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

October 21, 2004

October 21, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 21, 2004

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight D. Alexander, Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Kevin Hughes, William L. Lee, Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Sue Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 2:58 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner – Acing Director and Zoning Administrator; Jonathan Purvis; Dan DiBartolo; Dan Sider; Paul Lord; Steve Shotland; 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. 2004.0779T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

North Beach Formula Retail Prohibition - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 707.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to November 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 4, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

2. 2004.0780T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Haight Street Formula Retail Conditional Use Requirements - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 707.3 to designate formula retail uses as a Conditional Use in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to October 28, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

3. 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: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to November 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 4, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

4a. 2004.0032D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

43 HAMILTON STREET- east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9296 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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, W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

4b. 2004.0033D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

43 HAMILTON STREET- east side south of Silver Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 5919 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.17.9298 proposing the construction of a two-story single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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, W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

5. 2004.0837D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2405 OCTAVIA STREET - west side between Broadway and Pacific Avenue; Lot 5 in Assessor's Block 578 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.03.5401S, proposing to reduce the existing seven-unit building to a five-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed dwelling unit merger.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2004)

(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, W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

6. Consideration of Adoption – Draft Minutes of October 7, 2004.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSSED: Alexander

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

7. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Bradford Bell:

- Welcomed the new Commissioner and congratulated Commissioner Antonini for his confirmation to continue on the Commission for a four year term.

Commissioner Antonini:

- He thanked everyone for his or her congratulations.

Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

- He is not sure why the meeting with the Mission District neighborhood was cancelled.

- He knows that this is a very important meeting and hopes that it will be rescheduled soon.

- Those with an interest in the Mission District and the NEMIZ should resolve their differences.

Commissioner Hughes:

- Welcomed Commissioner Alexander.

Commissioner Alexander:

- He is very happy to be here and is looking forward to working with the Commission.

Commissioner W. Lee:

- Welcomed Commissioner Alexander and congratulated Commissioner Antonini.

Re: Backlog with Planning and Public Works Street Use and Maps

- He requested a status on the backlog between Planning and Public Works Street Use and Maps regarding the number of outstanding condo conversion maps that either Planning or Street Use and Maps has.

Commission Secretary:

- The video from the Ethics Commission is available. She will provide it to Commissioners two at a time until all Commissioners have reviewed it and can certify they have done so.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

- Acting Director Larry Badiner welcomed Commissioner Alexander and congratulated Commissioner Antonini.

Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

- There is no date set for this hearing. He will be working with Commissioners and Interim Director Macris to set a date.

Re: Backlog

- He is aware of the backlog.

- Two staff have been assigned to this.

- He will report on this next week.

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

BOS –

Re: Land Use Committee for October 18, 2004.

- The Committee approved the rezoning of South Park. The Commission heard this on September 23, 2004.

Full Board of Supervisors – October 19, 2004

- The Board continued the consideration of the environmental appeal on 1730 Van Ness Avenue (Buddhist Temple). The Commission cannot hear the appeal until it has been considered at the Board of Supervisors.

BOA – None

10. Streamlining of Material for Commission case packets.

- Larry Badiner gave a presentation on streamlining Commissioner's packets.

- The Commission agreed to accept the changes proposed, which includes a more expanded yet brief executive summary. This would eliminate the case report and include an environmental status. This would begin in November 2004.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: None

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

11a. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

829 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 207.5, 263.11, 271, and 157 to construct a nine-story, mixed-use building with up to 69 dwelling units at a density of one unit per 147 square feet of lot area under Section 207.5, to construct an 85-foot-tall building (with a 16-foot-tall mechanical penthouse) in the 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District under Section 263.11, to exceed the bulk limits at the 50-foot height by 60 feet in length and 54 feet diagonally (by 48 feet in length and 42 feet diagonally at the 65-foot height) under Section 271; and to provide parking exceeding accessory amounts (with up to 62 spaces for project residents) under Section 157. On the ground floor, garage access would be provided at Shipley Street, and up to 5,000 gross square feet of retail space would be provided with access from Folsom Street. The proposed project would also require a rear yard modification and a variance from dwelling unit exposure requirements. The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) South of Market Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications and conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 12, 2004)

NOTE: On May 27, 2004, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote +5 –1. Commissioner S. Lee voted no. Final Language July 1, 2004. Public testimony remains open on any new information.

