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

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

March 4, 2004

March 4, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, March 4, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Jonas Ionin - Acting 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. 2001.1039E!KBMZX (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

          55 NINTH STREET - East side between Mission and Market Streets, Lot 063 in Assessor's Block 3701 - Requests for: (1) Recommendation to reclassify the site from a 120-X Height and Bulk District to a 200-S Height and Bulk District; (2) Recommendation to amend the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan to reclassify the site from a 120-X Height and Bulk District to a 200-S Height and Bulk District; (3) Determination of Compliance and Exceptions under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Project); (4) Authorization under Planning Code Sections 320 through 325 for a 12-story, approximately 198 foot tall building with up to approximately 268,000 square feet of office space; and (5) Finding no adverse shadow impact. The Project also includes approximately 25,392 square feet of open space, two loading docks, and approximately 126 off-street parking spaces.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt findings and draft resolutions, and approve with conditions.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 26, 2004)

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 25, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 25, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          2. 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 for Nextel Communications 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 (Public Storage Inc.). 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: Pending

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          3a. 2003.1181KCR (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

                801-825 MISSION STREET - the entire block bounded by 4th, Minna, 5th, and Mission Streets, Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 3724 - Request for a General Plan Referral to determine if the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the 5th & Mission Garage is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          3b. 2003.1181KCR (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

                801-825 MISSION STREET - the entire block bounded by 4th, Minna, 5th, and Mission Streets, Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 3724 - Request for conditional use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless consisting of one antenna and two equipment cabinets on the 5th & Mission Garage. The antenna will be façade-mounted against an existing elevator penthouse on the roof of the garage and the equipment cabinets will be located adjacent to the same penthouse. The project site is within a P (Public Use) District and a 90-X/340-I Height and Bulk District. The proposed facility meets Location Preference 1 of the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 1, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          4. 2003.1254D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          170 ST. GERMAIN AVENUE - north side at Glenbrook Avenue; Lot 009 in Block 2708 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.31.0905, proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing single family dwelling in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-x Height and Bulk District.

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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 12, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 8, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 8, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          5. 2003.1220I (K. RICH (415) 558-6345)

          CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO - Submission of 10 year Institutional Master Plan by City College of San Francisco and subsequent public hearing as per Planning Code Section 304.5 (d). The purpose of this hearing is for the receipt of public testimony only, and shall in no way constitute an approval or disapproval of the institutional master plan by the Planning Commission.

          Preliminary Recommendation. No Action Required. Receipt of Public Testimony Only.

      (Proposed for Continuance to May 6, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 6, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          6. 2003.1177C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

                2301 FILLMORE STREET - northwest corner at Clay Street, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0611 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 718.48 and 790.38, to allow amplified music and to extend the hours during which entertainment is allowed in a nonconforming bar and full-service restaurant (to be occupied by Leticia's Restaurant) in the Upper Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Planning Commission Motion No. 13781, adopted on November 17, 1994, limited entertainment at this location to non-amplified music and restricted the hours during which entertainment is allowed.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Proposed for Continuance to June 10, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 10, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          7. 2003.0657C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          1730 VAN NESS AVENUE - east side between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0622 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3 and 253 to allow the expansion of an institutional use (American Buddhist Cultural Society) and a building exceeding 40-feet in height in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2004)

                (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          8. 2003.1299Z (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          REZONING OF ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 2870 LOT 48 FROM P TO RM-1 - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Sheet 6 and 6H of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco for Lot 48 in Assessor's Block 2870 (general location is the Southeast corner of Portola and Clipper Streets) to change the use district of the property from P (Public) to RM-1 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Low Density) and to change the height and bulk limits of the property from OS (Open Space) to 40-X.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Marcy DeLussia

          - She encouraged the action of continuance since if this item were to be approved there will be a lot of people opposed to it.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      9. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner William Lee:

          Re: Customer Satisfaction Survey

          - In the packet today from the Board of Permit Appeals, they are including a customer satisfaction survey regarding their own Board.

          - Taking a look at it, he would like to have something similar for the packets for the Planning Commission to get some sort of indication of how the public perceives them in the areas of public hearing procedures, notification of parties for hearings, staff response and timeliness of responses.

          Re: Joint Hearing

          - He requested a joint hearing with SPUR and AIA in order to have a public dialogue regarding the City Planning Department.

          Re: Report from Committee on Jobs

          - He submitted a report to staff called San Francisco City and County Budget - Myths, Realities and Suggestions for the Future.

