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

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

November 18, 2004

November 18, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, November 18, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander; Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell,
Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee; Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: William L. Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Dan Sirois, Dan DiBartolo; Dan Sider; Jim Miller; Adam Light; Paul Lord; Lois Scott; David Alumbaugh; Dominick Argumedo; 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. 2004.0353C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

      2241 GEARY BOULEVARD (AKA 2130 O'FARRELL STREET) - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 050 in Assessor's Block 1098, in an NC-3 (Moderate Scale-Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 105-E Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of 6 antennas on a rooftop penthouse and related equipment on the 6th floor parking deck of the approximately 70-foot tall Kaiser Hospital Parking Garage, as part of Sprint's telecommunications network Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 1 (most preferred) as it is a publicly-used structure. No other cellular carriers have installations at this location.

      Preliminary recommendation: Pending

      (Proposed for Continuance to December 2, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    2a. 2001.0249CV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

      605 KEARNY STREET - west side between Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 226 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization for a building exceeding 35 feet in height in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add one four-story dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The building would be 50 feet in height with the proposed addition. The addition, like the existing commercial building, would cover the entire small site. No parking would be provided. Both a parking and a rear yard/site coverage variance would be required and will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at the same hearing as the Conditional Use authorization. Required open space would be provided on a rooftop terrace.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2004)

      (Proposed for Continuance to December 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 9, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    2b. 2001.0249CV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

      605 KEARNY STREET - west side between Sacramento and Commercial Streets, Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 226 - Request for a Variance for rear yard/site coverage and parking for a building in the Chinatown Community Business (CCB) Zoning District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add one four-story dwelling unit to an existing one-story commercial building on a small, approximately 700 square foot, 29.5-foot deep lot. The commercial unit on the ground floor would remain. The building would be 50 feet in height with the proposed addition. The addition, like the existing commercial building, would cover the entire small site, and no parking would be provided. Required open space would be provided on a rooftop terrace. Conditional use authorization is also required for a building in the CCB to exceed 35 feet in height.

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2004)

    (Proposed for Continuance to December 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 9, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    3. 2004.1089D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

      657 RHODE ISLAND - east side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 4031- Request for Discretionary Review of building permit application no. 2003.11.10.9875 proposing to construct a new two-story over garage, two-family dwelling located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve permit as proposed

      (Proposed for Continuance to December 9, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 9, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    4. 2004.0389D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

      684 ARKANSAS STREET - west side between 20th and 22nd streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 4098 - Neighbor-initiated Discretionary Review on the proposed conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling with vertical and horizontal extensions, under Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.22.5290. The site is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2004)

      (Proposed for Continuance to January 20, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 20, 2005.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

    5. Commission Comments/Questions

      Commissioner Antonini:

      - He welcomed Dean Macris taking THE role as acting director.

      - He thanked Mayor Newsom for his own swearing in.

      - He thanked everyone who has supported him as a Commissioner.

      Commissioner Bradford Bell:

      - The Commission will adjourn in memory of Commissioner Antonini's Father: Joseph Antonini who passed away at the age of 90.

      Commissioner Olague:

      Re: 342 21st Avenue

      - She received a letter from the office of the Discretionary Review requestor regarding the revised plans submitted by the developer and that they are not similar to the ones approved by the Commission.

        Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

        - He had an opportunity to speak with Steve Williams before the hearing today and he also had a discussion with the Commissioners whether in fact the Commission wanted to eliminate the possibility of eliminating the third unit.

        - He felt that this was what the Commission intended to do.

        - He spoke to the Project Sponsor and is not sure if the plan is to cancel the project or submit revisions.

        - Right now, it is premature to deny it.

      Commissioner Olague:

      Re: 755 22nd Avenue

      - She received a request to schedule this.

      - She believes that the vote was +2-3.

        Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

        - He would have to check with the City Attorney or the Commission Secretary.

        Commission Secretary responded:

        - Unless the project is still at the Planning Department, the Commission does not have a mechanism to revisit this.

        City Attorney responded:

        - If it is in the Department, it could be called back.

      Commissioner Sue Lee:

      Re: Open December 16, 2004 as a regular meeting

      - There will be a quorum so cases can be scheduled.