NOTE: On July 1, 2004, the Commission continued the matter to August 12, 2004.

NOTE: On August 12, 2004, without a hearing, the Commission continued the matter to October 7, 2004.

NOTE: On October 7, 2004, without a hearing the Commission continued the matter to October 21, 2004. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Steve Atkinson – Project Sponsor

- He welcomed Commissioner Alexander.

- There was a proposal made. They were not able to accept it because it would not be feasible for his client.

- The project presented today does include changes.

- The interim policies should not be imposed on projects that are still in the pipeline.

- The project provides nine affordable units.

(+) Mary Murphy – Representing Yerba Buena Lofts

- She was hoping that there would have been an agreement by now.

- The proposed project is located on a street that has well designed housing projects that required exceptions to open space, etc.

- The design requirements of the policies are perfectly tailored to the physical circumstances of the project.

- She urged the Commission to adopt policies and not controls.

- This project should conform to the policies imposed.

(+) Hope Whitney

- The project sponsor does not meet the height requirements.

- This project seeks to reduce the amount of rear yard open space required.

(+) Ann Marie Kuban - YBL

- This project is denying the urban requirements.

- They want to be good neighbors and are excited about the project but they should abide by the same regulations and rules that the Planning Department requires for the rest of the city.

(+) Paul Bard - YBL

- This area is his home.

- Shipley Street is his back yard.

- He is concerned about the building in its present form because it will damage the feeling of neighborhood.

(+) Ed Tansev - YBL

- He displayed a photograph of a project that was previously approved in the area and compared it to the current project that will be located right next to it.

- He displayed a diagram of the buildings located on the street where the project will be located.

(+) Jeremy Yun

- He lives on Folsom Street.

- He congratulated Commissioner Antonini on his reappointment.

- He is pro-development but it should conform to the guidelines that the Commission set forth.

- He does not understand why a development would be unfeasible if it is built under the Commission and Planning guidelines.

(+) David Cadarian

- He is an architect and lives in the Yerba Buena Lofts.

- The project should respect the scale of the alley.

- He displayed a diagram comparing the current proposed height of the building with the height if the project followed the guidelines.

(+) Azalea Merrell – Carpenter's Union

- This project will utilize high skilled union workers.

- It will provide a number of two bedroom units, which are very much needed.

- Affordable housing is scarce in the city.

- She is concerned that projects seem to start under a set of rules and then another set of rules is implemented.

- She submitted a petition with names of people who would have liked to come but instead signed the petition.

(+) Jim Salinas – Building and Construction Trades Council

- He is asking for the support of this project because it will be 100% union.

- This means that it will provide work for good workers.

- The Commission has a responsibility to do good for the City.

- This project sponsor has done due diligence in the neighborhood and the community.

(+) Anthony Faber – SOMA Leadership Council

- Rezoning is being done in SOMA and it needs to be started in the alleys.

- If buildings are too high in alleys, they [the alleys] become a  canyon.

- He hopes that the Commission will abide by the controls.

(+) Bill Kedem

- He lives near the Embarcadero.

- He is in favor of the project.

- The Variances requested are very reasonable.

- The project will be very pleasing to the eye.

- There are other buildings that are as tall or taller.

- It is not fair to subject the project sponsor to a new set of rules.

(+) Jim Meko

- Everyone wants this project built.

- The SOMA leadership council voted to stand in solidarity with the YBL and other neighbors on the issues still being addressed.

- If this project is approved as presented today, they will support an appeal to the BOS.

- If the Commission does adhere to the policies, the BOS will.

(+) Tim Tosta – Steefel, Levitt and Weiss

- He displayed an aerial photograph of the buildings in the area.

- This is a difficult site. The project has gone through many changes.

- There is actually no solution.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and S. Lee

MOTION: 16872

11b. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

829 Folsom Street- south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752 - Requests for Variances. The proposal is to construct a nine-story, mixed-use building with up to 69 dwelling units, up to 5,000 gross square feet of ground floor commercial space and a 62-space parking garage. A rear yard modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and on a 7th floor setback of 10-15 feet along Shipley Street. A variance is sought from dwelling unit exposure requirements, as the horizontal dimensions of the inner court do not meet the requirements for an open area as defined under Section 140(a)(2) for dwelling unit exposure, and 27 of the 70 units have no exposure other than this inner court. The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

NOTE: On May 27, 2004, Zoning Administrator has left the public hearing open and continued the item to July 1, 2004.