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          Re: Appreciation of Planning Staff

          - She asked the public to recognize that staff is working very hard under very difficult conditions.

          - If the Commission is not getting calls back on the same day, she can imagine that the public is not getting them either so she asked for patience.

          Re: Budget

          - The budget and work plan that the Commission just approved really does not include staffing increases.

          - It is imperative that the Commission be mindful of the requests they make, but also to encourage Senior management to think about ways that the Commission can utilize staff more effectively.

          Commissioner Boyd:

          Re: Inclusionary Housing

          - He asked staff to provide a glossary of projects that have been done that have a relationship with inclusionary housing. This should also include the number of units, if the developers have indicated whether the inclusionary requirement will be offsite or onsite.

          - This will be beneficial to the Commission as they zero in to the Housing Element of the General Plan.

          Re: Recalling the Plans and Controls for the Mission and the NEMIZ

          - He thanked President Bradford Bell for requesting that the Commission consider recalling their vote on this issue.

          Commissioner Sue Lee:

          Re: Appreciation of Staff

          - She believes that staff is working very hard and wants them to know that the Commission really appreciates it.

          Re: Article in the San Francisco Chronicle regarding a Planning Department Staff Member

          - This article concerns her. She questions whether the City has a policy about outside employment of city employees. Did this department give permission for this employee to have this part time job, assuming that he is employed?

          - All this affects the integrity of the Department. People cannot be doing what they want.

          - She is concerned with the moral of the department.

          Commissioner William Lee:

          Re: Staffing

          - Under the City Charter and Civil Service rules an employee cannot have two jobs. If the employee has some classification to moonlight, there is a need for the Director and the Civil Service Commission's approval to avoid conflicts of interest.

          - Mayor Newsome is looking into something called "City Stat." He is looking at the work load analysis and numbers for Baltimore, Boston, Indianapolis and Chicago.

          - The questions is: "How busy are our workers?", he believes that absenteeism is an issue.

          - He is interested in knowing how many projects the department is doing compared to a base year.

          - It is important to know the statistics regarding what staff is doing now before more money is requested for staff. Staff should also contribute to this information.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Relating Income Levels to Housing Prices in Terms of Housing for Purchase

          - This has been the subject of discussion and may come up again.

          - He thinks that it is easier when one has the rental thing because one can do the math at the 30 percent of disposable income that is being used towards housing prices. It is more difficult when one is trying to relate what an individual is making, or a family, relative to the cost of the housing and how that relates to the inclusionary housing and the Leno legislation. What must one be making to be able to afford a $200,000 condominium? How many family members will have to be working, etc?

          - This can be spelled out in a brief page or so. This would be very helpful to the Commission and to the public.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      10. Director's Announcements

          Re: Discretionary Reviews

          - They have been working with a few items on DRs. One is making this process more efficient and how these cases are brought before the Commission. Staff had been proposing to do some Administrative DRs. However the Planning Commission has requested that DRs be separated between simple DRs and complex DRs.

          - It would be very useful, if some of the Commissioners are interested, for he and staff to work closely with some Planning Commission members-forming some sort of committee--to have meetings and discuss some criteria.

          Re: Effectiveness

          - He is glad that the Commission recognizes that staff is overwhelmed. He is having a series of meetings with the different individual divisions to talk about work load issues and how he can respond to them.

          - One thing that can be helpful from the Commission is to analyze the Commission packets that come to them. It is important to know if the Commission needs everything that is provide to them, what parts are not useful, etc.

          - How can staff be more effective with their time.

          - Ms. May Fung is leading this in the Neighborhood division. She has interviewed everyone in the neighborhood division and has a stack of things to review.

          - Many of the quadrants are not being effective because of a lack of staff.

          Re: Article in the Chronicle stated by Commissioner Lee

          - To the extent that he can, this is a personnel issue and there are some confidentiality issues.

          - He can say that he was extremely upset to read it, he has received a number of phone calls about this, he is taking this very seriously and is pursuing it.

          - In terms of city policy, one can do some outside employment, but there should be an approval from the Director and either the Civil Service Commission or Department of Human Resources. Every six months that approval should be updated.

          - There has been outside employment approved previously for teaching.

          - This is as much as he can say now but he is looking at this very seriously.

          Re: Director Green

          - He will be in town next week and will be in attendance at the Planning Commission.

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

          BOS - None

          BOA -

          Re: 572 San Jose Avenue

          - This was an appeal of a denial that the Commission heard. The Commission took Discretionary Review and denied approval of the permit.