      Commissioner Olague:

      Re: 4th Vote

      - When the Commission does not have a 4th vote, what would this mean to the Commission or the project presenters.

        Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

        - In the case of Discretionary Reviews, where the project is in conformance with the Planning Code and someone is requesting that the Commission use their special DR policy and the Commission does not do that because there is no 4th vote, then the project is considered approved unless it is continued to a future date.

        - In the case of Conditional Use or other types of cases, where the project requires an approval by the Planning Commission to go ahead, if there is no 4th vote, the project is disapproved, unless there is a request to continue to a future date.

        Commission Secretary responded:

        - On the Conditional Use only: Unless there are findings before the Commission, for this opposite action, then it has to be considered as an intent to disapprove. Findings would then need to come to the Commission before there is a final action.

    6. Discussion and consideration of possible action to amend the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission to:

        · Amend the Order of Business to consider moving Public Comment from the end of the calendar to another area on calendar;

        · To define consent calendar procedures for those projects not in Neighborhood Commercial and South of Market districts, which already have procedures set forth under Planning Code 316; and

        · To update various other rules that are not in conformity with the City's Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance) and/or Charter.

        This item was continued to a future date to allow the Commission Secretary and City Attorney to review the areas where the rules are not in conformity with the Administrative Code.

      SPEAKER(S):

      Tony Kelley - Potrero Boosters

      - He agrees with moving public comment to the beginning of the calendar.

      - Perhaps having it at a certain time might be an idea.

      Nilka Julio - Local 21

      - Restoring public comment to a time certain would be best.

      - A fixed and limited time would go a long way to have better communication between the Planning Commission and the public.

      Gloria Williams

      - She would like to have a time specific time for public comment.

      - Or perhaps having several periodic times for public comment.

      - Even though there is the opportunity to email or write comments, there are some issues that are just very important.

      William Hall

      - He is from the Apollo Hotel.

      - Public comment should be in the afternoon and not late at night.

      Patrick Waterman

      - Having public comment at the end of the calendar is an inconvenience for a lot of people.

      James Collins

      - He is from Mission Agenda.

      - Public comment should be held at the beginning of the hearing. There are many people that are disabled and cannot stay to speak at the end of the hearing.

      Joe Shipman

      - He is a member of the Carpenter's Union.

      - It is extremely difficult to stay until the end of the meetings to be able to speak during public comment.

      Richard Marquez

      - Many people have had to wait hours and hours to speak on a matter that is important to them.

      - It is important to protect the precious right to speak during public comment but at the beginning of the calendar.

      - Please move forward with public comment at the beginning of the meetings.

      Bruce Allison

      - Public comment should be split into two parts - one at the beginning and one at the end.

      - Another idea would be to set up a hot line for people to call and give their comments on an item.

      Sylvia Flores

      - She is a mother of three and lives in a small place where the rent is quite high.

      - She would like the Planning Department to create homes where there is affordable rent.

      - It is very difficult for her to come here and give her testimony.

      - It is important to have public comment at the beginning of the agenda.

      Sean Williams

      - He is with Mission/6th Street Agenda.

      - It is frustrating to come to the meetings and wait so long to be able to speak.

      - People have a lot of things to do during the day.

      - People should be able to speak first.

      Bruce Wolfe

      - He is a social worker and a person with a disability.

      - It is very difficult for many people to wait for long periods of time.

      - He realizes that it is also difficult for the Commission to stay at the meeting for long periods of time.

      - It is important to have public comment at the beginning of the meeting.

      Chuck Choy

      - He supports moving public comment to the beginning of the hearing.

      Antonio Diaz

      - He is with PODER and MAC.

      - He would like to reinstate public comment at the beginning of the meeting.

      Cris Durazo

      - He is from the SOMA Community Action.

      - Public comment should be moved to the beginning.

      - Many people she works with do not have the opportunity to come to the hearings.

      - Not everything that the Commission does is project approval.

      Charles Marsteller

      - He thanked the Commission for taking this issue up.

      - The Board of Supervisors suspends the rules at 3:00 to pick up a fixed agenda. This might be a good idea for the Planning Commission. This time can be limited. The number of people can be limited also.

      - This would eliminate people having to be here all day.

