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

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

March 17, 2005

March 17, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, March 17, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dwight Alexander and Sue Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY COMMISSION SECRETARY AVERY AT 1:35 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kate Stacey - Deputy City Attorney; Glenn Cabreros; Geoffrey Nelson; Ben Fu; Jim Miller; Dan DiBartolo; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

In the absence of both the President and Vice President, the remaining members of the Commission elected Michael Antonini to Chair the hearing.

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. 2004.0738Z (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        REZONING OF ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 3787, LOTS 12, 13, 18, 24, 26, 28, 50, 160, 161 AND 165 THROUGH 218 FROM SLI (SERVICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO SSO (SERVICE/SECONDARY OFFICE) - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to change the use classification for Block 3787, Lots 12, 13, 18, 24, 26, 28, 50, 160, 161 and 165 through 218 from SLI (Service Light Industrial) to SSO (Service/Secondary Office) on the south-west corner of Townsend and Fourth Streets in the South of Market Area; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

            (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

      2. 2004.0738T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        AMENDING SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE SECTION 818 AND ADDING SECTION 818.32 TO ALLOW A FINANCIAL SERVICE USE IN AN SSO (SERVICE/SECONDARY OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 818 and adding Section 818.32 to Table 818 to allow a financial service use in and SSO (Service/Secondary Office) zoning district; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

            (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      3. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of January 13 and March 3, 2005 .

        Minutes of January 13, 2005:

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

        Minutes of March 3, 2005:

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved with Corrections Read Into the Record:

            1) On cover page, Commissioner Bradford Bell was absent and it states that she was not.

            2) The header should show March 3, 2005 and not 2004.

            3) Item 18, Project Architect's name is John Maniscalco.

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

        EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

      4. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Olague:

        Re: Inclusionary Housing

        - She attended the Land Use Committee of the Board of Supervisors.

        - They were discussing the inclusionary zoning piece, but before that, formula retail did come up.

        - She believes it's amending the Planning Code to prohibit formula retail uses in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District. She remembers seeing a memo come through to the Commission before, but she does not believe that the item ever came before them.

        - She would like to have the status of this.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - He recalls that Supervisor Peskin introduced this some time in the Fall. At his request, it was put on hold and the 90 days expired.

            - Supervisor Peskin then reactivated it but did not reintroduce it.

            - Because it expired at the Supervisor's request, staff never brought it to the Commission.

        Commissioner Olague:

        - She asked if this case would be brought to the Commission in the future.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - No, it will go directly to the Board of Supervisors from the Land Use Committee.

            - Normally, when an ordinance is introduced at the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Department has 90 days to bring it to the Planning Commission.

            - The Planning Commission essentially has 90 days to act.

            - If there is a delay because of environmental review taking longer, staff typically asks for an extension from the Supervisor. Often it is given.

            - This question was put on hold by the supervisor then he reactivated it.

            - It was not reintroduced. If it had been reintroduced, staff would have then had another 90 days.

            - It was just brought to the Land Use Committee.

            - He believes any supervisor can call legislation out that is on hold at the Board of Supervisor's Land Use Committee.

            - That was done, it was heard.

            - Staff did not comment on it because the Commission had not reviewed it. It was approved and sent on to the full Board.

        Commissioner Olague:

        - It is unfortunate that the Commission was bypassed on such an important piece of legislation that really does have an impact on amending the Planning Code.

        - She did receive calls from members of the public who were concerned that this body never heard it.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - He will convey that to the supervisor.

        Commissioner Olague:

        Re: Board of Appeals Procedures

        - She received various e-mails regarding the Board of Permit Appeals, specifically regarding mergers and demolitions that the Commission approved or disapproved and they end up before that body.

        - She was wondering, what is the noticing that is given to members of the public regarding items that are appealed?

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - He asked if the Commission Secretary could respond to that since she at one point was the Acting Executive Director of the Board of Appeals.

        Commissioner Olague [restated her question]:

        - Many of the items that the Commission is hearing in terms of demolition and mergers that are appealed to the Board of Appeals; what would be the noticing requirement for the public?

            Commission Secretary responded:

            - She would have to verify this with them or the City Attorney.

            - To the best of my knowledge, the appeal comes from an action someone is dissatisfied with. Other than those involved in the matter, she is not aware of any requirement for notice.

            - The project sponsor and all those that are involved in the case receiving constant notice/information about what is going on. She does not believe that any particular notice goes out as is required for many Planning cases.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - There is notice to people who have made a request on that particular case.

            Commission Secretary:

            - The people involved in the case do get noticed, but not the general public.

