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

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

July 15, 2004

July 15, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, July 15, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee,
Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Amit Ghosh; Jean Paul Samaha; Miriam Chion; Teresa Ojeda, Susan Exline; Johnny Jaramillo; Jasbir Rubin; 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. 2003.0363CD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        2626 BALBOA STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 011A in Assessor's Block 1570 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.1 to allow up to one dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area, resulting in three dwelling units on a 5,000 square-foot lot in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project is also subject to a mandatory Discretionary Review hearing per the Planning Commission's Residential Demolition Policy.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Proposed for Continuance to August 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 5, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      2a. 2003.0363CD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        2626 BALBOA STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 011A in Assessor's Block 1570 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.06.6594 proposing to demolish a one-story, four-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Proposed for Continuance to August 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 5, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      2b. 2003.1283CD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        2626 BALBOA STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 011A in Assessor's Block 1570 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolitions, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.06.6596 proposing to construct a four-story, three-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Proposed for Continuance to August 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 5, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      3. 2003.1110T (C. NIKITAS:(415) 558-6306)

        REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS - Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Planning Code to Allow a Required Second Means of Egress Adoption of an ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding a new section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow certain stairways that are a required second means of egress under the Building Code, as permitted obstructions in the rear yard. The California Building Code no longer allows fire escapes as a second means of egress in most cases. This proposed text amendment provides an exemption to meet the requirements of the Building Code. This ordinance also includes changes to Section 311 and 312 to require neighbor notification for the addition of these stairways.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 24, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to September 23, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 23, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      4. 2003.1109D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

        2226 CALIFORNIA STREET - north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0637 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9919696, proposing to construct a four-car garage in the basement of, and construct a two story rear addition, including a roof deck at the third floor level, to a three story over basement, existing three-unit building located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

        (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 5, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        5. 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.

        WITHDRAWN

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to August 5, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      6. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of June 17, 2004.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        EXCUSED: W. Lee and Olague

        7. Commission Comments/Questions

            Commissioner Sue Lee:

        Re: Position of Planning Director

        - She requested that an item be placed on the agenda to discuss a process for reviewing the position of planning director, evaluating the director's performance, determining qualifications for the position and recruiting and considering potential candidates.

        - She would like to have this item scheduled when all six Commissioners are present or at the meeting of August 5, 2004. Commissioner Bradford Bell is aware of this. She [President Bradford Bell] has formed a committee of three to follow through on some of the search and recruitment activities in between the meetings. The members of this committee would be Commissioner Bradford Bell, Commissioner Antonini and myself. She [President Bradford Bell] designated Commissioner Hughes as an alternate to this committee.

            Commissioner William Lee:

        Re: City Stat

        - Next week the Planning Department is scheduled to begin the first City Stat meeting. He would like to see copies of the information that is provided to the Mayor's office so they are on the "same page." The City is to provide a spreadsheet of the number of people that are out on sick leave, the number of days that are taken off, the people on vacation, the number of FTEs in the department, and the number of contracts that the department puts out.

        Re: Controls or Policies [for the Mission]

        - He was taken by the item because he expected to hear the item and he felt that the Planning Staff was not given the opportunity to voice their concerns. Is there a communication issue between the staff and the Commission? Could this be addressed during the Director's Report or right after Commission comments?

            Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Letter from Toby Levine

        - There is a letter from her regarding the Interim rules. She had a lot of practical and thoughtful remarks.

        - The practicality he found was very good.

        Re: Request Previously Made

        - There was a request by Mary Murphy in February regarding whether these controls are applicable under state law. He has not received an opinion from that.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Amit Ghosh

        Thank you for giving us this opportunity which was denied us at the last hearing. Two weeks ago in an exaggerated public gesture the Commission sited incomplete and inadequate staff work as the reason for continuing action on the interim rules for the Eastern Neighborhoods. Everyone present at the hearing was allowed to speak except for staff. Commissioners, I am ready to accept all responsibility for staff work and performance under my supervision and my record is clear on that and speaks for itself. However, I am completely puzzled as to what lapses there might have been on staff's part. I have therefore asked staff to prepare an account and chronology of events, Commission requests and staff responses that pertain to the hearing of two weeks ago on the Eastern Neighborhood Rules.

        Johnny Jaramillo

        We would basically like to clarify any miscommunication so that a decision can be made on September 2, 2004. To that end, we are presenting this statement of facts:

        On March 25, Commission President Bell asked to reopen the matter of setting Interim Zoning Rules for the Mission. Commissioner Bell expressed urgency and requested staff to schedule meetings with Commissioners. Following these meetings, a hearing by the Commission was scheduled for June 3 and a staff memorandum containing the proposed interim rules was submitted to the Commission on May 27. On July 1, the hearing on the Mission Zoning Rules were again continued, this time to September 2. On June 3, the scheduled meeting was continued to July 1, though no reason was provided for the continuance. The commissioners had at least a month to review the proposed rules. On the matter of the Commissioner's requests--which Commissioner Bell falsely accused the staff of not fulfilling and therefore holding back Commission action on the interim rules for the Mission--we would like to respond as follows: At the May 14 meeting with staff, Commissioner Sue Lee requested a new map of the Eastern Neighborhoods larger than that provided at the February 12 hearing showing the Interim Zoning Policies applying to the Eastern Neighborhood. Copies of this larger map was submitted to Commissioners on June 24. On June 3, Commissioner Antonini requested staff carry out exit interviews with firms that have left San Francisco. He provided a list for staff to contact on June 9. The survey of former San Francisco businesses was submitted to Commissioner Antonini on June 29. On June 3, Commissioner Sue Lee requested a list of projects that have been pending since Interim Policies were adopted. This list was prepared but staff was not able to submit this at the July 1 hearing. Commissioner Sue Lee later clarified her map request. This time asking for a map that shows only the three overlays discussed at the February 12 hearing. A new map was prepared and was to be submitted at the Commission hearing on July 1 but again staff was not allowed to do so. It was not until July 1 when the continuance to September 2 was proposed that it was made public that the postponement was on account of staff's proposed inability to comply with the Commission's request for additional information. Commissioner Bell even rebuffed and denied staff's attempt to respond to this accusation. In addition, at the July 1 hearing, Commissioner Antonini restated his earlier request to staff regarding new PDR firms that have recently started or recently relocated to San Francisco. We would like to remind the Commission that staff has fulfilled this request to the extent possible. At various times including at the pubic hearing on February 12, staff has stated that a detailed list of business names from the assessors office is confidential information. As we have already informed the Commission, this assertion is backed up by consultations with the City Attorney's Office. We would like to call to the Commission's attention, that by the time of the September 2 hearing, some 23 weeks and almost 6 months will have elapsed since Commissioner Bell reopened the case. San Francisco deserves effective planning. If there are errors in our understanding and responsiveness to the Commission, we hope that the ensuing dialogue will clarify these points to ensure that on September 2 a decision will be made. Policies or Controls, the decision is yours to make. If you don't like the language in the proposed Interim Rules, you can change it. If you disagree with staff's recommendation on where to apply the different interim zones, you can change the maps as well. It is within your power to do so. A decision on the small interim step, lasting a mere 18 months, must be made if permanent zoning is ever to be adopted. Thank you.

        Miriam Chion

        You have heard that our last hearing on the Eastern Neighborhoods has left us extremely concerned about our professional standards and our ability to plan for the City. The statement that the Commission made about staff's inability to provide information, and that being the reason for continuance, comes to us as a surprise and also as a major disappointment. We felt and we believe we have responded to the Commission's request. You have asked for maps, we have provide maps. You have asked for data, we have provided data. We have provided all the information that we are allowed to provide you within the legal boundaries that the City Attorney has established for us. There are additional requests that will be delivered to you as soon as we can. After the adoption of the Interim policies on February 12 for the Eastern Neighborhoods, we have prepared specific interim rules for the Mission for the June hearing, we did not hear any comments or questions on that report. After that, we revised and added some minor changes as stated before and a few changes in the language to allow for greatest development flexibility. The complaint from the Commission, we believe, was aggravated by the acting Director's inability to take responsibility for the reports we release. We believe that the director is responsible for any report released by the department. He can choose to stop the release of a report as it has been done before many times. The Director cannot instruct staff to prepare a memo and then remove his name from such document. The false use of staff performance as an excuse to delay the process once more is not acceptable professional standards. This working condition is not acceptable to staff not only because of our ethical and professional standards but also because the City and our communities are severely impacted by our dysfunctional planning process. Commissioners, we have spent by now seven years trying to rezone the Eastern Neighborhoods. We have spent probably by now hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. We have generated thousands of pounds of reports. Many families have left the City. Many businesses have left the City. Many developers have lost money.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

        Re: Budget

        - He had hoped to talk about the budget process but today is not the day to do so because the budget is still evolving.

        - There have been changes at the last minute.

        - The Board continued the budget item until next week.

        - It would be more appropriate to talk about the budget next week.

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

        BOS -

        Land Use Committee

        Re: Ordinance to Amend the Planning Code

        - The committee passed an ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Daly that amends the Planning Code to reduce the basic Floor Area Ration, or FAR in the CM Districts, from 9 to 1 to 3 to 1 in CM Zoning Districts. The Commission had voted +4-0 on May 6, 2004 to recommend disapproval. The Committee voted +2-0 to pass it out to the full Board.

        Re: 55 Ninth Street

        - This general plan amendment was approved and passed to the full Board.

        Re: Budget

        - The budget will be heard at the BOA next Tuesday and there might be changes.

        BOA -

        Re: 309 Cortland Avenue - Charlie's Club

        - The Commission voted on this case on April 22, 2004 for a change of use, adding live entertainment and physical expansion. The Commission voted +5-2 to let the project go forward with conditions that resulted in 14 notice of special restrictions that limited the operation of the club.

        - There were five appeals at BOA, and the vote was +4-0 to uphold all the permits and determinations. The BOA did modify some of the conditions the Commission imposed. 1) removing Thursday evening as one of the longer periods for later hours and putting it in with the other weekday groups; 2) Sunday to Thursday were reduced to 10:00 p.m.; 3) there were some restrictions on the location of speakers; 4) additional soundproofing requirements.