      Norman Rolf

      - He urges the Commission to move public comment to the beginning of the agenda.

      - One of the reasons is to have the Commission hear from the public.

      Mary Ann Miller

      - She is speaking for SPEAK.

      - They are among one of many neighborhood groups that would like to come to speak at the hearing.

      - Having public comment at the beginning of the agenda would be ideal.

      - During the previous Commission, the public comment period was never abused.

      Bill Murphy

      - He is a third generation San Franciscan predominantly in the Mission District.

      - There have been a lot of changes and many do not look good.

      - People that live here have a say. Being able to come to the hearing and speak at the beginning would be ideal.

      Chris Cole

      - Everywhere procedures are used that are fair.

      - People that have spoken here today cannot come to speak at the end of the hearing.

      - People should be able to speak at the beginning of the calendar.

      Sue Hestor

      - If there has not been any valuable information said during public comment that is because it happens so late that no one comes.

      - Public comment should be allowed at the beginning of the calendar.

      Azalia Merrell

      - The public will be best served by having public comment at the beginning and at the end of the calendar.

      - There are many people that work during the day and can speak at the end of the calendar and there are elderly and disabled people that do not go out in the late afternoon.

      Jim Salinas

      - This Commission has taken great steps to have good communication between themselves and the public.

      - People do work and most people work until 5:00 p.m.

      - Public comment is set aside for items that are not on the agenda.

      - There are drawbacks on both sides so there is no ideal situation.

      Jeremy Nelson

      - He agrees that having public comment is best at the beginning therefore they are able to use public transportation or walk to the hearing.

      - If public comment is at the end, it causes them to drive or to not come at all.

      - Having two certain times for public comment would be best.

      ACTION on point one:

      1) Put a public comment category at the beginning of the calendar - right before the regular calendar category with a maximum time of 15 minutes-[i.e. five speakers could have up to three minutes each].

      2) Keep the public comment category for closed items.

      3) Keep the public comment category at the end of the calendar.

      4) Commission to review in six months.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      ACTION on point two:

      Adopt staff recommendations to define consent calendar procedures.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      Commissioner Antonini:

      - Consider having a hearing to discuss the canceled 5th Thursday and there is a holiday, it impedes having a hearing.

      - This should be done during the second hearing of January 2005.

      Commission Secretary:

      - She reminded the Commission that the packet information provided to them for the November 4 hearing, which was cancelled and continued to November 29, is still current. She recommended that they not misplace this information.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

    7. Director's Announcements

      Acting Director Dean Macris gave the following report:

      - He is very pleased to be working with the Commission.

      - He has been here 2 ½ weeks and everything is starting out good.

      - It is important to speak in one voice.

      - He has had an opportunity to speak with all the sections of the department.

      - It is important to integrate decision making within the department.

      Re: Backlog

      - There are 246 active cases in the Environmental Review Section with only 12 staff people to deal with these cases.

      - It is important to be on top of this workload.

      - DHR will have the material ready for hiring Planners I to IV.

      - There is no substitute for a good solid professional staff.

      - It is important to get to 132 people budged to improve productivity.

      Re: Commission's Priorities

      - One of the priorities of the Commission is the change of land uses from downtown to the south.

      - The Eastern Neighborhoods EIR is paramount.

      - Staff needs to find a way to provide good solid information to the Commission.

      - He has talked to the firm ESA, who is responsible for the EIR, and they have assured him that they will give the Eastern Neighborhoods EIR top priority.

      - There are actions at the Board of Supervisors that need to be dealt with as well, like Supervisor Maxwell's interim controls legislation.

      - The most affected agencies in City government should be involved in the decision making process in terns of the departments to bring to the Commission it's solid thinking.

      - A team is being formed that includes, The Office of Economic Development, The Office of Housing, The Port Director and the Redevelopment Director, to discuss the issue of some of the immediate pressures of PDR.

      Re: Search for New Director

      - He has talked to the Committee of the Commission and would like to meet individually with the Commissioners about that.

      - A search firm has been nominated to help with finding a new director.

      - He hopes to be able to talk to the national leaders about their ideas on this important position.

      Commissioner Hughes:

      - Thanked Dean Macris for taking this interim position.