        Commissioner Olague:

        - Another comment that was made to her is that many of the decisions the Commission makes are overturned there. She was wondering what information the Board receives.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - The Commission has requested a joint hearing and this will be done.

            - The Board receives copies of the case files that were before the Commission and whatever appellants submit. Also, staff is in attendance for questions. What is not submitted is a brief because there is no staff to do it.

            Commission Secretary:

            - They also get the final decision of the body that took the action. If the Commission approved a motion, they'll get that final motion.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Land Issues

        - A year ago, there was the situation with legislation that was eventually forwarded by Supervisor Daly in regards to demolition of 20 or more units. Apparently there was a noticing problem. This case did not come to the Commission but went directly to the Board of Supervisors where it was vetoed and then became legislation.

        - He is concerned with this procedure.

        - If it is in the Charter, or wherever it is in the city's law, that land use issues can bypass the planning commission, it seems that this should be examined further. He would like to get an opinion [from staff or the City Attorney] if in the future a mechanism exists to remedy this.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      5. Director's Announcements

        Zoning Administrator reported:

        Re: 1644 Diamond Street

        - This was a mandatory Discretionary Review for demolition and new construction.

        - The Planning Department recommended demolition. The Planning Commission ultimately took Discretionary Review and did not approve the demolition. However, as often requested by staff, the Commission also took DR and approved the new construction with some changes in case the matter is appealed and the Board of Appeals overturns their decision.

        - The Building Inspection Department informed him that he would be receiving an emergency order to demolish the building within the next day or so. As Zoning Administrator he had to sign off on it.

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

        BOS -

        Re: Inclusionary Housing

        - The inclusionary housing ordinance was discussed basically on how to implement it, the number of units that had been built both by the policy and by the ordinance, and receive public comment.

        - He got the feeling that there is a desire to revisit the inclusionary housing ordinance.

        - There are ways to improve the implementation. One of the things that have been implemented, at the instigation of the Mayor's Office of Housing, is the interdepartmental working group on how it is being implemented.

        - He sees code amendments addressing a variety of issues.

        Re: The Harding Theater

        - There was no discussion and no opposition to the project for a multi-unit condominium.

        BOA - None

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - Did the discussion at the Board of Supervisors include public housing and below market rate housing or existing?

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - It was purely inclusionary housing.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - The Supervisorial vote for potential Commissioner Michael Garcia at the Board of Appeals was continued.

        Commissioner Olague:

        Re: In lieu fee

        - One item that kept coming up was the in lieu fee. She believes that the Zoning Administrator mentioned that in the future this practice would not be supported.

        - She needs more detailed information on this.

            Zoning Administrator responded:

            - There are two projects that were approved under the policies.

            - One is on Haight Street. This project was approved with on-site housing. They sought to come in and pay the in lieu fee. The ordinance, as it is now, says you need to make that decision prior to taking out the building permit.

            - The second item was 1598 Dolores Street that sought the same thing. Unfortunately, he cannot comment on this in detail. He is excused because he lives near there.

            - The general facts are that the Commission approved the first one on Haight Street. The record will reflect the Commission disapproved 1598 Dolores. They were approved under slightly different policies.

            - If another item that comes to him that is similar on 1598 Dolores then he would say the ordinance, as it is today, means you need to make a determination to build at the time of taking out the site permit. He would not allow the project to pay the fee at this time.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - 15 MINUTES

      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. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

        Pat Buskovitch

        Re: demolitions

        - There is a building that is being demolished because it is so dangerous.

        - It is important to get an individual entity to review these demolitions.

    E. REGULAR CALENDAR

      7. 2005.0007D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        2506 UNION STREET - north side between Scott and Divisadero Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0945 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.07.15.8925 proposing to construct a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of the existing 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 the project. (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2205)

SPEAKER(S):

    (-) Jeremy Paul - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

    - He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the details of the project, showing various views of the property.

    (-) John McMahan

    - He has lived at this location for many years.

    - He and his wife participate in many community organizations.

    - The only reason they are here is because they have exhausted their possibilities to come to a decision with his neighbor.

    (-) Joan Fitzgibbon

    - She is a lower level tenant of the property with her husband.

    - She loves her apartment because of the light that comes in.

    - The proposed project will greatly impact her life.

    - She has never been asked about her opinion on the impacts of the proposed project.

    (-) Brian Merica

    - He is a tenant as well.

    - The main reason many people are here today is because of the negative reduction of light he and the tenants will receive with this construction.

    (-) Charles Brown

    - He lives near the proposed project.

    - He has lived there for about 20 years.

    - There has been a lack of concern for the neighbors and the tenants.

    - This project will bock light to many people in the area.