        Re: 3196 Pacific Avenue

        - The Board voted to uphold the Commission's decision with a condition that one of the windows in the appellant's property be obscured.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

      NOTE: Guidelines for a Consent Calendar were not established. This item was heard as part of the Regular Calendar.

      10. 2004.0555U (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

        801 MISSION STREET-south side between 4th and 5th Street, Lot 3724 in Assessor's Block 067. Request to erect business signs on the ground floor of the 5th and Mission Streets City-owned public parking garage under Sign Permit Number 2004.04.19.1614. The proposal is to legalize an already erected single faced illuminated wall sign that measures 1'10" x 10'1" on the ground floor of the parking garage's Mission Street façade. Two single faced illuminated cabinet signs measuring 2'0" x 4'6" have been placed in the storefront window. Planning Code Section 605 requires that the Planning Commission approve or disapprove all applications for permits to erect business signs in P (Public) Districts. The property is located in a P (Public) District, and a 90X/340-I Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

        SPEAKERS(S):

        (+) Alan Ford

        - They submitted an application in April and they were told that the area was part of the redevelopment so they went to the Redevelopment Agency.

        - They were then told that it was a Planning Department matter so they went to the Planning Commission.

        - So he is not sure what is going on and apologized for the confusion.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        NAYES: Hughes

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16834

    E. REGULAR CALENDAR

      11. 2004.0538T (J. P. SAMAHA: (415) 558-6602)

        PLANNING CODE SECTION 312 AMENDMENTS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code Section 312 to delete the requirement that changes of use per the use categories of Article 7, and changes of use to a retail coffee stores, as defined in the Planning Code Section 790.102(n), or to a pharmaceutical and personal toiletries use, as defined in Planning Code Section 790.102(c), or the addition of a prescriptive drug service where none previously existed within 3 years of an application for an addition, be subject to the notification and review procedures of Section 312; to add the requirement that changes of use to a formula retail use be subject to the notification and review procedures of Section 312; to add the requirement that building permit applications for a change of use to a bar, liquor store, walkup facility, full service restaurant, large fast food restaurant, small self-service restaurant, massage establishment, outdoor activity, or adult or other entertainment use, receive review for compliance with Neighborhood Commercial Design Guidelines and have a notice posted on-site for a 15 calendar day period during which the permit will be held pending any request for discretionary review before the Planning Commission; to add the requirement that the Planning Department make available and update every six months it list of neighborhood organizations with interests in specific properties or area; to make findings of consistency with the priority polices of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the resolution, recommending to the Board of Supervisors to approve the proposed ordinance.

        Re: Continuance

        Marilyn Amini

        - When there is a General Plan amendment proposed, Section 302 requires that there be a publication of intent to initiate. There has not been a publication of intent to initiate.

        - There is an article in the Independent which is only an announcement of the hearing.

        - There are proposed changes to Article 7.

        - Many uses are addressed and the public has the right to respond to a change of use.

        - This is an exceedingly important item.

        Re: Merits of the Project

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Any Leighton - Representing Supervisor Gonzalez

        - This is a follow up to the Formula Retail Legislation.

        - She thanked Mr. Samaha for his hard work on this legislation.

        - There are two specific recommendations that have come forward with changes to the way posting are done in general: changing the color of the posting; post on the planning department website any notifications that will be placed on the job sites.

        (+) Paul Wermer - Neighborhood Network

        - He thanked staff for going out and working with the community.

        - Movie theaters, medicinal services etc. can very significantly impact the community.

        - Many of these uses are permitted in an NC-1 district.

        - He urged the Commission to take this legislation into consideration.

        (+) Courtney Clarkson

        - She lives near a neighborhood commercial district.

        - Postings are practically impossible to see. Neighbors only know about projects through mailings.

        - To propose not having any notification would be devastating.

        - Keep the 30-day notice and keep the mailings for these types of projects.

        (-) Sue Hestor

        - A lot of her concerns have been addressed.

        - She agrees with the 30-day posting and the color postings.

        - She asked for a staff report and received it but it only covers a small portion of what this presentation covered.

        - She believes that the staff report is not very complete.

        - She also believes that there was not adequate notice for this project. When there is a project that causes such an impact, people need to know about it.

        (+) Ron Miguel - PAR

        - He hopes that the Commission will consider 30 days instead of 15.

        - Color is very good on postings.

        - It is great that many people went to the Small Business Commission.

        - This legislation affects small residential districts.

        - Mailed notices are very important.

        (+) Marilyn Amini

        - Notification for this item was inadequate.

        - Materials were just handed out today and are quite complex.

        - Neighborhood organizations have not studied this and they should be notified.

        - She requests that the Commission not take any action on this item until proper notification to the neighborhoods has been done.

        (+) John Wood - San Francisco Late Night Coalition

        - They approve of this legislation.

        - They do not have a problem with the 15 to 30 day posting.

        - Something has to be done about the logjam at Planning.

        - Many projects are stalled.

        - Small businesses cannot wait.

        - Posting is better than a mailing.

        (+) Linda Klouda - Pacific Heights Neighborhood Association

        - They support the 30-day notice and mailings to the neighborhoods.

