3 should be corrected that amplified music shall be heard from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Sunday's.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16719

          13. 2003.0940C (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

          1469 18TH STREET - on the corner of 18th Street and Connecticut Street; Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 4036 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to install a Walk-Up Facility, an Automated Teller Machine (ATM), without providing a 3 foot recess from the front property line, located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, per Planning Code Section 711.26.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Kepa Askenazy

          - There are various ATM's around the City that do not have permits and do not have a three-foot setback.

          - They tried to find a way to do a three-foot recess but it was quite difficult.

          - The ATM will be very useful in the area especially for people who just want to get a little cash and not do their entire banking.

          (+) Luther Greulich

          - He is opposed to the project. It is not necessary, desirable or compatible. There are a few ATM's already.

          - The corner is a major intersection for busses.

          - He is concerned about the double-parking in front of the ATM machine.

          - The situation on that site is so bad that MUNI painted the curb on that area red so that busses can make turns.

          (+) Jim Salinas

          - This machine will not impact the neighborhood.

          - There are about three or four popular restaurants in that area.

          - Double parking is the norm there.

          - The construction on the third street light rail is casing traffic problems already.

          - He is surprised that the Potrero Hill people are not here to oppose this.

          (+) Ron Miguel

          - This would be a decent service.

          - It is not taking a parking space away. It is actually a logical location.

          - There are many restaurant's in the area.

          (+) Irving Kavinsky

          - He is the building owner.

          - The ATM will be installed with all the proper permits.

          - He took pictures of about 80 ATMs that are in terrible locations and obviously do not have permits.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this. They are trying to provide a neighborhood service the right way.

          (+) Cody Robertson

          - There have been a lot of businesses opening in the area.

          - The 24-hour ATM will be located in an ideal location.

          - He owns a business in the area and will benefit from this ATM.

          - The area has a lot of foot traffic that will be using the ATM.

          ACTION: Approved with an amendment to Condition 6 limiting signage to the face of the machine.

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

          NAYES: Hughes

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16720

      14. 2003.1082C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

          1145 POLK STREET - west side between Sutter and Hemlock Streets, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 691 - Request for authorization of a Conditional Use for extension of hours of operation to include the time between 2:00 and 6:00 A.M. ("Polk & Sutter 24 Hour Store & Deli")(Planning Code Section 723.27), in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. No physical expansion or other alteration of the building is proposed.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Jeffrey Washington

          - There are some issues he still needs to discuss with the police department.

          Re: Merits of the Project

          (+) Jeffrey Washington - Project Sponsor

          - He and his wife opened the store about a year ago.

          - There are many bars in the area that do business until 2:00 a.m.

          - Many people come to the store past 12:00 p.m. to get food or cigarettes.

          - He does not sell liquor; he does not participate in prostitution, etc.

          - He acknowledges that there is a lot of prostitution going on in the area.

          - The Polk Street neighborhood is entitled to a late night store.

          - He feels that he is unfairly singled out because of the problems in the area.

          - The store is surrounded by glass so there will not be any people hiding there.

          (+) Rua Graffis - United Taxicab Workers

          - She is a cab driver.

          - The owners of this store are quite wonderful. Whenever she wants to purchase a cup of coffee she just calls and they bring the coffee out to her.

          - The project heard earlier, regarding a bar, was approved because it improved the area. This store will improve the area. It is always kept clean.

          - She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          ACTION: Intent to Approve: 1) project owner should enhance interior lighting;
          2) install a door buzzer; 3) adhere to existing approved hours of operation; and 4) host neighborhood watch meetings. Project Sponsor shall come back for review of the project in 6 months. Final Language: February 19, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          15. (J. A. KUGLER/P. MALTZER/N. HART: (415) 558-5983/558-5977/558-6338)

          CEQA PROCEDURES FOR HISTORIC RESOURCES - Public hearing and Planning Commission review and comment on the methodology for reviewing projects to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for Historical Resources. This proposal standardizes the evaluation of structures to determine if they qualify as historical resources and the appropriate environmental documentation required to implement CEQA. The document was released to the public in July, 2003 and was the subject of a public hearing at the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board in November, 2003.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Informational presentation to solicit comments

          from public and Commission members.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Bruce Bonacker - President of Architectural Heritage

        - Many people involved in the industry have been working hard to establish this policy.

        - CEQA laws are very confusing.