      Zoning Administrator Badiner stated:

      Re: 19th and Oakwood Project

      - This is a condominium project that was approved many years ago.

      - The project was sold to a different developer and modifications were made to it.

      - Was this in general conformity with the approval?

      - He asked the developer to conduct community meetings and to speak with the Supervisor of that district.

      - On September 29, he issued a letter of determination finding this project in general conformity with the conditions that the Commission approved.

      - The letters were appealed. This is scheduled for hearing on January 19.

      Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue

      - The Commission approved this project about two years ago.

      - Project Sponsor filed a permit to provide 110 units. There were some concerned citizens.

      - He issued a letter that going from 144 units to 110 units was in general conformity.

      - The owner came back and stated he would do 132 units.

      - He stated orally that he could support this and he would like to see the plans.

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

      BOS -

      Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

      - There are various processes going on with this.

      - The Rules Committee passed out of Committee Supervisor Daly's resolution that establishes a 22 member western SOMA citizen's planning task force.

      - Senior Planner Paul Lord was present at this hearing.

      - The Land Use Committee will hear this coming Monday, Supervisor Maxwell's resolution imposing interim controls on certain lots within the Showplace Square area.

      - Interim Controls that are initiated by the Board do not go before the Commission. If the Land Use Committee passes this it will go directly to the full Board.

      Interim Director Macris commented:

      - He attended the South of Market Leadership Council Meeting.

      - He was very impressed with the diversity of the members who attended.

      - Paul Lord accompanied him and they expressed their support regarding planning in their area.

      Re: New Legislation:

      - On the full Board, Supervisor Maxwell's legislation regarding establishing a task force to establish PDR businesses was passed. The task force will be comprised of nine members.

      - PDR businesses pay higher wages and offer entry-level workers an opportunity for advancement.

      - It is important to bring these businesses back to San Francisco.

      Zoning Administrator Badiner commented:

      - He attended the Finance Committee where the Mills Act contract for 690 Market was heard.

      - The Commission heard this project. The question now is about the financing and/or adding a tax increment.

      - What part of the project does the Mills Action act upon?

      - This was continued at the call of the chair.

      BOA -

      Re: Burlington Coat Factor - 599 Howard Street

      - This was approved for a conversion to an office project.

      - The academy of science has moved into the building in the interim.

      - The project sponsor requested a letter asking if the office entitlement carries forward on this. His initial reaction was no.

      - After some discussion with staff, it was agreed that this was a unique situation.

      - Ms. Hestor appealed this.

      - It was heard last night and the Board upheld the ZA's determination.

      - One of Ms. Hestor's concerns was accuracy and correctness of keeping the annual limit lists up to date.

      Re: 572 San Jose Avenue

      - The Commission heard this.

      - The Commission felt that this was a demolition and denied the project.

      - The Board voted +3-2 to deny the project.

      - Everyone believes that this project will come back before the Commission very soon.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

    9. 2004.0957D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

      3876 19th STREET - north side, between Sanchez & Church, Lot 027, Assessor's Block 3585 - Request for Discretionary Review of building permit application no. 2004.06.28.7517 seeking to construct horizontal and vertical additions to an existing three-family dwelling located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve permit as proposed

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Joseph Newell - Discretionary Review Requestor

      - The neighborhood has mostly one to two story buildings.

      - Even the larger buildings are only two stories over garage.

      - The only building that is out of character in the neighborhood should not be the precedent.

      - The project should remain three stories over parking and eliminate the section of the building that will be built in the front.

      - He has no problem with the project sponsor to move back.

      - He is asking to approve the project but have the 4th floor in the front removed.

      (-) John Moretto

      - He is not opposed to the project regarding the square footage, etc.

      - He is opposed to the increase in building height.

      - Many neighbors sat down and spoke to the project sponsor about the project.

      (+) Scott Hall

      - He has lived at the proposed site for eight years.

      - He has put in a significant amount of time on this proposal.

      - The concerns about neighborhood character are inadequate because the block is not historic.

      - There are three story buildings on the block.

      - He urges the Commission to approve his project.

      - He has a letter from his neighbor to the east that is in support of the project.

      (+) Keith Lee - Project Architect

      - It took many days to design a façade to be similar to the homes on the block.