          - The Board made a motion to overturn the Commission's decision but this failed to pass on a +3-2 vote.

          - The parties were heard over a month ago to try to reach an agreement but were not able to do so.

          Re: 293 Downey Street

          - This case was heard by the Commission under two separate Discretionary Reviews.

          - The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approve a very large, elegantly designed rear addition to the structure.

          - The Board upheld the Commission's decision and allowed the project to proceed.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      12. 2001.1039E (A. AGUILAR: (415) 558-5973)

          55 NINTH STREET - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) proposes to expand their San Francisco office at 1275 Market Street by constructing an adjacent 12-story, approximately 268,000 gross-square-foot (gsf) office building at 55 Ninth Street. The project site (Assessor's Block 3701, Lot 63) is occupied by a surface parking lot with about 173 parking spaces and located mid-block on the northeastern side of Ninth Street in the block bounded by Market, Ninth, Mission, and Eighth Streets in the Mid-Market neighborhood. The new building would be approximately 198 feet high, including mechanical penthouse, and would have a two-level below-grade parking garage with about 126 parking spaces. The entrance to the new building and access to off-street parking and loading would be from Ninth Street. Trucks would enter and exit on Ninth Street and could exit to Laskie Street onto Mission Street. The project site is zoned C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) and is within a 120-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Please note that the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, January 27, 2004.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 26, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Environmental Impact Report Certified.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16735

          13. (M. FUNG: (415) 558-6364)

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW COST RECOVERY PROGRAM - On September 25, 2003, the Planning Commission directed the Department to implement cost recovery for all Discretionary Review (DR) requests, as provided in Sections 352(b) and 350(c) of the Planning Code. Discretionary Review applicants will be responsible for any time and materials costs incurred in excess of the initial fee paid for any DR projects filed. The Planning Commission will establish the start date for the Planning Department's DR Cost Recovery Program; and review details of program implementation.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Establish start date sometime after April 8, 2004 to allow one month for program start up.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Mary Ann Miller - West Portal

          - There is a need to have more discussions on this issue and negotiate something a little bit better.

          Dan Liberthson - Miraloma Improvement Club

          - If this item is continued he would like to give his testimony today.

          Re: Merits of the Project

          Mary Ann Miller

          - This policy is a very good club to hold over the architect and the developer.

          - There are many other ways to deal with DRs, perhaps the Commission could be more involved in DRs.

          - The public has been the unpaid staff of the department. There are many people who work very hard to deal with all the issues and now they are going to be charged $2,500 dollars?

          - Cost recovery cannot be done on DRs.

          - It is important to concentrate on the public relations.

          John Bardis

          - Cost recovery is something that occurs when something has happened to cause the City to have expenses to be paid so the person who has caused these actions, this person should pay.

          - The initiator of the Discretionary Review has not initiated the cost.

          - It is important to find out who is the initiator of the costs.

          - The Commission should actually applaud people who bring projects to DR hearings because they are doing the legwork of maintaining the City.

          - This is insane. The Commission should not increase the fees. Fees should be abolished.

          Penelope Clark

          - This is the second time that she has come down to a hearing and the item has been continued.

          - It is difficult to come down and then have to leave without having heard the item.

          Judy Berkowitz

          - She would like to have this item heard on a date after April 8, 2004.

          Marilyn Amini

          - The notice for this item has not been sufficient.

          - There was lack of availability of this proposal in a timely manner so that people could have enough time to submit comments to the Commission.

          - The agenda notice today asks of the direction from the Commission to the department but on the September 25th calendar, there is no indication of a recovery of fees.

          - For a whole year there were 228 DRs filed and the Commission only heard 92.

          - There are many other ways to cut down on DRs.

          Vivian Lee

          - The fees should be charged to the project applicants since they cause all the problems.

          ACTION: Hearing held, item continued to April 22, 2004 (and to be placed first on the calendar). Public comment remains open.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          14. 2004.0005L (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

          2550 MISSION STREET (aka THE NEW MISSION THEATER) - west side, between 21st Street and 22nd Street. Assessor's Block 3616, Lot 7. Constructed in 1916, and then altered in 1932, this building was constructed as a movie palace and served that purpose until 1993; it was then used as a furniture retail store, but is currently vacant. The subject property is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) and is in a 50-X/65-B Height and Bulk District. Request for the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the proposed landmark designation, which was initiated by the Board of Supervisors on December 9, 2003, as Landmark No. 245.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution supporting landmark designation.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Gus Murad

          - He revoked his request for continuance.