          - Reduces the importance of local designations, marginalizes state properties, public comment has been ignored by the Planning Department.

          - Architectural Heritage has been working diligently together with the Planning Department.

          (+/-) Nan Roth

          - Will these properties be referred back to the project sponsor for further analysis?

          (+/-) Jeffrey Heller

          - A lot of things have been worked out with Heritage and the Landmarks Board.

          - He hopes that the current policy contains regulations for preservation.

          - It is important to keep the policy as straight forward and simple as possible.

          (+/-) David Cincotta

          - He commended the Planning Department for their effort on this policy.

          - More work could be done.

          - Consistency in the application of these guidelines is very important.

          (-) Sue Hestor

          - The surveys and records are very "spotty."

          - Some staff works on projects that are really wonderful.

          - There should be more scrutiny on demolitions.

          - More resources need to be put into this.

          - Staff should not be "cavaliering" on demolitions.

          ACTION: No Action Required by the Commission

          16. 2002.0376E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5904)

          8 WASHINGTON STREET - Assessor's Blocks and Lots 201/12, 171/69, and 168/58 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 109,225-square-foot project site is located at 8 Washington Street, between Drumm Street and The Embarcadero, on the edge of the financial district. The proposed project would involve the construction of an eight-story, 84-foot-tall, approximately 283,612-gross-square-foot (gsf), 120-unit, predominantly residential building with a health club facility and parking for 170 vehicles. The existing Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club facility would be removed and reconstructed on the northern portion of the project site. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the proposed residential/commercial building would be from Drumm Street. The site is zoned RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) and is in an 84-E height and bulk district. The project would require Conditional Use authorization for Planned Unit Development, for bulk limit exception, and for parking.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Sue Hestor - Appellant

          - She has agreed that her request to challenge the jurisdiction will be heard after this case. She did file it to be heard before this matter.

          - Even a Negative Declaration has to be accurate.

          - She represents Friends of the Golden Gateway. The major issue is that the project is being built on a site that has been recreation and open space that was built in conjunction with the Golden Gateway for 40 years.

          - An issue that is central to this is, what is the affect of taking away the recreation space for a planned community when this is the densest residential community?

          - Staff is "ducking" the housing issue.

          - The project was approved by the Planning Commission as a PUD in the 60s.

          - A formula was used for general athletic uses. This is not a general athletic use. It is a specific facility. Information should be given on traffic, transportation and use patterns based on the specific facilities.

          (-) Thomas S. Lister - Resident of the Golden Gateway Center

          - He and his wife have resided at the Golden Gateway since 1980.

          - They will be directly affected by this project.

          - A negative declaration gets this far and has to go through an appeal level. Many people were never contacted.

          - He received only one phone call. Ever since then he has been trying to get in touch with someone, but to no avail.

          - Putting 120 units in the area will overwhelm the sewage treatment of that facility.

          - There will be traffic problems during and after construction.

          - There will be economic impacts.

          (-) Cris Biaty

          - He lives in the Golden Gateway apartments.

          - He is opposed to the project even though he is not a member of the tennis club.

          - He is concerned about public safety.

          - His apartment is on the 16th floor and can they see a lot of what goes on on the street.

          - The area is not a safe situation for elderly and children regarding traffic.

          - He does not feel that there has been enough study done on this.

          (-) Ernestine Weiss

          - She feels that there has not been enough traffic study done on the intersections surrounding the project.

          - She has been able to get traffic lights in the area.

          - There are a lot of seniors in the area and it could be dangerous for them.

          (+) Pamela Duffy - Coblentz, Patch, Duffy and Bass

          - There is no substantial evidence that this project could cause a significant negative impact on the environment.

          - The Rec and Park department has done an analysis on the shadow impact.

          - There has been an extensive traffic study done on the project.

          - It has been one of the more thorough jobs done on this project.

          - She urges the Commission to uphold the negative declaration.

          ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee

          MOTION: 16721

          17a. 2002.0376EIKC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/0 - Adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the proposed development to construct an eight-story, approximately 84 foot high mixed-used building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA findings.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Jurisdiction of the Planning Department

          Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney

          - The office of the City Attorney has reviewed the letter submitted by Ms. Sue Hestor.

          - The items before the Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission (except the Zoning Administrator determination) are distinct matters, although they are related.

          - It is a matter of law that the Commission does have jurisdiction to take up the item this evening.