      - They have tried to do everything possible to do what the City requires.

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

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    10. 2004.0934D (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

      575 25th AVENUE - west side between Anza Street and Geary Boulevard: Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1519 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.26.3071S, proposing to construct vertical and rear horizontal additions to the existing one-story over garage single-family residence and to add a new dwelling unit at the new second floor level. The project site is within 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.

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Richard Lauden

      - He lives on 23rd Avenue.

      - The two buildings have coexisted peacefully for many years.

      - He is concerned that the requests respect all the neighbors.

      - He would like to have the existing light well be respected.

      (-) Beth Lewis

      - She understands property owners wanting to build their dream home but it should not disrespect the needs of the neighbors.

      - This project should be classified as a demolition.

      - She does not want to cause an inconvenience to the project sponsor.

      (+) Franklin Chan

      - He is representing his father.

      - The property is very old and requires many upgrades.

      - The end result of the building will be a three family home.

      - It is important that the Commission understand that traditional Chinese culture have strong ties and are very united.

      - He and his family do not wish to rent out the units.

      ACTION: Determined that the project was not properly before the Commission with inadequate plans.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    11. 2004.0794D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6262)

      5116 GEARY BOULEVARD - north side between 15th and 16th Avenues, Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 1447 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.05.19.4344 proposing to: (1) construct a two-story rear horizontal addition and a one-story vertical addition; (2) change the ground-floor use from a full-service restaurant to a specialty grocery store; (3) establish a new full-service restaurant (Gastonom) on the new second floor of the existing commercial building located in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

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

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Discretionary Review Request Withdrawn

      12. 2004.1010D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

          545 2ND STREET - northeast side between Federal and DeBoom Streets, Lot 191 in Assessor's Block 3774 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Miscellaneous Permit Application Numbers MB0401444 and MB0401256, Zoning Referrals from the San Francisco Department of Public Health and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, respectively. The project would establish the use of ground floor retail space as a retail liquor store (DBA "Hennessey's Wines") which would sell alcohol for consumption both on and off-site. No physical work is proposed. Planning Commission Resolution Number 14844 requires a Discretionary Review hearing for all projects which involve a new or relocated Liquor License within the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District (BVSUD) . The property is located in an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, the proposed BVSUD, the South End Historic District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      SPEAKER(S): None

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

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    13a. 2004.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

      1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in an the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ("NCD") and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization for use size in excess of 3,000 square feet for a music training facility ("Music City"), with a Full-Service Restaurant and Bar with live entertainment, open after hours (between 2:00 and 6:00 A.M.) also requiring a Variance for off-street parking and usable open space for an upper-floor group-housing use.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

      NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 23, 2004 instructing the project sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remains open.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 28, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+)Alex McCAy - Consultant of Public Relations for Pacific Equities

      - He submitted a letter from Mr. John Malloy of Lower Polk Neighbors who is in support of the project.

      - He has been involved with the project since August 12. Since then he has listened to the audio tapes of previous hearings and has read the minutes.

      - They have extensively done outreach in the neighborhood.

      - The people who made public comment during the hearings have been contacted by letter to discuss the project if they so wish.

      - They have fully realized all of the issues as far as the parking impact on the neighborhood, concerns of neighbors, etc.

      - They feel that the project is ready to be heard.

      - They are available for questions.

      (-) Ken Raley

      - He missed all the community outreach that the previous person said was done.

      - This neighborhood has a lot of problems with this, but it also has some good things.

      - What we don't need is late night entertainment, drugs, liquor, etc.

      - There are 22 people that live near the project who are not supportive of this project.

      (-) Patricia Glasky

      - She objects to this project.

      - There will be a lot more prostitution, pimps, drunks, noise, etc.

      (-) Tom Ferriole - 200 Taylor Street Tenants Association

      - He is president of a newly formed tenant organization.

      - This project is an ambitious effort to have a rock school nightclub.

      - This area is richly historic.

      - He asked the Planning Commission to raise the bar about allowing access to the entertainment industry.

      (-) Robert Hutchinson

      - He owns a business on Sutter.

      - This project would back up to Fern Alley, which is next to his business.