          - He is in support of hearing the item today.

          Re: Merits of the project

          Sup. Amiano

          - He is here in support of designating this building a Landmark.

          - He works with District 9 and knows that this project is very import to the Mission District.

          - The goal is to have Community College to serve its residents.

          - The housekeeping items that still need to be done is the designation of a landmark.

          - The interior and exterior architectural features should be preserved.

          - He will be initiating an ordinance that will contain language providing specifically that all features of the New Mission Theatre called out in the Landmark Designation Report, recommended by the Landmarks Advisory Board, be preserved and must be subject to provisions of Article 10 including those provisions regarding certificate of appropriateness regardless of the building's ownership status.

          - The buyer has stated on at least one occasion that it is his intention to preserve the New Mission and to ensure public access to the space.

          - But since there are no plans submitted yet to the Planning Department, he just wants to be sure that the interior and exterior features are preserved.

          Ned Segal - San Francisco Neighborhood Theatre Foundation

          - This foundation has about 600 members.

          - He urged the Commission to declare this building a landmark.

          - There is no proof that the new owner will preserve the historical details of the building.

          - With landmark status, this would protect the building and have it restored.

          Phillip Lesser - Mission Merchants Association

          - He is neutral on this matter.

          - The footprint does not make sense if they want to move into the future.

          - The merchants are unified that parking is the number one retardant to their businesses.

          U. B. Morgan

          - They have been working with neighbors to preserve this structure.

          - They have been watching City College and working with them to preserve the structure.

          - They will always work with the owner of the property to make sure that it is a win win situation for everyone.

          - This is too much of a treasure to loose and urged the Commission to declare landmark status.

          Nancy Charraga

          - She owns a business on 24th and Mission.

          - She urged the Commission to declare the building as a landmark.

          - She feels very strongly about this.

          - The New Mission Theatre is already registered for preservation.

          - She asked the Commission to not delay the decision any further since there is the recommendation by the Landmarks Advisory Board.

          Gus Murad

          - He is the potential buyer of the building.

          - He is asking for a little flexibility. The building needs seismic strengthening because it is such an old building.

          - He will be working with staff and the preservation board to walk through the changes.

          Rachel Herber - Dolores Park Café

          - She urged the Commission to make this property a landmark.

          - This is a very important structure and it should be preserved.

          - If it is done properly and preserved properly it would enhance the Mission corridor.

          - The potential for this is tremendous.

          Alan Martinez - Friends of 1800.

          - This would be a magnificent auditorium.

          - This is too much of an important community resource to loose.

          Catherine Petrin - Architectural Historian

          - She has been an active pro-bono architect to preserve the New Mission Theatre.

          - There has been erroneous information stating that the theatre had had so many changes that it was difficult to determine its architectural and historical integrity.

          - This theatre is on par with the Castro Theatre.

          - The theatre contains original seats and carpeting.

          Will Shank

          - He is one of the founders of the Safe New Mission Theatre.

          - He has been working on this for about four years.

          - This matter has been brought before many groups.

          - He hopes that the Commission will acknowledge this nomination. It has been acknowledged on a city and state level.

          Jim Salinas

          - When this issue came before City Hall there was a whole lot of controversy.

          - They say that you can take the boy out of the Mission but you cannot take the Mission out of the boy.

          - He hopes that this Commission would take into consideration the beauty of this building.

          ACTION: Designated as a Landmark: (page 2 item 8 should include: publicly or privately owned property.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16736

          15. 2003.0607C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

          306 RANDOLPH STREET, north side of Randolph Street, between Ramsell and Victoria Streets, Lots 51 and 56 in Assessor's Block 7088 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3(c), 710.11, and 710.21 to establish an institutional use (residential care facility for up to 56 persons) in an existing two-story commercial building currently owned and occupied by the Yeo Lai Sah Buddhist Temple. The project will also include a lot line adjustment between Lots 51 and 56. The property is located in NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Patrick Mahone

          - The proposed use is quite desirable and compatible with the neighborhood.

          - There is a huge shortage for residential care facilities.

          - Currently the downstairs of the building is vacant.

          - It is his hope that with capital improvements and complete occupancy of the space, this would provide a great service to the neighborhood.

          - This project will not add any additional square footage to the building.

          - They have been quite supportive of the requirements from the Department.

          - He urges the swift approval of the proposal.

          (+) Lisa Wong - Project Architect

          - In the past she knows that the Commission liked having the architect of a project present during the hearing.

          - This is a very commendable project.

          - This project is commendable because it is a very noble thing that is being done.