NOTE: On July 1, 2004, Zoning Administrator continued the matter to August 12, 2004.

NOTE: On August 12, 2004, without a hearing, Zoning Administrator continued the matter to October 7, 2004.

NOTE: On October 7, 2004, without a hearing, Zoning Administrator continued the matter to October 21, 2004. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 11a.

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator intends to grant the Variance allowing a 25-foot setback at the 40-foot height. He would like to receive input from the Project Sponsor and the Yerba Buena Lofts. He is not comfortable with the project as submitted. This gives some flexibility.

12. 2004.0501C (G. Nelson: (415) 558-6257)

2000 VAN NESS AVENUE - northeast corner at the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Jackson Street; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0595 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install a total of four (4) antennas on the roof of an existing 100-foot tall commercial structure, known as the Medical Arts Building, as part of Nextel's wireless telecommunications network within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Related equipment cabinets will be installed inside the garage level at the ground story. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure. MetroPCS and Sprint also have approved installations at this location.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

13. 2003.0964C (G. Nelson: (415) 558-6257)

1881 POST STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0701 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of fourteen antennas on the roof and related equipment in the basement of an existing 100-foot tall commercial structure, known as the Medical Arts Building, as part of Verizon Wireless' telecommunications network within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale-Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2 as it is a co-location site. Sprint, Nextel and AT&T also have approved installations at this location.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

14. 2004.0176C (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558 6291)

1101-1123 FILLMORE STREET - northwest corner at Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 755 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility for AT&T Wireless Service. The proposal is to install three panel antennas inside fiberglass cylinders, to resemble faux vent pipes, at three different locations upon the roof of the four-story mixed-use building within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and an 50-X Height and Bulk district. As per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2, as it is the site of previously approved antenna installations.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Erick Cordery – Representing AT&T Wireless

- These antennas will improve this low coverage area.

- The equipment will be located in the basement of the building and away from public view.

- There were community meetings and about 1,800 trilingual mailings were sent out. No one attending the meetings.

- This proposal will improve coverage, locate the site with the City's wireless guidelines and will be located away from public view.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

MOTION: 16873

15. 2004.0915C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

1598 DOLORES STREET - northwest corner of 29th Street; Lots 40 through 52, inclusive, in Assessor's Block 6618 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to modify conditions of approval set forth in Planning Commission Motion Number 16445 as modified by Board of Supervisors Motion Number M02-163 and relating to Planning Department Case Number 2000.1058C to allow payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee rather than provide on-site affordable housing, pursuant to inclusionary housing policies set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16350. In September of 2002, the City authorized construction of two 4-story buildings on the subject property containing a total of 13 units and up to 26 independently accessible off-street parking spaces; both buildings are now complete. Conditions of approval require one of the proposed units to be provided as a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. This proposal would modify previous conditions of approval to allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to the Mayor's Office of Housing rather than provide the required BMR unit on-site. No physical work is proposed. The property is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuances

Alice Barkley

- Welcomed Commissioner Alexander.

- She does not have all the answers to this project since the project sponsor is on Jury Duty.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 4, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

16. 2004.0797C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

1728-1748 HAIGHT STREET - between Cole and Shrader Streets; Lot 35 in Assessor's Block 1229 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to modify conditions of approval set forth in Planning Commission Motion Number 15935 and relating to Planning Department Case Number 99.209C to allow payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee rather than provide on-site affordable housing, pursuant to inclusionary housing policies set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 13405. In October of 2000, the City authorized construction of a 4-story over basement building containing 32 dwelling units, 14,200 gross square feet of commercial space, 75 below-grade parking spaces, and an accessory building with 2 townhouse units. This building is now complete. Conditions of approval require three of the proposed units to be provided as Below Market Rate (BMR) units. This proposal would modify previous conditions of approval to allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to the Mayor's Office of Housing rather than provide the 3 required BMR units on-site. No physical work is proposed. The property is within the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Matthew Brannan

- This proposed amendment is to allow an in lieu fee.