      - He sees a trend from the various Commissions and the Mayor to give access to entertainment in the area.

      - This area should not be open to entertainment.

      - There is music all over the neighborhood and it is very disturbing.

      (-) Robert Garcia

      - He is President of Save our Streets Tenants and Merchants Association.

      - He submitted a petition that took six months to have signed.

      - Traffic is already an issue in the area.

      - There is a church, senior house, childcare etc. so these are grounds for denial of a liquor license.

      (-) Gus Hollingsworth

      - He is a resident of Sutter Street.

      - He is concerned that traffic on Sutter Street and surrounding streets is bad. Noise from neighborhood bars is disrupting as well as noise from the people on the sidewalks.

      (-) Karla Rossi

      - She is the property manager of a building on Sutter Street.

      - The problems on Fern Street are a lot.

      - Those problems will increase if this project is approved.

      - She has lived in the area 12 years.

      - She is concerned about the noise that will come from the hotel.

      (-) David Brown

      - The report submitted by the project sponsor has a lot of irregularities.

      (-) Jennie Chin Hansen

      - They own the property that is east of the proposed project.

      - She expressed her opposition last July.

      - She does not think that the issues have been addressed.

      - She has found out that the project sponsor has been subject to many lawsuits.

      - She opposes this project.

      (-) Gabrielle Dorricoh

      - She has lived on Sutter Street for over 30 years.

      - She is appalled that this project has been proposed.

      - This project is totally unacceptable. She is opposed to the noise situation.

      - If this project is approved, she will be displaced from her home as well as many others.

      (-) Wilma Pang

      - She is an instructor at City College of San Francisco - Music Department.

      - They are concerned that the course outline has been taken directly from the website of City College.

      - She hopes that the Commission looks into this.

      (+) John Lum

      - They are not taking additional land.

      - The property values of the adjacent buildings will increase.

      - There is ample parking in the area.

      - The increased foot traffic will benefit the businesses in the area.

      - Due to budgetary restraints, many music programs in schools are being slashed. If this project passes as proposed it might be the next chapter in the music curriculum.

      (+) Damien Schot - Project Supervisor - Pacific Equities

      - He has been overlooking the project for about two years.

      - He gave a general description of the architectural materials of the project.

      (-) Tom Horn - President of the Board of Alliance Frances

      - They have been at this location since 1984.

      - They have classrooms that abut this project as well as an auditorium.

      - Noise is their principal concern.

      - If this project is allowed to expand, it could only get worse.

      - If this project is approved, they request that the Commission place a condition that the sound proofing materials that will be used on the project be the ones presented.

      - They have only received public relations when they have wanted to speak about the project.

      (-) David Fong

      - He works in the building next door.

      - He is concerned about the noise that will be transmitting from the proposed project.

      - He is concerned also about the parking and cars blocking Fern Alley. It would be difficult for emergency vehicles to get through.

      (-) Louis Baker - Fong & Chan Architects

      - He works for Fong and Chan Architects, which has an office next door to the proposed project.

      - If this project moves forward he would like to see the details of the perimeter walls.

      (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

      - They are in support of the parking Variance for this project.

      - His suggestion is that this project be up for review in 6 months so that the neighbors can come to the hearing and provide their opinion of the project.

      ACTION: Motion of Intent to Disapprove. Final Language: December 9, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    13b. 2002.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

      1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ("NCD") and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Off-Street Parking and Usable Open Space Variances sought in conjunction with the conversion of existing tourist hotel rooms to group housing (residential hotel rooms) and for a Full-service Restaurant and Bar and music training facility ("Music City") with no off-street parking and no outdoor open area.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

      NOTE: The Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to September 23, 2004. Public comment remains open.

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 28, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 13a.

      ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing with an intent to disapprove the Variance. Final Language: December 9, 2004.