        ACTION: Approved with the following modifications: 30 day notification, posters should be a bright noticeable color (orange); notification on the Planning Department website (unless it results in severe workload difficulties; mailings should remain and leaving out the other uses.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16835

      12. 2004.0424D (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        331 GIRARD STREET - east side Girard Street between Bacon and Burrows Streets, Lot 7B in Assessor's Block 5982 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.01.1345, proposing to add a second dwelling unit to the existing one unit building. The proposal also includes a third story vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Clement Chung - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He is opposed to the proposed project because of the following issues: The addition would block his sunlight; the property value would be decreased; the subject project is a retail property; his parents are retired and they spend a lot of time in the back yard so this would cause a discomfort for them; he has a one year old child and is concerned about the affects of this project on his son; a member of his family suffers from allergies so he is concerned about that.

        - Construction will affect his family life.

        - He displayed photographs of the block face showing that the proposed project would not be compatible with the neighborhood.

        - He displayed photographs of the back yard showing that the landscaping will suffer with the decreased light.

        (-) Ping Wong

        - She is the wife of the Discretionary Review requestor.

        - She admires how this block looks.

        - The proposed project will affect their privacy.

        - They will loose a lot of light.

        - There are a lot of problems with the owner. They have not been good neighbors and do not take care of the property.

        - She agrees that the project sponsor should fix the house the way it was before the fire.

        (+) Kung Kay Chiu - Structural Engineer

        - There was a fire two years ago so he saved his money to remodel the house.

        - He has received calls from neighbors who were concerned with the property.

        - He has made various changes to the plans because he has taken into consideration the concerns of the neighbors.

        (+) Raymond Chan - General Contractor

        - It is not true that the project sponsor has not maintained the property.

        - There has been a lot of wait time to obtain building permits.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project as proposed.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      13a. 2003.1226DV (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        266-270 14TH STREET - north side of 14th Street, between Mission and South Van Ness Streets, Lot 20 in Assessor's Block 3531- Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application 2003.11.26.1242 proposing to change the use of the building from a live/work use to an assembly and entertainment use per Planning Code Section 221. The property is located in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District, in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and in the Housing/Mixed Use area of the Eastern Neighborhoods.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) My Do - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - At one time there was an auto repair shop at this location, then it became an art gallery, then it became a dot com. Since the owner resides there, he would like to make the location an entertainment use. Recently the location has been used as an event center without the proper permits although they are trying to get the permits in order.

        - There has not been any community communication.

        - This project sets a precedent.

        - There are already market rate units in the area.

        - There will be displacement and gentrification impacts.

        - It is important that the Mission community have input into this project.

        (-) Mithril Cox

        - She has been living in the area for eight years.

        - When there have been events at this location there have been fights on the street, public urination, etc.

        - She is opposed to this use. In the day time she would rather have an art gallery.

        (-) Paul Sedersky

        - He is representing various neighbors who could not come to the meeting.

        - There was no hearing notice on the building. He saw it some time ago but not recently.

        - There are about 35 signatures of adjacent neighbors and owners who are opposed to the project.

        - There have been a lot of illegal events at this location.

        - There has been illegal parking, illegal drug dealing, noise, public urination, etc.

        (-) Kristine Roberts

        - She just purchased a home in the area and is concerned about property values going down.

        (-) Kate Shuton

        - She lives in the neighborhood.

        - She knows that this area has been through many transitions. It used to be a lot more dangerous neighborhood than it is now.

        - She does not want her son to be awakened by drunken men.

        (-) Chris Selig - MAC

        - This project should not be a piece meal thing doing spot zoning.

        - A lot of planning has been done by the neighborhood.

        - This project opens the door with what they have a problem with: people doing what they want [without community input].

        - She urged the Commission to take DR and implement solid policies.

        (-) Charlie Sciammas - MAC

        - This site has had a lot of changes of use.

        - This area is the heart of the industrial districts.

        - Most people could argue that there are significant impacts in the area.

        - The project undermines the community planning work that has been going on.

        (-) Richard Marquez - Mission Agenda

        - He agrees that this project is not consistent with the General Plan.

        - The Planning Department needs to look at the Mission comprehensively.

        - There are tree market rate projects in the future.

        - This project will set in motion everything that they have been fighting against.

        (+/-) Jim Salinas

        - This is a neighborhood he knows very well.

        - This neighborhood is in transition and he fully understands what the neighbors are saying.

        - The Commission should not get into the habit of putting the Mission into one category.

        - The project provides much needed housing for the Mission.

        - The neighborhood is moving forward for the better.

        (+/-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - They support the parking variance.

        - Take Discretionary Review to address the issues that have been brought up.

        - This is an excellent project from a transportation perspective.

        - The area is close to various transportation lines.

        - There is plenty of surface parking.

        (-) Judy Letbetter

        - They are really concerned about the change of direction this area is headed for.

        - There are about 250 people who are homeless.

        - The housing stock is quickly drying up.

        - It is important to bring proposed projects in line with the needs of the neighborhood.

        - Two percent of new units should be affordable.

        (+) Erik Woodacker - Capella Events Center

        - He displayed photographs of the project location and gave an architectural and engineering description of the project.

        - The sponsor does not want to be a night club.

        - The conditions cover most of the concerns that the neighbors have.