- This was not done in the year 2000 when the project was originally approved because the policies were different at that time.

- They are not asking for something drastic.

- When this project was originally granted, the inclusionary housing was just a policy.

- The formula for inclusionary housing was established by the Mayor's Office of Housing in 2002.

- He hopes that the Commission will not penalize them for something that they had no control over a few years ago.

(-) Calvin Welsh – Height/Ashbury Neighborhood Council

- There are three points here: 1) the Height/Ashbury district needs the affordable units; 2) the Residential Inclusionary Program (Section 315 of the Planning Code), while allowing in-lieu fees, actually favors including the housing in the market rate project; and 3) the proposed fee is too little to result in three affordable units in  close proximity to the principal project as required by Section 315.5.

- For these reasons they request that the Conditional Use be denied.

(+) Mark Brennan

- The Planning Department is recommending that the in lieu fee for this project be at 17% of the total number of units in the project.

- He urges the Commission to release the project sponsor of any obligations to either provide on-site BMR units or provide an in lieu fee in place of on-site BMRs.

- In the alternative, he urged the Commission to recommend an in lieu fee based on 15% of the total number of units in the project, not the recommended 17%.

(+) Andrew Smith

- He is favor of this proposal.

- It is important to provide as much housing as possible in the City.

- Citywide funds need to be spent in the best possible way.

- He urged the Commission to approve this resolution.

- There is a premium one pays if one builds off site.

(+) Ann Brennan

- The opposition by the Height/Ashbury Neighborhood Council is actually personal.

- She read a letter from the council (previously named Haight Ashbury Improvement Association) dated August 14, 1976 when she and her husband were supportive of a project similar to this one.

(+) Joe O'Donoghue

- This project has become a personal vendetta.

- Mr. Welsh does not offer any reasoning for not building in the Haight/Ashbury area.

- The neighborhood should not be punished because in 2000 the City did not state a certain percentage for the total number of affordable units

(+) Alice Barkely

- It is appropriate to grant the CU and allow the payment of the in lieu fee.

- The funding from the government is insufficient to cover the building cost.

- The City is going to need to look at additional funding so that it could use local funds from in lieu fees to subsidize the housing projects that have been approved by the Commission.

- It would be appropriate for this Commission to grant the Conditional Use.

MOTION: To approve

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

NAYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Olague

ABSENT: S. Lee

RESULT: Motion Failed

ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Item continued to October 28, 2004 to allow the absent Commissioner the ability to participate in the final action.

ABSENT: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: S. Lee

17a. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1401-1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507- Adoption of CEQA findings regarding the proposed establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District, the construction of two residential buildings containing a total of up to 450 dwelling units, and the potential construction of an office building for occupancy by the City and County of San Francisco. The property is currently within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the CEQA findings

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

17b. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1401-1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507 - Request for a General Plan referral to determine if the a Planning Code text amendment, a zoning map amendment, and a General Plan amendment related to the proposed establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District, the construction of two residential buildings containing a total of up to 450 dwelling units, the potential construction of an office building for occupancy by the City and County of San Francisco, and other related actions, including the vacation of Jessie Street, is in conformity with the objectives and policies of the General Plan. The property is currently within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Determine that the proposed amendments are conformity with the objectives and policies of the General Plan

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

17c. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1401-1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block - Request for a Planning Code text amendment related to the proposed establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District. The Planning Code text amendment consists of adding Section 249.27 to the Planning Code, which would establish the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District and include the following provisions: (a) eliminate residential density restrictions, (b) exempt residential uses from the calculation of floor area ratio, (c) provide a height exemption of up to 30 feet for elevator and mechanical penthouses, and (d) allow residential parking up to a ratio of one independently accessible space for each dwelling unit with conditional use authorization. The property is currently within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the draft resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

17d. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1401-1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507 - Request for a zoning map amendment related to the proposed establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District. The zoning map amendment consists of adding the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District to Map 7SU of the Official Zoning Maps of the City and County of San Francisco. The property is currently within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the draft resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