    (-) Barbara Morris

    - She is a tenant in the lower level.

    - She did not receive any indication that this project would go up.

    - The project will block air and light but any view of the sky.

    - If this project was brought to their attention earlier maybe they could have come to a compromise.

    (-) Vanessa McMahan

    - She lives in the bottom unit.

    - With this construction there will be a drastic reduction of light.

    (-) Jackie McMahan

    - There are procedural issues that have not been followed with this project.

    - There was no environmental review done, no story poles installed, the plans failed to show window openings, etc.

    - She also has noticed that the plans show a kitchen to be installed that is not to code.

    - The project states that it is a three-story home but it is actually a four-story home.

    (-) Pat Buscovich

    - He asked the Project Sponsor to build story poles. This was not done or they were never finished. But at the same time, they had already filed an application.

    - There is very little light that will survive if this project goes through.

    (-) Erin Grucz - San Francisco Heritage

    - She submitted a letter stating that the project has historical significance.

    - The project will greatly alter the facade of the structure.

    (+) Alice Barkeley - Representing Project Sponsor

    - She gave a general description of the project.

    (+) John Ennis - Project Architect

    - He did meet with the neighbors.

    - He tried to sculpt the project away from the neighbor's windows.

    (+) Mark Sherman

    - He and his wife made several efforts to meet with the neighbors. They even had a cocktail party and invited the neighbors to discuss the project.

    - There is a fence that he put up a few years ago because of the neighbor's puppy and our children.

    (+) Susan Mohun

    - The fence has been up for four years.

    - She let the neighbors know that if there was a problem with the fence they should let her know--no one said anything.

    - She showed the plans to the neighbors and mentioned that the way the project was designed was their ideal. However, they took the issues the neighbors mentioned and made revisions to the plans.

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

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

    ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

8a. 2003.0253D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3680 to demolish an existing two-story two-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-family dwelling) in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove Demolition Permit

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 24, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 21, 2005

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

      8b. 2004.0682D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        5126-5130 ANZA STREET - north side between 42nd and 43rd Avenues; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1502 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction to replace demolished housing, of Building Permit Application No. 2001.03.07.3684 for the new construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed new building will contain two off-street parking spaces.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove Building Permit

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 24, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 21, 2005

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

9a. 2004.1050DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

        190-192 PARK STREET - south side between Holly Park Circle and Leese Street; Lot 057 in Assessor's Block 5720 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commissions policy requiring review of dwelling unit merger, of Building Permit Application Nos. 2004.06.09.5888 and 2004.06.09.5892 proposing to merge the existing two-unit, two-story building at the front into one dwelling unit, and convert the rear building into a one-unit building, within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-family) District and the Bernal Heights Special Use District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Lydia Eli - Project Sponsor

        - They purchased the two-unit house because their family was growing.

        - They are struggling to continue living in San Francisco.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve the proposal to return the two unit home back to the original single family home.

        ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

      9b. 2004.1050DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

        190-192 PARK STREET - south side between Holly Park Circle and Leese Street; Lot 057 in Assessor's Block 5720 - Variance request to be considered by the Zoning Administrator for off-street parking, exposure, and rear yard, for the project proposing to merge the existing two-unit, two-story building at the front into one dwelling unit, and convert the rear building into a one-unit building, within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-family) District and the Bernal Heights Special Use District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 9a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.

      10. 2004.1264D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        129 LEXINGTON STREET- east side, south of 18th Street; Lot 065 in Assessor's Block 3589 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.28.9961, proposing the conversion of a five-unit residential building into a four-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Fred Santiago - Project Sponsor

        - He wants to make the unit a more livable place.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

11a. 2004.1057D (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        1177 CALIFORNIA STREET - UNITS 806 AND 808 - southeast corner at Jones Street; Lots 123 and 124 in Assessor's Block 0253A - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling-unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004-09-30-5591 for the merger of two dwelling units into one, in an RM-4 (Mixed Residential, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with conditions the Permit Application

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Kim Albany - Representing Project Sponsor

        - It is not the intent of the project sponsor to expand his living quarters; he just wants to put a doorway between two living rooms so access to the units would be easier.

        ACTION: Tool Discretionary Review and approved with the following conditions: 1) the kitchens and the baths remain; 2) should the project sponsor decide to remove the door and return the units to independent units in the future, no Commission review would be required.

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

        NAYES: Olague

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

      11b. 2004.1320C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        1177 CALIFORNIA STREET - southeast corner at Jones Street, Lots 258 and (a portion of 259) in Assessor's Block 0253A - Request for Conditional Use authorization to create a café in vacant commercial space (Planning Code Section 238(b)), in an RM-4 (Mixed Residential, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District, and within a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Amad Larizadeh - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This project was transferred to him.