        - Most of the concerns of the neighborhood are of late night parties. The closing time for the event center is 1:00 a.m.

        - The location is a permitted use as an art/event center/gallery.

        - The events will mostly be: large corporate clients, product launches, forums for meetings, community outreach programs, think tanks, fundraisers for non-profit events, etc.

        (+) Jacqueline Burns

        - This project would reach out to private, corporate, and artists.

        - There are people that might be coming from Moscone Center to the location for events that would end about 7:00 p.m.

        - They had taken the sign down because it was misaligned but they placed the sign back up again.

        - She did a lot of community out reach.

        (+) Darian Heyman - Aurigg, LLC

        - He started working with Capela on various events.

        - Capela donated the use of their location for free.

        - On March 12, 2004, they had a meeting with various people from the neighborhood as well as MEDA.

        - This is more of an art and entertainment center.

        (+) Rene Garcia, Jr.

        - He is a San Francisco artist.

        - This project is like a "diamond in the rough."

        - There is a lot of craziness in the area but this project will make the area better.

        - Many people who are attending conventions at Moscone usually come to the area for a drink.

        - This space is very, very beautiful.

        - He hopes to see something like this continue.

        (+) Russell Wagner - Work of Art Latering

        - He owns a catering/event planning business.

        - He is in favor of Capella's permit being approved.

        - There is a shortage of entertainment venues.

        - The neighborhood was poisoned by past problems.

        - Going forward is what this is all about.

        - There are so many places that have valet parking.

        (+) Ryan Geller - Capella Events Center

        - He lives in the Mission and loves it.

        - When he brings his family and friends, he always takes them to various events.

        - He supports this project.

        (+) Michael Jennings - Small Potatoes Catering

        - He owns a catering business.

        - There is a tremendous need for this type of business.

        - He strongly supports the approval of this project.

        (+) (name unclear)

        - The project could also be used as a workshop for after hours.

        - - This project is a wonderful opportunity.

        (+) Elaine Jennings - Concentric Productions, Inc.

        - This event space will bring forward a lot of entertainers, etc

        - There are many venues near the propose project.

        - She urged the Commission to approve the project.

        (+) Sheryl Belansky

        - She is in support of this project.

        - She is a property manager adjacent to the project.

        - She agrees with the hours of operation imposed on the project sponsor.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to September 2, 2004 to allow sufficient time to review the conditions of approval. Public Hearing shall remain open only for the Conditions of Approval.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        EXCUSED: Olague

      13b. 2003.1226DV (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        266-270 14TH STREET north side of 14th Street, between Mission and South Van Ness Streets, Lot 20 in Assessor's Block 3531- Request for an Off-Street Parking Variance proposing to change the use of the building from a live/work use to an assembly and entertainment use without providing the required parking spaces. The property is located in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District, in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and in the Housing/Mixed Use area of the Eastern Neighborhoods.

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

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and Continued the Item to September 2, 2004.

      14. 2003.1285D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

        3340 BAKER STREET - east side between North Point and Bay Streets, Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 0923 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.04.1168s, proposing to construct a new three-story rear horizontal extension with a new roof deck on top to an existing three-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 3, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Mr. Johnson - Labor Council

        - He agrees with taking Discretionary Review and reducing the height from three stories to two stories.

        (-) Joe Butler - Architect - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He also agrees with reducing the height of the building.

        - The property is located near the Palace of Fine Arts, which makes it a tourist area.

        - The project does not support a side set back.

        - Thirty-six neighbors have signed a petition to reduce the height.

        - The roofline is not compatible with a historic building.

        - Almost all of the neighbors are satisfied with staff recommendations.

        (-) Dr. Joseph Presti

        - He purchased his home in 1958.

        - He is requesting that the dimensions and composition of the property be made clear.

        - His lot is a key lot so this is the only lot of the block that is intruded upon by the adjoining streets.

        - There is no roof garden on top of the third floor.

        - He hopes that the Commission will support staff recommendation.

        (-) Maureen Dhonad

        - She is happy that there has been a recommendation to reduce the height.

        (-) Paul Lui

        - He has lived on North Point Street for 18 years.

        - He is a licensed engineer.

        - He has reviewed the plans and suggests that it is a huge yard.

        - The addition should be based on the Residential Design Guidelines.

        - The area is very crowded already.

        (-) Joan Girardot

        - She agrees with the recommendation of staff.

        - The Residential Design Guidelines are not satisfied with this project.

        - The Association desires to protect the mid-block open space.

        - The project does not comply with good neighbor gestures.

        - The addition is not compatible with the other buildings.

        (-) Nicki Szeto

        - She owns property on Baker Street.

        - She has been living in the house for over 24 years.

        - She appreciates the Planning Department's recommendation.

        - There will be 52 weeks of shade upon her back yard because of the height of the building.

        - They have been in communication with the project sponsor.

        (-) Rev. Virstan B. Choy

        - He and his wife live on North Point Street.

        - They appreciate the new information provided by the Planning Department.

        - He would recommend reducing the height and mass of the building.

        - He recommended also reducing the depth of the project by 15 feet.

        (-) Heidi Monaco

        - She lives on Marina Boulevard.

        - She and her husband purchased their home 25 years ago.