17e. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1401-1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507 within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts – Request for a General Plan amendment related to the proposed establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District. The General Plan amendment consists of adding the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District to Map 1 ( Downtown Land Use and Density Plan ) of the Downtown Area Plan and adding Policy 2 to Objective 6 of the Downtown Area Plan. The property is currently within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the draft resolution.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

17f. 1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507 - Request for a Section 309 Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions. The proposal is the construction of two residential buildings containing a total of up to 450 dwelling units as part of a larger project proposing the establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District and the potential construction (requiring future approval) of an approximately 24-story office building approximately 420,000 square feet in area, for occupancy by the City and County of San Francisco. The residential component of the project requires separation of towers, rear yard, loading, wind, and bulk exceptions pursuant to Section 309(a). The property is currently within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

17g. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1401-1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507 - Request for conditional use authorization to provide residential parking at the Tenth Street Building exceeding an amount classified as accessory (220 residential spaces are requested where 93 independently accessible spaces would be allowed as-of-right), and to allow additional FAR above the base FAR of 6.0 to 1 for the construction of affordable dwelling units as part of a larger project proposing the establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District, the construction of two residential buildings containing a total of up to 450 dwelling units, and the potential construction of an approximately 24-story office building approximately 420,000 square feet in area, for occupancy by the City and County of San Francisco. The property is currently within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

17h. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1401-1435 MARKET STREET - southwest corner at 10th Street; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507 within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 320-S, 200-S, 150-S Height and Bulk Districts – Permitted obstructions variance sought. The proposal is the construction of two residential buildings containing a total of up to 450 dwelling units as part of a larger project proposing the establishment of the Tenth and Market Streets Special Use District and the potential construction of an office building for occupancy by the City and County of San Francisco. Section 136(c)(19) of the Planning Code allows fences and windscreens not exceeding a height of 10 feet above grade within the required rear yard. The proposed residential buildings will include a fence/windscreen exceeding a height of 10 feet within the required rear yard. The variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 14, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and Olague

18. 2004.0778T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Movie Theater Demolitions - Consideration of an Ordinance to amend the Planning Code by adding Section 221.1 and to amend Sections 703.2, 803.2 and 803.3 to require Conditional Use authorization for any project involving change of use or demolition of a movie theater; amending Planning Code Section 303 to require specific findings as part of a Conditional Use authorization for a change of use of demolition of a movie theater; and making the Ordinance retroactive to any site permit application submitted after July 27, 2004; making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S):

(-) John Malamut – City Attorney

- Supervisor Peskin authorized him to bring this legislation to the Commission. The Supervisor supports this legislation and hopes that the Commission will move it forward to the full Board.

- The amendment that the Supervisor is proposing would be in the retroactive provision. Rather than referring to a site permit application it would refer to an environmental evaluation application filed on or before July 27. It is just changing what particular application one is talking about.

- The one other change is that the provisions that amend Section 303 are listed as Subjection I. Since this was drafted many months ago, this subjection would be subsection k.

(-) Nancy Denney Phelps

- She is a producer of music for film and animation.

- More and more neighborhood theatres are being closed. This is very sad.

- Community theatres are very much a convenience.

- Many people do not travel downtown.

- There are more and more artists moving out of San Francisco because there are needing a place to view their work.

(-/+) Steve Vettel

- He is thankful for Supervisor Peskin for amending this legislation.

- He urges the Commission to recommend this legislation with the amendment.

(+) Frank Lee – 4 Star Theatre

- He operates the Four Star Theatre in the Richmond District.

- This theatre has been showing independent films for 12 years.

- There have been countless petitions to maintain the theatre.

- The large theatre chains have no concern for the neighborhood.

(+) Alfonso Felder – San Francisco Neighborhood Theatre Foundation

- Neighborhood movie theatres have served as important community spaces and anchors for commercial spaces.

- It is important to recognize the importance of these theatres.

- This legislation will allow for careful analysis of a proposed conversion from a theatre to another use.

(-/+) Chung Ning Lee

- She spoke through a translator.

- She has been a member of Canaan Lutheran Church for many years.

- Their church has an English and Chinese congregation. Because they have been growing, they now need to find a new location.

- They would like to have it located in the Richmond District.

- The church members have contributed a lot of money for the expansion of their church.

(-/+) Mrs. Tao Chui Ying

- She spoke through an interpreter.

- She is a member of Canaan Lutheran Church.