          - It is possible that future decisions by either the Board of Appeals (BOA) or the Zoning Administrator would require another application to be made for this project.

          - It is up to the Commission to either hear the item this evening or to continue the matter until the mentioned situations are resolved.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - Would these appeals be upheld or necessary by either of the two bodies?

            Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland-Knowles responded:

            - She cannot make any predictions. The first appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination was upheld by the BOA but there has been a request for a rehearing.

            - The BOA has not decided to rehear or not.

            - Regarding the second Zoning Administrator determination, there has not been a decision as of yet.

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          -Is it appropriate for the Commission to ask the Acting Zoning Administrator what the issue pending is and when a determination will be issued?

            Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:

            - He received a letter requesting a determination on January 22, 2004.

            - This matter has been assigned to a planner.

            - Because the department is short staffed, the letter was taken in the order it was received. He did not feel there was a need to put the item ahead of this hearing.

            - From a Planning Code point of view, he also believes that this hearing is properly before the Commission.

            - Should his letter obviate the need for this hearing, or should it go the other way and be appealed and the BOA overturn his determination, they would bring back the entitlements for consideration.

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          - Can the Acting Zoning Administrator state what the question is or is this not proper?

            Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:

            - The original letter which was upheld questioned whether this project should be heard as part of a reconsideration of the entire Redevelopment PUD in this area.

            - The letter by the former Acting Zoning Administrator determined that this could be heard as a stand alone project separate of the entire consideration of the PUD.

            - The second letter is a more "fine grained" question that asks whether the portions of some of the original PUDs entitling the residential portion of this were necessary in consideration of this project to be heard in its entirety?

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He believes that somewhere in the 80s, the entire Golden Gateway project was no longer part of the Redevelopment and was moved under the auspices of the Planning Department.

            Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:

            - It was in 1992 that the Redevelopment controls expired. The parcels in question were remanded to the control of the Planning Department.

            - Another thing that happened was that prior to the mid-80s, Redevelopment projects of this sort were heard by the Planning Commission as PUDs and Conditional Uses. Upon the advice of the City Attorney in the mid-80s, that practice was discontinued. Should a similar project come up in a Redevelopment area today, this Commission would not be hearing the request for entitlements for it.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He believes that the Commission should hear this case today.

          - There are a lot of people here to testify (for and against).

          - Part of a determination that may be made in the future will not be a result based on a decision the Commission might make. No one is going to get anywhere until the Commission begins to hear this case.

          Commission Bradford Bell:

          - The Commission has indicated a consensus that the case will be heard.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Sue Hestor

          - She finds it very curious that the City Attorney and the Planning Department are saying that if a Conditional Use is approved it could be buried by a determination of the Board of Appeals and the Zoning Administrator.

          - This is the first time that a Conditional Use can be modified by the Board of Appeals.

          - This is a very substantial issue.

          - If there was a PUD approved, how was it vacated and why was it vacated?

          - It is irresponsible to just go ahead with this project.

            Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded

            - He is not suggesting that the Board of Appeals would overturn a Conditional Use authorized by the Planning Commission.

            - He is suggesting that should the Board of Appeals find that the Zoning Administrator erred in determining that this is properly before the Commission, it would have to be brought back before the Commission for reconsideration.

            - It is not that the Board of Appeals would be directly ruling on the merits of the Conditional Use authorization but on the subsequent determination that this case is before the Commission under law.

            - He sees no reason why this case cannot be heard by the Commission.

            - Anything that happens in the future will have it's venue and people opposed to the decisions will have their chance to appeal it.

            - People opposed to the Conditional Use can appeal it to the Board of Supervisors and people who feel that the Zoning Administrator made an improper decision can appeal that at the Board of Appeals. And if the latter happens, under Section Code 303(f), the Department would have to bring a Conditional Use back to the Commission that was not properly before them under flawed information.

            Acting Director Larry Badiner:

            - There are substantial issues that they will be dealing with.

            - There have been occasions when a project sponsor has filed an appeal to the Board of Appeals right before the Planning Commission hearing. This is not the case on the issues brought up by Ms. Hestor.

          Pamela Duffy

          - There is no appeal pending at the Board of Appeals (BOA).

          - There was, and the Board of Appeals heard it on January 14, 2004. The BOA upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination.

          - A request for rehearing was filed.

          - Ms. Hestor filed a request for a different determination which hasn't been issued, which hasn't been appealed, and which is not before the Board of Appeals.