        - It is really important to maintain the tourist industry.

        - The Italian art deco architecture is very important to preserve that draws tourist every day of the year.

        - She hopes that the Commission will accept the recommendation provided by staff.

        (-) Sue Hestor

        - She thanked staff for the staff report.

        - Roof decks are not popular in this area because it is mostly always windy and foggy.

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

        - What the neighbors are asking for is basically what staff has recommended.

        (+) Warner Wong - Representing Project Sponsor

        - He believes that there are some misunderstandings.

        - The project has been designed with the same scale and design as the neighboring properties

        - He has designed the project trying to deal with the neighbor's issues and has done a lot of research.

        - The project has been sensitively done.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with recommendations from Staff: 1) reduce the proposed rear horizontal extension from three to two stories in height; 2) submit a building permit revision showing elimination of the third floor deck/balcony directly facing the adjacent Discretionary Review requestor's property (north facing elevation); use of clerestory windows and/or opaque glass for the second and third floors facing the adjacent Discretionary Review requestor's property; and use of more transparent material, such as glass for the roof top deck parapet.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      15a. 2004.0621D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        1907 MISSION STREET - east side, south of 15th Street; Lot 28 in Assessor's Block 3553 - Planning Commission initiated Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.01.28.5109, proposing the demolition of a one-story, PDR building formerly occupied by Spencer's Car Radio, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District, a 80-B Height and Bulk District and within the Eastern Neighborhoods Housing/Mixed-Use Overlay District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the demolition permit.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) My Do - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - This area will be witness to a lot of development.

        - They would like to see a project that is more helpful to the community.

        - The project will displace a good company and a lot of workers from the area.

        - This is just an argument for interim controls.

        - The developer should guarantee to fill the retail space with PDR use or a family-serving business. The developer should accept Section 8 vouchers as well.

        (-) Chris Selig - Mission Anti-displacement Coalition

        - This area is not a free for all area.

        - There have been a lot of huge projects with little or no community benefits.

        - The project would increase gentrification.

        - They are concerned with the displacement of jobs.

        - She asks that the DR get approved and that the project be thought about in context with strategic and community planning.

        (-) Richard Marquez

        - He wonders if the testimonies are worth anything.

        - He supports the Discretionary Review.

        - He works in the area and this is a high poverty area.

        - The Commission needs to respect the planning process.

        - There is a need for public benefits in low-income communities.

        - He is a third generation San Franciscan.

        (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - He supports the project because it provides housing and un-bundles parking.

        - He feels that this project sponsor should provide less than 1 to 1 parking when they are near a transit corridor.

        - There is ample off street parking.

        - There are a lot of lots in the area available for parking.

        (+) Philip Lesser - Mission Merchants Association

        - The MMA agrees wholeheartedly with the Planning Department's recommendation to issue demolition and building permits without discretionary review for this mixed-use project.

        - Mission Street is one of the most important neighborhood-commercial shopping corridors in the City.

        - This project will transform one of the most tawdry and crime-infested parts of the Mission District into a safer and more usable environment.

        (+) Ron Miguel - San Francisco Housing Coalition

        - This project contains many of the changes that they requested of the project sponsor.

        - His recommendation to MAC and MEDA is that if they want affordable housing they should look at the armory.

        - The armory is very different than 1880 Mission Street.

        - There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

        - He requested that the project go ahead because this area needs some gentrification.

        (+) did not state name

        - He read a letter from Ms. Sofia Ayala from the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce as well as the Mission Merchant's Association.

        - The chamber is very well acquainted with what is going on at this corner.

        - The architects and developers of this project are applauded for wanting to have this development in the area and therefore improve it.

        (+) Mark Nelson - Mark Nelson Development - Project Sponsor

        - In addition to all the work done to this project, he realizes that they are taking a risk in proposing this project.

        - They are getting a lot closer to developing something that the community will approve 100 percent.

        - There are a lot of neighborhood organizations and businesses that support this project.

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

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        EXCUSED: Olague

      15b. 2004.0622D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        1911 MISSION STREET - east side, south of 15th Street; Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 3553 - Planning Commission initiated Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.02.10.6032, proposing the demolition of a one-story garage formerly used by Spencer's Car Radio, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District, a 80-B Height and Bulk District and within the Eastern Neighborhoods Housing/Mixed-Use Overlay District.

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

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for 15a.

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

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        EXCUSED: Olague

      15c. 2004.0623D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        1581 15th STREET - south side, between Mission and Capp Streets; Lots 30 in Assessor's Block 3553 - Planning Commission initiated Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.02.10.6037, proposing the demolition of a one-story, PDR building occupied by the R.B. Roofing Company, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District, a 80-B Height and Bulk District and within the Eastern Neighborhoods Housing/Mixed-Use Overlay District.

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

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for 15a.

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

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        EXCUSED: Olague

      15d. 2003.1015D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        1905 MISSION STREET - east side, south of 15TH Street; Lots 27, 28, 29, and 30 in Assessor's Block 3553 - Planning Commission initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.28.5107, proposing the construction of a five-story, mixed-use building in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District, a 80-B Height and Bulk District and within the Eastern Neighborhoods Housing/Mixed-Use Overlay District.

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

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for 15a.