- She is happy about the church expanding.

- She is 93 years old and has been waiting for the church to purchase its own building.

- Currently the church shares space with another church.

- There are many senior members in their church, so finding a place in the Richmond District is important.

(-/+) Gilbert Jay - Attorney

- He represents the Canaan Lutheran Church.

- It is important to have good legislation.

- Canaan Lutheran Church purchased the theatre property in March of 2001. They were aware that there was a tenant there that had a lease until 2005. The church has not interfered with their right.

- With this new legislation, will there now be an impediment from the tenant for the church to enjoy their rights?

- He is just asking for an exception for the church.

(-/+) Pastor David Tin

- The church actually began serving the community in 1968 in the Richmond District.

- There are about 275 members.

- They are a non-profit organization.

- They have been doing a lot of fundraising in order to purchase property for their church.

- Their plan was to wait until the lease was up in order to do the renovation.

- He went to 15 merchants on Clement Street and they were all supportive of the church.

(-/+) Henry Chan

- He is a member of Canaan Lutheran Church.

- There are about 275 members.

- They are very concerned about the moratorium currently being proposed.

- They don't have a house of their own. That is why they purchased the old theatre.

- They are trying their best to raise funds.

- They belong to the community and are there to give and not to take away.

(-) Ruth Tam

- She has a childcare center in the Richmond District.

- She was also raised in the Richmond and belongs to Canaan Lutheran Church.

- The church provides a lot of services to the community, especially to children.

- A lot of people in the community need their services.

(-) Ed Jew

- He is a third generation San Franciscan.

- The majority of the people speaking today came to the United States to have freedom.

- It is important to allow an opportunity for these people to expand their church.

ACTION: Approval as Amended: Change the retroactive provision of the ordinance

to replace the  site permit provision to an  environmental review application.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Olague

NAYES: W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee

MOTION: 16876

19a. 2004.0882emz (S. SHOTLAND: (415) 558-6308)

hunters point shipyard redevelopment plan - Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4591a - Resolution of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the General Plan so that it conforms with the redevelopment plan for the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area.

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

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Adopted a Resolution of Intent to Initiate

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

MOTION: 16874

19b. 2004.0882EMZ (S. SHOTLAND: (415) 558-6308)

Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan - Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4591a - Resolution of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code by reclassifying property (Amending the Zoning Map) so that it conforms with the redevelopment plan for the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Area.

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

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Adopted a Resolution of Intent to Initiate

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

MOTION: 16875

20a. 2003.1061D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

133 ST. MARY'S AVENUE - south side, west of Mission Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 6722 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.07.22.0097 proposing the demolition of a fire-damaged one-story, single-family dwelling 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 demolition.

SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

20b. 2003.0104D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

133 ST. MARY'S AVENUE - south side, west of Mission Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 6722 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.22.0093 proposing the construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District

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

SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

21. 2004.0667D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2414 Pacific Avenue - north side between Fillmore and Steiner Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0582 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2003.12.22.2782 proposing to construct rear and side horizontal additions and a new fourth floor to the existing three-story, single-family residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: None. Discretionary Review Request Withdrawn

22a. 2004.0230D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1272 42nd AVENUE - between Lincoln Way and Irving Street. Assessor's Block 1709 Lot 026 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004 0323 9406, to demolish an existing single family dwelling 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 demolition.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Jim Bustamante – Representing Discretionary Review Requestors

- There are about 50 or more neighbors who are opposed to this design.

- They are supportive of a new building. Their objections are mostly related to: height and bulk; front setback and year yard exception; design of the building; potential illegal units; layout of rooms, etc.

- The concerned neighbors met with the project sponsor, but there were no agreements made.

- Sincere there was a lack of concern for their issues by the project sponsor they filed Discretionary Review.

- The block is quite unique. There is a mix of architectural styles.

(-) Robbie Testa

- He and his wife own the house directly behind the subject property.

- The subject project will impact their house by blocking sunlight, air and visuals.

- The residential guidelines state that impacts on adjacent structures should be considered.

(-) Mary Anne Miller

- This proposed building is too big and out of keeping with the styles on the block.

- Even the building to be demolished has more characteristic features than the one being proposed.

- The proposed building is just too inferior and it does not meet the residential design guidelines.