          - The only matter here is that whether or not this Conditional Use is something that this Commission can hear and has the jurisdiction to hear--and it does.

          - There is a strategic debate here.

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          - She would like the Acting Zoning Administrator to explain step by step how the Commission got from Ms. Hestor's assertions that the they are dealing with a PUD and the department's understanding that the Commission is not dealing with a PUD.

          - She disagrees with Ms. Duffy's statements.

            Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:

            - He would recommend that the Commission look at the typical PUD this Commission sees, which is not what is in front of them now, in terms of the whole Redevelopment Area.

            - This is not a three-quarter acre parcel with 30 units on it that came in for a PUD to have the rear yard adjusted and the typical sort of things that the Commission often sees in the smaller residential PUDs.

            - This is a complex series of entitlements that occurred over 15 to 20 years that was overlaid with each other. They involved residential, high-rise, commercial uses, and sometimes including overlaying blocks.

            - He is not quite sure that there is an easy way to sort it all out.

            - In the intervening years, there have been a lot of changes in the area. For example: the Embarcadero Freeway is gone and there has been development of Ferry Park which has allowed a lot of open space. Over time many things have evolved that may not be completely clear.

            - In one of the early entitlements, Sidney Walton Park was required to be developed as park space until 1992 after which the owners of it could build structures on it to the highest and best use of the land.

            - In the mid-70s the Redevelopment Agency suggested to the Board of Supervisors that the City acquire that and keep it open space in perpetuity by buying the development rights. There was no PUD that reconsidered the entire redevelopment area to do that.

            - It is reasonable and acceptable to look at the proposed development as its own unit and separate from the residential area it has used as recreational space and it will continue to be used as recreational space with the addition of buildings.

            - Given the current conditions, it makes sense to look at this on it's own, without reconsideration of 15 blocks and two decades work of entitlements that are overlaid and overlapping on it.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          - There has been a determination on the PUD by the Board of Appeals.

          - This determination is that the block that this proposed project is on is not part of a PUD.

            Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:

            - That is not precisely the determination.

            - It is that the entire redevelopment area does not need to be reconsidered as a modification of the PUD that would entitle this project.

            - Appellants can request a rehearing upon the provision of new information. The Board of Appeals will decide whether to grant the rehearing or not. This is the only thing that is pending before the Board of Appeals on this project.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          - In the event that the Board of Appeals reverses its earlier decision and if the Commission acts on it this evening, the entire project comes back to them [the Commission].

            Acting Director Larry Badiner:

            - The Department could determine that the Conditional Use was inappropriately before the Commission and they could invalidate the CU.

            - If the Board of Appeals overturns their decision upon a request for rehearing or ultimately through a process, the Zoning Administrator and the City determine something that is adverse to the project, the Project Sponsor would probably modify it and the Department would bring back a modified Conditional Use.

          Re: Merits of the Project

          (+) Jeffrey Heller - Representing Project Sponsor

          - He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the general aspects of the project showing renderings, photographs of the proposed structure, engineering drawings emphasizing the swimming pools and shadow analysis.

          (-) James Eggert - FOGG - Friends of Golden Gate

          - He lives to blocks away from the project.

          - He read a letter from Edward Healthow who is opposed to the project.

          (+) Jim Gerber - President of the Western Athletic Clubs

          - He has more than a casual interest in making sure that the future of the tennis club is in his best interest and his members' best interest.

          - He is satisfied that the finished product will meet the needs of the community that is served by the tennis and swim club.

          - He was concerned about how the transition will take place during the construction period. He is very satisfied with the arrangements that they have made with various other clubs to serve members in the mean time.

          (-) Nan Roth - Telegraph Hill Dwellers

          - The dwellers have had a long time association with the Golden Gateway.

          - She read a letter from the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association who are not in support of the project.

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

          - This project parallels a vision for the community. It will also increase housing.

          - Housing is very necessary.

          - This project complies with all the codes and he urges the Commission to approve the project.

          - It will also create many construction jobs.

          (-) Helen Hui - Golden Gateway Commons

          - They have written various letters in opposition to this project.

          - The original designers of this project designed it to create a certain amount of open spaces.

          - This new developer is destroying a facility that is used by many.

          - She urged the Commission to deny the project.

          (+) Jim Salinas - Carpenter's Union Local 22

          - He was born and raised in San Francisco.