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

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        EXCUSED: Olague

      16. 2003.1196D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

        3871 19TH STREET - south side between Church and Sanchez Streets; Lot 096 in Assessor's Block 3600 - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.21.2760 to replace a roof hatch and two skylights with a stair penthouse for rooftop access, at the existing four-story over garage, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project as submitted.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Fred Lewis - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He has over 30 signatures of neighbors who are against the project.

        - This project would have a negative impact on the neighborhood because it would create the tallest building in the neighborhood.

        - He displayed photographs of how the proposed project would set a precedent with the other homes and how the neighborhood would look if they were to follow suit.

        - He hopes that the Commission will approve a lower roof structure, etc.

        - He displayed drawings of alternatives to the project, which would benefit the neighborhood.

        - He asked that the Commission uphold the previous Commission's decision.

        (-) Bill Addison

        - He has lived in the neighborhood for 34 years.

        - He was here in 1986 when he spoke and the Commission heard his concerns.

        - The attempt of the previous Commission was to prevent later permits to undermine the agreement.

        - The result would be greater height and bulk than the previous Commission had agreed to.

        - He urged the Commission to uphold the previous Commission's decision.

        (-) Jay Duncanson

        - He lives on Sanchez Street.

        - The project sponsor has spent a lot of money trying to fix the water problems with his house.

        - He has searched for various companies to help the project sponsor with his project.

        - The project sponsor mentioned that if this was a low profile project, he would be in agreement.

        (+) Brett Gladstone - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The Planning Commission does not protect views and this project is about views.

        - The solutions that they have identified have been agreeable with various neighbors.

        - The skylight must open for fire safety and maintenance purposes.

        - The various suggestions that the neighbors have suggested are not waterproof.

        (+) David Mast

        - He is co-owner of the property in question.

        - He has been researching this project for the last five years.

        - He has been very sensitive to the neighbor's needs.

        - The neighbors have suggested solutions and each one of them he has researched but they do not meet the requirements he has to adhere to.

        (+) Curt Cline - Architect

        - It has been his experience that flat roof skylights continue to leak.

        - The other structures could be built but there would be a very high maintenance cost.

        - There is mold created by the existing structure.

        (+) Carrey Shaughnessy

        - The skylight was a main issue when the re-roofing started.

        - About five different skylight companies have refused to get involved in this project.

        - He has seen quite a few skylights that have failed.

        (+) Erick Gilbert

        - He is a carpenter and is self-employed.

        - He has found wet wood and mold.

        - It is a very expensive location where the skylight is.

        - It is very important that no more damage occur.

        (+) Achim Voermanek

        - He has a family of three and lives next door to the proposed house.

        - He is concerned with the water problem of his neighbor as well as for his house.

        - A new type of roof access needs to be installed.

        - The application is worth supporting and hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

        (+) Ken Aoki

        - He is a homeowner.

        - He would like to have the problems related to the skylight be finished.

        - Protecting the roof from further water damage is a priority.

        - Since 2000, there has been significant damage done to the roof caused by water.

        (+) Marisa Mizono

        - She lives in the neighborhood.

        - Every winter before the rains, she and her husband are up there in the roof waterproofing the roof.

        - She totally supports this project.

        (+) Kindra Scharich

        - She read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of the project.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications: new stair penthouse structure should not exceed the height of existing structure; Project Sponsor should submit a revised design in order for a permit to be approved.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      17. 2004.0065D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        2131 DIVISADERO STREET - west side between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1004 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.01.24.5926, proposing to modify and raise the roof over the front portion of a single-family dwelling by approximately four feet by changing the compound roof to a hipped roof and adding a dormer window. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Jay O'Neill - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He is concerned with privacy.

        - He discovered that the property adjacent to his house had not obtained building permits.

        - The proposed expansion causes complete disruption of his privacy.

        - Privacy screening was a condition to receive approval.

        - His property will be compromised on all levels.

        - He asks the Commission to consider the implications that this project will have on his house.

        (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing the Project Sponsor

        - He gave a PowerPoint presentation of the architectural aspects of the project.

        (+) Ian Berke

        - He lives right around the corner from the project site.

        - He is very interested in historic preservation.

        - He feels that the project sponsor has a very modest project.

        - He urges the Commission to approve the project.

        (+) Mildred Hindred

        - She believes that she is the neighbor who will be impacted the most from the proposed project yet she is not opposed to the project.

        - She understands the project sponsor's need for expansion.

        (+) Linda Klauda

        - She lives near the project.

        - She is concerned about the streetscape.

        - All the buildings are in original condition.

        - The project sponsor has maintained his home.

        - She has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years.

        (+) Anabell McCelland - Project Sponsor

        - She and her husband would like to have their children on the save level as their bedroom.