    13c. 2002.0129C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

      835 HYDE STREET - west side between Bush and Sutter Streets, Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 279, in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District - Request for a Conditional Use authorization for a Tourist Hotel (conversion of 31 "residential" hotel rooms, being consolidated at another location, to "tourist" rooms) with no off-street parking.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 23, 2004 instructing the project sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remains open.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting October 28, 2004)

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

      ACTION: Motion of Intent to Disapprove. Final Language: December 9, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    14. 2004.0347C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

      2800 LEAVENWORTH STREET - entire block bounded by Leavenworth, Jefferson, Jones and Beach Streets, Lots 7 and 8 in Assessor's Block 11, in a C-2 (General Commercial) District, the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for a Conditional Use authorization for conversion of approximately 32,000 square feet of retail and office space to use as a new hotel with approximately 50 rooms (Planning Code Section 216(b)(i))

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Joel Yodowitz - Reuben and Junius

      - He has not heard of any opposition to this project.

      - He is available for questions.

      - The project sponsor is here as well as the architect to answer questions.

      ACTION: Approved with the following amendment: Under the Conditions of Approval, item 3; the second sentence that reads: Failure to do say may at the call of the zoning administrator cause the authorization contained herein to be null or void. - should be stricken.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16884

    15a. 2004.0551AXV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

      201 SANSOME STREET - northwest corner of intersection with Pine Street, Lot 5, in Assessor's Block 260 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit conversion of an existing office building to approximately 48 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirements; for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District and a 150-S Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Andrew Junius - Reuben and Junius

      - This is a wonderful opportunity to include affordable housing, a lot of transit, and meet the City's preservation goals.

      (+) Clark Manus - Project Architect

      - He gave a general architectural description of the project.

      (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation

      - They strongly support this project and other projects that are similar to this one.

      - This project adds smaller affordable units.

      - It also creates a 24/7 neighborhood.

      (+) Sue Hestor

      - She does not oppose the project.

      - The usability of roof top decks should be considered.

      - There are a whole lot of projects that have smaller units but no back yards.

      - The city should be collecting fees for open space.

      - This area is not heavy with open space.

      ACTION: Approved with the correction on page 18 of the Conditions of Approval Item 5, the last two lines are from a former case so they should be deleted.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16885

    Item 15b in from an Addendum:

      15b. 2004.0551AXV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          201 SANSOME STREET - northwest corner of intersection with Pine Street, Lot 5, in Assessor's Block 260 - Request for the granting by the Zoning Administrator of residential open space, dwelling unit exposure, and parking variances to permit conversion of an existing office building to approximately 48 residential dwelling units ; for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District and a 150-S Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission hearing.

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

      ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and Granted the Variance.

    16. 2004.0781T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

      ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE HEIGHT EXEMPTION INCREASE - Consideration of an a Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 260 to provide for an increase in the height exemption for elevator penthouses from 10 feet to 16 feet; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with recommendations

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olauge

      ABSENT: W. Lee

    17. 2004.0941T (L. SCOTT: (415) 558-6317)

      ADDING FEES RELATED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT - Consideration of an Ordinance to Amend the Planning Code by amending Sections 351 and 355 to add fees related to code enforcement and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority polices of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with recommendations

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      RESOLUTION: 16886

    18. 2004.055M (D. ALUMBAUGH/ D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6601/558-6284)

      TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - all, or portions of Assessor's Blocks 3718, 3719, 3720, 3721, 3736, 3737, 3738, 3739, 3740, 3749 and 3764; being generally the area bounded by Mission, Main, Folsom and Second Streets, together with a portion of the Block bounded by Howard, Spear, Folsom and Main Streets, and a portion of the Block bounded by Folsom, First, Harrison and Second Streets. Resolution of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the General Plan necessary to find in conformity the redevelopment plan for the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the General Plan of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Adopted a Resolution of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the General Plan and an Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code.

      AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee

      ABSENT: Antonini, W. Lee, Olague

      RESOLUTION: 16887

      19. 2004.0472I (D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6284)

          HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW - Notification by Zoning Administrator of filing of Hastings College of Law Institutional Master Plan per Planning Code Section 304.5 (d). The submitted institutional master plan details Hastings's current physical plant, demographics, and outlines their 10-year development plan. This public hearing is for receipt of public testimony only, while receipt of this institutional master plan does not constitute acceptance, or approval, of any of the detailed proposed projects.

          Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) David Stewart - Chief Financial Officer of Hasting College of Law

      - This is a joint venture with the YMCA.

      - They need to help address the housing needs of San Francisco.

      - They recently renovated their 100 McAllister housing building.