(-) Jim Suekama

- He has lived on 42nd Avenue for 40 years.

- He has reviewed several sets of plans submitted by the sponsor.

- The project is just too big.

- The interior plans are not officially laid out.

- The sponsor can gain more livable space by eliminating some of the sets of stairs.

- None of the houses on the block exceed three stories.

- The sponsor and the architect have not made a study to appreciate the architecture of the other buildings on the block.

(-) Jennifer Villalobos

- She is an interior designer and has lived on the block for 21 years.

- There are numerous single-family dwellings on the block.

- This project will establish an enormous precedence in the neighborhood.

- The project is a large bulky mass that is out of character with the neighborhood.

- The multiple staircases allow for multiple units.

- Plumbing has been optimally placed to allow for units on the second and third floors.

- She agrees with the recommendation from staff to remove the fourth floor.

(-) Loretta Botta

- She has lived on 42nd Avenue for 20 years.

- She read a letter from Leland Yee who is asking the Commission to support the residents who are in support of taking Discretionary Review on this project.

(+) CJ Higley – Representing Project Sponsor

- The project sponsor's architect is here to answer questions.

- They have never seen the alternative designs proposed by the Discretionary Review requestor.

- They have asked them a number of times to meet without success.

- The roof is only two feet higher than the adjacent houses.

- The residential design guidelines allow for a building to be higher.

- The guidelines require that the project maintain the scale of the street and they have done that.

(+) Sophia Chen

- Her family purchased the property to house her and her husband and her extended family.

- The current configuration of the house does not accommodate her and her family.

- There have been many statements that have been made which have been unnecessary and unethical.

(+) Drake Gardner – Project Designer – Zone Design Development

- The project they presented was a problem for the neighborhood. They submitted a second design, which included many of the issues stated by the neighborhood.

- They feel that Mr. Crawford was not open and forth coming. He did not encourage dialogue.

- They are fully willing to cooperate.

- He displayed a lot map of the street and pointed to various properties that are as high as the proposed project.

(+) Tim McBride

- His brother is the one of the project sponsors.

- He was thrilled to find out that he and his wife are expecting a baby.

- The needs of the family have changed and that is the reason they need a larger home.

- He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

(+) James McCall

- He displayed a diagram of the façade, which was supported by some neighbors.

- They have tried to work with the neighbors to find a design that is supported by all neighbors.

- The design of the project was made to consider all guidelines.

(+) Michelle Chen

- Her family is getting larger so they need a larger home.

- She hopes that the Commission will support their project.

(+) Erlin Chen

- She walks around the neighborhood every day and sees how torn down the current property is.

- All her family and various neighbors support this project.

(+) Lee Chen

- He supports this project.

- Many young generations are taking care of their parents and grandparents.

- This is a very good project.

(+) Zu Hui Chen

- The subject project is close to his church and where they shop.

- They are excited about this project. It will allow the entire family to live together and enjoy dinner together.

- They hope that the neighbors respect them as they respect their neighbors.

- They are a large family so they need a larger house.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

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

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and S. Lee

22b. 2004.0640DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1272 42ND AVENUE- east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street. Assessor's Block 1709 Lot 026 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under Planning Commission Policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition and Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 323 9403, to construct a new two family dwelling, four stories in height in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the project.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 22a.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified:

1. Remove the fourth floor from the plan and limit the height of the building to the height of the adjacent building to the north,

2. Remove the 12 foot by 15 foot extension from the rear of the building. External stairs, extending no more than 6 feet toward the rear, may be constructed on the rear of the building in this location.

3. Recess the garage door a minimum of 3 feet,

4. Recess the front entry door a minimum of three feet and include a stoop and porch roof or similar elements to better articulate the entry,

5. Vertically align the entry door and the southerly windows on the front façade and the center the garage door on the bay window on the floors above,

6. Eliminate the pedestrian door on the north end of the front façade or place the door within the recess for the garage door so it is not obvious from the street, or eliminate the interior door leading from interior rooms to the corridor served by the second door,

7. Reduce the width of the garage door to 8 feet.

8. Limit the driveway width to 10 feet and require landscaping of the entire front yard with plant materials, except the driveway and a walk to the front door.