          - She is also available for questions.

          (+) Rev. Harold Pierre

          - He is the pastor of a community church located across the street.

          - He is in support of the proposal because it is not generally a rough neighborhood. The grocery store/liquor store has caused the rough environment. He is glad that this store is gone.

          - This is going to be a diverse housing community.

          (-) Dan Weaver - OMI Neighbors in Action

          - He supports the idea of senior housing.

          - He does not support this particular project: 1) this project is not necessary or desirable because it will eliminate one full block of retail uses; 2) the 300 block of Randolf Street is the 100% block for the revitalization of this neighborhood; 3) this project will cause a housing building to be built there. This is not appropriate.

          - The appropriate thing to do is to design a structure with retail uses on the ground floor.

          - He asked the project sponsor to postpone this item but they refused.

          (+) Rebecca Silverberg

          - This project is excellent. It is bringing a lot of people to it.

          - This is a lovely neighborhood where seniors are going to need services.

          - She urged the Commission to approve this Conditional Use.

          (+) Al Harris

          - He echoed what everyone has said before.

          (+/-) Peter Vaernet

          - He realizes that this area is a very tough neighborhood.

          - He truly recommends this proposal.

          - He is not in support of the design.

          - The way to make a neighborhood better is to make a brand new building.

          - He would like to have further conversation on this. It is a very important project.

          ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Closed. Item continued to May 6, 2004 to allow the Project Sponsor to work out other alternatives with the neighbors.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          16. 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 February 5, 2004)

                Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Preliminary Negative Declaration

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Shirley Moore

          - According to the continuance, she was out of the country when the executive summary was sent out.

          - She is not prepared to deal with the information and to digest it.

          Ralph House - Appellant

          - He agrees with the continuance since the information he received form the department he received on March 3. This was not enough time to provide information or receive answers on this project.

          Holly Ames

          - She did not receive the packet until this last Tuesday. She rushed to read it and feels that there is not enough time to comment on this case.

          Pastor Walker

          - He has been related to this project for several years.

          - Because of the need and the necessity of this project, he recommends that the Commission act now and not postpone it.

          Leonard Ross - True Hope Church of God in Christ

          - This project should be continued.

          Jim Reuben - Representing Project Sponsor

          - This case has been actively pursued for a long time.

          - There isn't anything new to add to this project.

          - He would really like to go ahead with this project since everyone is here.

          Nancy Stevens

          - She lives on Jamestown Avenue.

          - She does not have any idea what the details of this project are.

          - She urges the Commission to continue this project until all the residents are well informed.

          Timothy Alan Simon

          - He lives on Jamestown Avenue.

          - He is also requesting a continuance on due process grounds.

          - The 49ers and Park and Recreation representatives should be here in attendance but they are not.

          - This community is really trying to make this a safe and sound community.

          Cathy Braun

          - She lives on Jamestown Avenue.

          - She did not receive enough information on this project.

          - She has lived in this area for over 25 years.

          - She is in support of a continuance so that everyone can benefit from this hearing.

          Owen Guan

          - He did not receive any information on this item.

          - He supports a continuance.

          Bob Lee

          - He has been a member of this community for about 45 years.

          - Delays can kill a project.

          - There are about 1800 residents in this neighborhood.

          - This neighborhood really needs this housing.

          - He would be disappointed if the developer decided to cancel the project because of the delays.

          - No one will be able to inform everyone in this community. It would be impossible.

          - It isn't often when a developer wants to invest thousands of dollars into a neighborhood.

          - Another delay is unmerited and is uncalled for.

          (Did not state name)

          - His concerns have not been addressed so he is in support of this continuance.

          Espinola Jackson

          - She has been a resident of the community since 1968.

          - The Park and Recreation Department's only involvement in this project is related to the open space because the Bay View Hill is a burial ground for Native Americans.

          Alan Martinez - Project Architect

          - He has been meeting with the neighborhood for many years.

          - There is no new information that has been sent out.

          - There is a list of all the community meetings that have been organized.

          - There is no reason for a continuance.

          Keith Richardson

          - He is against this continuance.

          - It is time to go on with this project.

          - He would like to one day be a homeowner.

          Con Nicholson

          - A project of this magnitude really needs to be done right.

          - He is in support of this continuance.

          - Concern about quality for the residents is most important.

          - If a continuance is what is needed so that all involved parties are satisfied, then it should be continued.

          Clement Johnson

          - This project should be heard today. It has been going on for 13 years.

          Rev. Bell

          - He has been in this area for a long time.