          - There is a huge housing crisis in the City.

          - The development team has done due diligence and has been very sensitive to the neighbors in the area.

          (-) Victor Honig - Block II Golden Gateway Commons

          - There is a constant saying that there is a shortage of housing. It is true.

          - The shortage is in affordable housing and not in luxury housing.

          - He lives in Golden Gateway Commons No. 2.

          - The height of the building would be out of scale to the buildings in the Embarcadero.

          (+) Martha Fry - Landscape Architect

          - They did an analysis of the health of the trees currently in the Golden Gateway.

          - Many trees have been mistreated and need to be replaced. Other trees will be kept.

          - The pool podium (exterior pool terrace) will contain hardsape and lawn.

          - Proper irrigation will be installed to create a safe and beautiful environment.

          (-) Nan McGuire - FOGG

          - She is a member of the Golden Gateway.

          - District 3 has the highest density of all the districts.

          - District 3 is tied with District 6 on the least amount of open space per capita.

          - The developer wants to totally demolish the pools and increase the fitness space.

          - The current fitness space is under utilized.

          - She urges the Commission to not approve the project.

          (+) Dean Macris

          - This project does bring some solid benefits to the City.

          - The project will also offer fiscal advantages to the City.

          - This project can play a key role in establishing open space.

          (+/-) Jim Miller

          - He is a member of the Planning Department and lives in the Golden Gateway but is not a member of the fitness center.

          - A planned unit development approved by a Conditional Use, is a Conditional Use.

          - It can only be modified by the Planning Code by a new Conditional Use.

          - The property which is the subject of the early Conditional Use planned unit development is not lost in the archives of the past.

          - The matter is still under the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals until they rule on a rehearing. It does not leave their jurisdiction until they are through with it.

          - So this matter is inappropriate before the Commission.

          (+) Walter Johnson - Labor Council

          - He supports this project completely because it will provide necessary residential units.

          - It is important to provide jobs, not just housing.

          - It is important to move forward.

          (-) Lee Radiner - Golden Gate Tennis and Swim Club

          - He lives in the Golden Gateway and is a member of the Tennis and Swim Club.

          - He submitted a petition with about 3,000 signatures of people who are opposed to the project.

          - The club participates in various organizations and all this will be affected.

          - This project will create 120 luxury units, which will destroy the neighborhood.

          (+) John Hamilton

          - He is representing the Project Sponsor

          - They have been working on the planning and study of this project for about two years.

          - All this analysis has created a lot of comments.

          - He thanked the members of the Planning Commission for all their work on this project.

          (-) Cris Biotti

          - The intersections at Washington and Drum and Jackson and Drum are very dangerous intersections.

          - There are future projects at the waterfront that are not being discussed right now and should be.

          - Computer generated numbers do not tell the complete story.

          - Residents of the Golden Gateway have not been heard and are being ignored.

          - The residents of the Golden Gateway want their open space and want this project to be reduced.

          (-) Ernestine Weiss

          - There are various projects at the waterfront that will affect the traffic in the area and all this is not being discussed right now.

          - This area will have the worst traffic jams.

          - This is the most unnecessary building being proposed.

          - There was a recent death because of the dangerous traffic situation.

          - Open space is more necessary than luxury housing.

          (+) Michael Alexander

          - He travels the area various times a week.

          - He has been a very active member of various boards and organizations in San Francisco.

          - He has listened closely to the testimonies on this project. There is no open space situation here.

          - His major problem with this project is the 170 parking spaces, which require conditional use, and is grossly in excess of what is needed.

          - There are 120 families that will gain housing, and many of these will be seniors.

          (-) Lorraine Sorensen

          - She lives in the North Beach area.

          - She read a letter from a member of the public who had to leave and is opposed to the project.

          (+) Dina Poursardar

          - Her husband was an architect.

          - She is in support of this project. It will be a piece of art.

          - She admires the architect of this project.

          (-) Lawrence Doxsee

          - He lives on Union Street.

          - He swims quite often at the Golden Gateway pools.

          - This project will eliminate three of the tennis courts and open space.

          - The project will also eliminate a lap pool and place it on a second floor which will have a shadow cast upon it by adjacent buildings.

          (+) John Wilson - Webcor Builders

          - When approved the project will be built by a contractor that has done a lot of work in San Francisco and has worked with a lot of City agencies.