9. A three inch reveal will be required on all front windows,

10. Only a half bath, without bathtub or shower, will be permitted on the ground floor.

FINDINGS

The reason the Commission took the action described above includes:

The proposed new construction, as submitted, creates an exceptional and extraordinary circumstance as the proposed construction does not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines, is not compatible with the context of the neighborhood, because it is larger and more massive than neighboring buildings, has a volume and mass that exceeds that of the other dwellings on the block, disrupts the pattern of midblock open space, the height of the building is not compatible, and is out of scale with the other buildings on the block, disrupts the pattern of building heights on the block, is not consistent with the Priority General Plan Policies of Planning Code Section 101 and does not support and advance the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

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

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and S. Lee

23. 2004.0587D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

91 Miguel Street - north side between Fairmont and Beacon Streets. Assessor's Block 6665 Lot 023C - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0128 5045, to construct a new two family dwelling, three stories in height 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.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Cathy Keller – Discretionary Review Requestor

- She loves living in San Francisco and was very excited when she purchased her house.

- She requests that the Commission reduce the size of the proposed building.

- Step back the two top floors and maintain the landscaping.

- There are about 50 people who signed petitions because they are concerned with the project.

- Despite the case report, the project violates numerous guidelines.

- The Project Sponsor did not seek any input from her or her neighbors.

- The project architect mentioned that she would have to file a Discretionary Review in order for changes to happen to the project.

- She does not intend to delay the project.

- She asked the Commission to take Discretionary Review, set back the top two stories in the rear by 10 and 6 feet and preserve existing trees. This modest request will maintain the same number of rooms, provide some relief from an overwhelming vertical mass above their open space and allow more light to the downhill properties.

(-) Michael Daly

- He and his wife have lived in the neighborhood since 1982.

- They are asking for a minor setback on the rear of the project.

- There are many successful project sponsors who have their projects approved because they follow the guidelines.

- He is asking that the Commission address the various questions that the neighbors still have: occupancy, construction, traffic, etc.

(-) Donna Peck

- She has lived in the neighborhood for 23 years.

- The mass and bulk of the project needs to be considered.

- She is concerned. She lives at the bottom of the hill and the project is at the top of the hill.

- The building is not only deep but also very tall.

- The rear yard addition will leave neighbors feeling boxed in.

(-) Bruce Bonacker

- He is representing the Glen Park Association.

- They don't normally involve themselves in neighbor disputes but this is a precedent setting development.

- They visited both parties but only the Discretionary Review requestor agreed with their suggestions.

- They ask that the top tow floors be set back and that the same treatment be applied to both buildings.

(+) Cesar Ascarruntz

- He has various pictures taken at various times to show the sunlight on the properties.

- His house will be exactly like the next house.

- His house is a block away from a neighbor that states she will be impacted.

- His house is a very simple house with a simple design.

- It is very sad when neighbors are not truthful.

MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications

AYES Antonini and Hughes

NAYES: W. Lee and Olague

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Item Continued to November 4, 2004 to allow the absent Commissioners the ability to participate in the final action.

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

ABSENT: Alexander, Bradford Bell and S. Lee

24. 2004.0802D (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

675 ARKANSAS STREET -east side between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 29 in Block 4099 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.21.1841, proposing to construct a two-story deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling 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):

(-) Simon Higet – Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

- He read a letter from the Discretionary Review requestor.

- The subject project will be too large and is completely out of scale.

- There are various signatures from neighbors who oppose the project.

- He displayed a photograph of how the deck will impact his house.

(+) Yikes Scott – General Contractor – Representing Project Sponsor

- They have gone through all of the guidelines and this project is well within the guidelines and the Planning Code.

- The building to the left is the neighbor who is opposed to the project. Her deck is above the proposed deck.

- The height of the property on Arkansas Street vs. the size of the project on Connecticut Street is a significant amount.

- A statement was made that work was done without a permit and that is absolutely false.

(+) Kelley Dermity

- She has been in the neighborhood for four years.

- She tried very hard to work with the neighbors.

- The neighbor wants a deck that would be a 2 or 3-foot deck. This is a non negotiable solution.

- She hopes that the Commission will not grant Discretionary Review.

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

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

ABSENT: Alexander, Bradford Bell, S. Lee

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: 10:00 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

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