      - There will be a performing arts venue at 100 McAllister.

      - They will be renovating their law library.

      - They are dedicated to improving the area and making the tenderloin a 24/7 neighborhood.

      (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation of Livable city

      - All the goals mentioned are commendable.

      - Unfortunately, the projects described in the master plan, do not have good parking requirements.

      - Building a parking garage in an area that has excellent transportation is bad transportation policy.

      ACTION: Meeting Held. No Action Required.

    20. 2004.0762I (D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6284)

      UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO - notification by Zoning Administrator of filing of 10 year Institutional Master Plan by the University 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 in no way constitutes an approval or disapproval of the Institutional Master Plan by the Planning Commission.

      Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Barbara Maloney - Consultant to the University

      - They have worked with the university for nearly two years to prepare the master plan.

      - The projects that are identified are virtually all renovations.

      - They project a new surface parking lot and a new science building.

      - The campus does house 50% of the students on campus.

      - The campus would like to work with the neighborhood on traffic circulation and pedestrian access.

      - Some neighbors are concerned with noise and pedestrian traffic.

      (+) Laura McCarty

      - Currently there is a renovation at Lone Mountain dormitory, which includes office space.

      - There will be three minor renovations on the Lone Mountain chapel, gym, and halls. These are interior remodels.

      - The hall on Fulton will be interior remodel with some demolition of the rear portion.

      - The parking is still being considered.

      - The science addition is projected in 2007 or beyond.

      (+) Kristin Glickman - University Terrace Association

      - They represent about 300 homes in the area.

      - She thanked USF for including the neighborhood in their meetings.

      - Their concerns are that the university is getting extremely large, is there a plan for another dormitory, what are the specifics of what exactly the university plans to do, etc.

      (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

      - They support this project.

      - They are not in agreement with increasing the parking demand by increasing the supply.

      - Parking is dealt with by managing the demand for parking.

      ACTION: Meeting Held. No Action Required.

    21a. 2004.0882EMZRU (P. MALTZER (415) 558-5977)

      HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4591A - Adoption of CEQA Findings regarding General Plan Amendments, Planning Code Amendments (a Zoning Map amendment), a General Plan Referral, and an Inter-Agency Cooperation agreement related to the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA Findings.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

21b. 2004.0882 EMZRU (D. ARGUMEDO (415-558-6284)

      HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4591A - The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt Proposed Amendments to the South Bayshore Area Plan and other elements of the General Plan under the provisions of Sections 340 and 306.3 (b)(3) of the Planning Code. The amendments are necessary to find in conformity the Redevelopment Plan for the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project. The General Plan amendments include amendments to the Residence, Commerce and Industry, Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, Urban Design, Community Facilities, Community Safety, Arts, and Air Quality Elements of the General Plan, and the Land Use Index. The proposed amendments to the General Plan were initiated at a public hearing on October 21, 2004.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

21c. 2004.0882 EMZRU (D. ARGUMEDO (415-558-6284)

      HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4591A - The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt Proposed Amendments to the Planning Code (maps 9 and 9H of the Zoning Map) under the provision of Section 306.3(b)(2) of the Planning Code. The proposed amendments would revise Zoning Maps 9 and 9H to reference the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan as the document that will regulate the land use of the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Area. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Map were initiated by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on October 21, 2004.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

21d. 2004.0882 EMZRU (D. ARGUMEDO (415-558-6284)

      HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4591A - The General Plan Referral includes General Plan conformity findings on (a) the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan, (b) vacation and sale of undeveloped public rights-of-way (paper streets) within the Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area, and (c) a subdivision ordinance for the site. Individual subdivisions would be subject to separate General Plan referrals to the Planning Department, in the future.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution finding the Project (a, b, and c) in conformity with General Plan.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

      21e. 2004.0882 EMZRU (D. ARGUMEDO (415-558-6284)

          HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4591A - Request for Adoption of a Motion authorizing the Planning Department to enter into an Inter Agency Cooperation Agreement with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and other City Departments to assist in reviewing permits, approvals and agreements within the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Area.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Motion

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

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: 7:48 p.m. - in memory of Joseph Antonini

    THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

EXCUSED: W. Lee

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:15 PM