          - The developer proactively came to them and told them that it was not a Redevelopment Project but it was the right thing to do to develop some guidelines similar to the agency's.

          (-) Bob Iwersen - Friends of Golden Gateway

          - His great-grandparents came to San Francisco in 1952.

          - He lives in the Golden Gateway Commons.

          - He is an architect and belies that the Golden Gateway Tennis and Swim Club is one of the best athletic centers in the City.

          - This facility should be enhanced rather than marginalized.

          - He is concerned with the loss of view.

          (+/-) Bruce Bonacker

          - He is active on many community board, but this evening he is speaking on his own.

          - He was asked by Jane Winslow to look over the project.

          - Regarding the urban design and views: he feels that the scale of the building is appropriate.

          - There are no historic buildings that will be demolished and that is good.

          (-) Holly Suzara - Friends of Golden Gateway

          - As a property owner and a resident of the community, she does not feel that a property owner can do what they please to their land.

          - The project does not improve the quality of life for the residents.

          (+) Franz Nagai

          - He has lived at the Golden Gateway Center for the last 25 years.

          - He has no plans to move away.

          - He is semi-retired and is looking for some place to buy.

          - He is in support of the project because he would like to buy a unit and live in it when the project is over.

          - The health club will be improved and he is looking forward to it.

          (+/-) Thomas S. Lister - Resident of the Golden Gateway Center and Member of the Tennis and Swim Club

          - He is opposed to the design of the project but is neutral to the loss of open space and the residential component.

          - For a long period of time, there has been open space and this will be lost.

          - The only times he has had to call the sewer plant is when it is not raining.

          (+) Keith Wilson

          - His wife is a frequent tennis player.

          - The speakers against this project are saying that the health club will be gone forever. The only thing being lost are three tennis courts.

          - The health club will be greatly improved plus 120 residential units will be created.

          - There are a lot of resources that are being put into low income housing and very little put into middle-income housing.

          - This is a very equitable project that is tastefully designed.

          (-) Paula Aspin

          - She is opposed to everything that the previous speaker said.

          - She is not going to be able to afford the fees when the athletic club is finished.

          - There is nothing wrong with the way the club looks presently.

          (+) Frank O'Neal - Pier 50-A

          - He is a former member of the Port Commission.

          - He has participated in various developments at the waterfront.

          - He is very close to the Embarcadero and has an office at the waterfront.

          - He likes this project. It is moderate and tasteful.

          (-) Betty Magovern

          - She has been a tenant at the Golden Gateway for almost 32 years.

          - She is no longer a member of the Swim and Tennis Club.

          - This is not a private club. This is a club that the public can go to.

          - She does not support this proposal.

          (+) Ron Miguel - Chair of the Housing Action Coalition

          - He has been to various site visits and has had conversations with various people that live in the Gateway.

          - This is great urban design. Dean Macris said it best by saying that it frames the section of the waterfront between itself and the MUNI property.

          - The project is near transit and will have increased service.

          - The project meets the planning criteria, etc.

          (-) Eula Walters

          - She has lived in the Golden Gateway for 32 years.

          - She can swim in the pool in the morning and see the Ferry Buildings.

          - She is worried about loosing the view of the Ferry Building and the clouds.

          - This is the best City and best area to live at.

          - If this is taken away, the Commission will take away one of the best things that the City has.

          (-) John Hill - FOGG - Friends of Golden Gate

          - He lives in the outer Richmond and is a member of the Tennis and Swim club with his family.

          - Fitness facilities are tremendous family assets.

          - He combines family outings by going to the club and shopping at the Embarcadero.

          - The numbers just don't make sense: 120 luxury condos vs. 1,700 members that include seniors and children.

          (-) Tim O'Shea

          - He is speaking on behalf of families and children.

          - There are 400 kids in the summer camps.

          - There is a quality of community at the club.

          - The club is a very rare asset.

          (+) Khay Loke - Project Manager - Hamilton Partners

          - He read a letter from the Deputy Director of Car Share who is in support of the project because the project will contain up to two parking spaces for car share.

          (-) Nicholas O'Neill

          - If the Golden Gateway goes, it will not be coming back.

          - It is important to hang on to what we have.

          - He has lived in various countries and in no place has he seen a facility like the Golden Gateway. He and his wife are members and hopes that his future kids will benefit from it.

          - The club is mobbed by families.

          (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

          - This project has too much parking.