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

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      18. 2004.0370C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        3640 BALBOA STREET - north side between 37th and 38th Avenues; Lot 005F in Assessor's Block 1580 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 161(j) of the Planning Code to allow the construction of two dwelling units without off-street parking. The proposal is to enlarge a mezzanine story within an existing 20-foot tall commercial structure and to add two additional floors to the building, resulting in an approximately 40-foot tall, four-story building. The two top floors will each contain a dwelling unit. The reconfigured second floor will contain residential space ancillary to a dwelling unit above, and commercial/storage space associated with the restaurant below (considered a Business or Professional Service use per Section 711.53 of the Code). The subject property is within an NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 1, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 23, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      19. 2004.0381C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        2 SANCHEZ STREET - west side between Duboce and 14th Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3538, Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 721.42 and 186 of the Planning Code to change the use of an existing Grocery/Liquor Store (Cooper's Gourmet) to a Full-Service Restaurant (Cooper's Gourmet) within ¼ mile of the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16836

      20. 2003.1252C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        498 FUNSTON AVENUE - northeast corner of Funston Avenue and Anza Street, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1532 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 178, 209.3(j) and 303 to allow the expansion and intensification of an existing religious institution, (San Francisco Bible Church). The project proposes vertical and horizontal additions to provide an elevator and additional classroom and office space, adding approximately 630 square feet to the two-story over basement church . The property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

        MOTION: 16837

      21. 2003.0313C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

        2243-2247 MARKET STREET - south side between Noe and Sanchez Street, Lot 19 in Assessor's Block 3559 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 721.48 to allow the establishment of a live D.J. entertainment use ("Other Entertainment" as defined by Section 790.38) in an existing bar and restaurant that will be operated under the name Lime (formally known as Lalo's). The subject property is located in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District in a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 1, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This is a very well designed interior restaurant.

        - He is thrilled to have this in the neighborhood.

        - The design was conceived to maintain an atmosphere and eat small portions with small plates and talk.

        - Many neighbors were concerned about noise and crowd control. There was a test run Tuesday night and everyone in the neighborhood is now in support.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Hughes

        MOTION: 16838

      22. 2003.0735C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

        459-495 9TH AVENUE - west side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lots 10B, 016 and 049 in Assessor's Block 1535, and 462 AND 466 10TH AVENUE, east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lots 028 and 029 in Assessor's Block 1535: Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 178, 209.3, 303 and 304 to expand a secondary school (Zion Lutheran Church School) in a residential district. The project requires Conditional Use Authorization because it proposes: (1) the construction of an approximately 16,735 square foot, 3-story over basement addition to the existing school building on 9th Avenue (following the demolition of a building containing two dwelling units (459 9th Avenue) as well as alterations to 462 10th Avenue which would convert it from classroom use to two dwelling units, and alterations to 466 10th Avenue which would add a second dwelling unit and a new partial third floor; (2) the modification of a prior Conditional Use Authorization granted in 1982 (Case No. 82.350C); and (3) it proposes to develop a project site of over 1/2 acre (also called a Planned Unit Development, or PUD), which would allow modifications to the standard Planning Code requirements such as rear yard and open space. With the proposed project, the Zion Lutheran Church School does not plan to increase the allowed student enrollment (225) nor the allowed number of employees (15), per Conditional Use Authorization granted in 1982 (Case No. 82.350C). The new addition to the school building will contain classrooms, science labs, a multi-purpose room, kitchen, restrooms, offices, and a play yard on the rooftop. Nine weekday and twelve weekend off-street parking spaces will be provided in the rear yard behind 462 and 466 10th Avenue.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Dick Wong - Project Architect

        - The Planner has been very diligent and thorough with the project report.

        - There is no opposition to this project.

        - He is available for questions.

        (+) Ron Miguel

        - The conditions on this project are fairly standard.

        - The access to the interior parking area concerned him at first but after analyzing it believes that it was extremely well done.

        - He is very pleased that this religious institution is expanding.

        (-) Winston Louie

        - This is a residential neighborhood where he has lived for 49 years. This area should remain residential.

        - If this church is allowed to expand, it will decrease the property value.

        - They will hear all the noise from the playground.

        - Not everyone works a 9 to 5 job so this noise disrupts his sleep.

        - His father was bedridden and was disrupted by the noise of the playground.

        (+) Jeremy Nelson

        - He supports this project.

        - This project has excellent public transportation.

        - There is no loss of housing.

        - This project could provide no off street parking, the Planning Department's requirement for one to one parking should be reduced.

        - He asked that the Planning Department request to unbundle parking.

        - There should also be a limit to the number of cars that could park in the playground area.

        - There should also be 75 secured bicycle spaces allowed.

        (-) Michael Gehlken

        - He lives right behind the church and the school.

        - He is concerned about the actual dwelling units that will be replaced

        - The church packs the playground with cars so he is concerned about that. The alarms of these cars are also sounding constantly.

        - He is concerned about the loss of light with the addition.

        (-) Jenny Harrington

        - She is tired of the constant noise from the playground area.

        (+) Rose Tai

        - Most of the children that go to this school, live in the neighborhood.

        - She can understand when parents block the driveway.

        - She apologized if the parents or the children cause any inconvenience.

        - The school is wonderful but it is old. It needs to be upgraded if there are plans to continue serving the neighborhood.

        ACTION: Approved as amended: 1) alter condition #10 so that it includes a maximum not to exceed 12 parking spaces; 2) alter condition #11 to state that a traffic management plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of an occupancy permit; 3) recommended adding some bike parking spaces.

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

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

None

Adjournment: 9:46 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as Corrected

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

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:14 PM