          - He feels that this process should move forward.

          - The longer that this project is delayed, it costs a lot of money.

          Devan Richardson

          - He is a lifetime resident of the Bay View community.

          - He is against this continuance. The developer has done a lot of work with trying to deal with the issues.

          - There are people here today who are ready and able to become homeowners.

          - There are many people that want to move back into San Francisco.

          - This project should be moved forward.

          Milard Walkin

          - They have done a lot of outreach with the community. There have been about 40 [meetings].

          - Had this project been allowed to be built when it was initiated it would have cost a lot less.

          - This project needs to be moved forward.

          Tania Alexander

          - She was born and raised in this area.

          - She is not in support of a continuance.

          - She lives in Vallejo but her church, her parents and her job is in San Francisco and she would like to become a property owner in the City.

          - This project is badly needed and the only way that this will happen is if this developer is allowed to construct the project.

          Kathleen Williams-Clary

          - She is appalled with this project.

          - She requests a continuance because the design and height of the building is not in compliance with the rest of the neighborhood.

          - She requests a continuance to review the design.

          - She proposed a reduction in height and in bulk.

          Melvin Brown

          - There should be a continuance on this project until more information is provide and everyone can make a better decision on this project.

          Maven Salves

          - He lives near the project.

          - He supports the project. It is long overdue.

          - There have been delays after delays after delays.

          - He is not in support of a continuance.

          Jim Salinas

          - Every developer also has the responsibility to communicate details of the project with the community and include them in the process.

          - Public benefits are very important--such as affordable housing.

          - The Commission has the responsibility of communicating to the developers that there is such a thing a due diligence.

          - He is hardly ever in favor of a continuance but in this instance he is.

          Ruth Callis

          - She just received this information today and is in support of a continuance.

          Joe O'Donaghue

          - This project needs to go forward today. It has been going on and on and on.

          - The Commission should oppose any delays whatsoever.

          Al McKees

          - He is in favor of discontinuance. Having a continuance will mean segregated housing.

          Archie Auquipenty

          - He has developed many projects in the Bay View district.

          - This project needs to go forward. No one wants to have this project go on for three more years.

          Derrick Smith - Marin Ship Construction Services

          - He is in support of this project and of a continuance.

          Toye Moses

          - He would like the Commission to make a decision today and not continue this project.

          Charles Clary

          - This project should be continued since the community wants to work with Mr. Murphy.

          - The first time that the project was presented, it was presented other than what it is today.

          - He is sure that they can work with the developer.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 25, 2004 (placed at the beginning of the calendar).

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

          NAYES: Feldstein

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      17. 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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 16.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 25, 2004 (placed at the beginning of the calendar).

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

          NAYES: Feldstein

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

This item was taken out of order and followed item 15.

          18a. 2003.1038KCR (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

                1490 MASON STREET - east side above the Broadway Tunnel, Lot 046 in Assessor's Block 0159 - Request for a General Plan Referral to determine if the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility for Sprint PCS on the Chinatown Public Health Center is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jennifer Estes - Sprint

          - This application complies with the WTS Siting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.

          - This site is a preference 1 and is the most desirable.

          - The design is visually unobtrusive and compatible with the neighborhood.

          - Sprint mailed 991 trilingual notices.

          - There were meetings with the neighbors and only two people attended.

          - Sprint spoke to the health center in the neighborhood and there were about 40 people in attendance.

          - Currently Sprint's coverage is insufficient in the area.

          Patricia Molino

          - She is opposed to this project.

          - Many people receive the notices and they throw them out because there is not much education on the radiation. There is simply not much education in the community.

          - There is also no awareness or notification placed in the local newspapers.

          - She realizes that San Francisco has enough antennas and almost all of the cell phones work just fine.

          - She is appalled that this installation is proposed at a health center where there are a lot of elderly.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16737

          18b. 2003.1038KCR (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 install a wireless telecommunications facility for Sprint PCS consisting of four antennas and five equipment cabinets on the Chinatown Public Health Center. Two antennas will be concealed inside a replacement flagpole on the roof, one antenna will be concealed inside a false vent pipe on the roof, and one antenna will be suspended from the ceiling of the Broadway Tunnel at the east entrance. The equipment cabinets will be located on the roof of the building. The project site is within an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed facility meets Location Preference 1 of the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

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

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16738

E. 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: 5:24 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, April 8, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as Corrected: President Shelley Bradford Bell was absent. Vice President Sue Lee called the meeting to order.

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

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

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