          - If there is any site that does not have to exceed the code for parking, it is this site.

          - There is no need for the amount of parking proposed.

          - The current club operates with 15 parking spaces only. Thirty-three percent of an increase in parking and reducing membership, tennis courts, etc. just does not make sense.

          (-) Martin Ward - Director of Operations of Carramerica

          - Carramerica is opposed to this project because the tower will have a detrimental operational economic impact on the Golden Gate Commons.

          - It will be difficult for Carramerica to lease space.

          - The construction of the tower will cause a negative impact to various tenants.

          (+) Pamela Duffy

          - The families that will benefit by living in the affordable housing that this project will create are not here to defend themselves.

          - The recreational facility will be different only by three tennis courts. In comparison, many more people will benefit from this project.

          - The club has notified its members on how they will provide for them while construction is going on.

          (-) Sue Hestor - FOGG

          - The decision that the Commission is making will have a lot more implications than on this project.

          - Golden Gateway is at the highest density that is allowed.

          - There is going to be a lot more resistance from people when one is trying to convince them that a good job can be done on residential density in this City.

          - There is very little information in the packets the Commissioners have regarding the history of this project.

          (-) Joan Chucheck

          - She is a lifelong swimmer. The City is just terrible for a swimmers.

          - For a swimmer who wants to swim outdoors, Golden Gateway is the only one.

          - What she sees that is being proposed is just another high rise development that will take away from the general public's ability to swim outdoors.

          - She urges the Commission to realize that people need more than just housing and this includes recreation.

          ACTION: CEQA findings Adopted

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee

          MOTION: 16722

          17b. 2002.0376E!KC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/012 - Request for a determination regarding the significance of net new shadow on Embarcadero Plaza I caused by the construction of a proposed eight-story, 84-foot-high mixed-use building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the net new shadow is de minimus.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 17a.

          ACTION: Determined that the net new shadow is de minimus.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee

          MOTION: 16723

          17c. 2002.0376E!KC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/012 - Request for a determination regarding the significance of net new shadow on Ferry Park caused by the construction of a proposed eight-story, 84-foot-high mixed-use building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the net new shadow will not be significant or adverse.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 17a.

          ACTION: Determined that the net new shadow will not be significant or adverse

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee

          MOTION: 16724

          17d. 2002.0376E!KC (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          8 WASHINGTON STREET (AKA 370 DRUMM STREET) - northeast corner at Drumm Street, Assessor's Block/Lot 0168/058, 0171/069, and 0201/012 - Request for conditional use and planned unit development authorization to construct an eight-story, 84-foot-high building containing up to 120 dwelling units, a garage with up to 170 parking spaces (120 residential spaces and 50 nonresidential spaces), a 10,000-square-foot health club, and outdoor recreation facilities comprising six tennis courts and two swimming pools (one indoor and one outdoor), and an athletic apparel/equipment shop. The project site, located within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and an 84-E Height and Bulk District, is currently occupied by tennis courts, swimming pools, and a surface parking lot.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 17a.

          ACTION: Approved as amended:

          1. The total number of parking spaces for the Project shall not exceed 157.

          2. The maximum number of residential parking spaces shall not exceed 120. All parking spaces associated with dwelling units containing fewer than two bedrooms shall be tandem. All parking spaces associated with dwelling units containing two or more bedrooms may be independently accessible.

          3. The maximum number of parking spaces associated with the health club shall not exceed 30. All parking spaces associated with the health club shall be tandem.

          4. With the exception of seven disabled access spaces, two car share spaces, and five building maintenance/service vehicle spaces, all parking spaces shall be located on the basement level.

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee

          MOTION: 16725

          18. 2003.1049T (J.IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

          ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - Consideration of a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisor's amend Planning Code Sections 311 and 312 to establish an Administrative Discretionary Review Policy, and creating a Pre-Application process for new construction and certain alterations in RH and RM districts.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 18, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 19, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee

      19. (L. BADINER/D. LIM: (415) 558-6411/558-6547)

          PLANNING DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT - Review of Budget Analyst's management audit of June 2002 and Commission consideration of recommendations/ implementation by Planning Commission for follow-up.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 19, 2004

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

          ABSENT: Boyd and W. Lee

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

None

Adjournment: 10:09 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 18, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with corrected spelling: pg. 5: Ammiano (from Amiano); pg 10: Cody (from Coby)

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

ABSENT: Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:13 PM