        - He submitted a letter from the manager stating that they welcome the café.

        - He is available for questions.

        (-) Mark Balster

        - The letter submitted by the manager had no authorization from the Board of Directors.

        - They then composed a new letter stating that the Board of Directors takes no position on this matter and asked the Commission for guidance.

        - They have significant concerns regarding security.

        (-) Joan Parity

        - She does not support the project because she has a concern with security.

        (-) Luisa Hansen

        - She is opposed to the project because of the same reasons as the previous speakers.

        (-) Deborah Boile

        - The main concern here is security.

        (+) Barbara Ornellis

        - She is the property manager.

        - She hopes that the Commission will grant approval.

        - She has been working to rent the commercial space.

        (+) Jay Henry Glazier

        - He is in favor of the coffee shop.

        - He is anxious to have a place that is close where he can get a "real" breakfast.

        (-) Annette Berger

        - The place was never a coffee shop or a grocery store.

        - There have been various types of uses in that location.

        - She is concerned with security because the elevator is just across the hallway.

        - Anybody walking on Jones Street can get through the door and onto the elevator.

        - There is also a delivery problem. There will be deliveries going on all day.

        (-/+) Steven Gum

        - He is not either against the coffee shop or in support of it.

        - He is just concerned about the safety of the building.

        ACTION: Approved with the draft conditions as modified: delete paragraph 4 of the Conditions of Approval.

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

        NAYES: Bradford Bell

        MOTION: 16964

      12. 2005.0096C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        1160 MISSION STREET - northwest side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, with additional frontage on Stevenson Street, Lots 37, 38 and 56 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to permit additional building square footage above the base floor area ratio of 6.0 to 1 for space devoted to affordable housing units (Planning Code Section 124(f)), in conjunction with construction of a previously approved new, 23-story residential building, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 150-S and 240-S Height and Bulk Districts.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Eric Tau - Project Sponsor

        - He agrees with the continuance request.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 24, 2005

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

      13. (no case number) (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        2428 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND 1635 CALIFORNIA STREET - Consideration of a proposal to provide six units of off-site Below Market Rate housing to meet conditions of approval for a new building at 1635 California Street. The off-site units for that project are proposed for provision in a new, all-affordable residential structure at 2428 Bayshore Boulevard, and would be comparable or larger in size and of similar quality to those in the California Street project.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of the proposal

        Re: Continuance

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Mathew Brannan - Project Sponsor

        - He agrees with the continuance request.

        - He would like to have this case continued to next week and have it at the top of the calendar. [The Commission Secretary indicated that she would not promise that this would be at the top of the calendar.]

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued March 24, 2005

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

      14a. 2005.0140CEKV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        230-242 TURK STREET, "THE SALVATION ARMY TURK STREET CENTER" - north side between Leavenworth and Jones Streets, with a narrow segment through to Eddy Street; Lot 025 (formerly lots 024 and 006) in Assessor's Block 0338 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify a project approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2003 (Case 2002.1301C). As approved, the project was to construct an 8-story building with approximately 109 below market rate dwellings for adults in recovery and older foster care youth. The project included a gymnasium, swimming pool, chapel and multipurpose room on the ground floor, with social service offices and youth recreational areas and some studio dwellings on the second and third floors, with dwellings on the remaining floors, all built over an underground parking level accessed from Turk Street and containing at least 32 off-street parking spaces. As proposed for modification, the project would increase the number of dwelling units from 109 to 113 units and would add a fourth story to the approved three-story element at the rear of the lot. The roof at the rear would then be approximately 49 feet in height and contain approximately 3,000 additional square feet for a community space/dance studio. Concurrently, the Zoning Administrator will consider a request to modify previously granted variances. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High-Density) District and located within the North of Market Residential Special Use District and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Stacey Estes - Project Coordinator

        - They propose housing units as well as a comprehensive community center for the Tenderloin residents.

        - They are very excited about this project because it will benefit the Tenderloin.

        - Currently the site is old and dilapidated.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

        MOTION: 16965

      14b. 2005.0140CEKV (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        230-242 TURK STREET, "THE SALVATION ARMY TURK STREET CENTER" - north side between Leavenworth and Jones Streets, with a narrow segment through to Eddy Street; Lot 025 (formerly lots 024 and 006) in Assessor's Block 0338 - Request for Variances. The Zoning Administrator will consider a request to modify previously granted variances for rear yard and off-street parking requirements. As proposed for modification, the project would increase the number of dwelling units from 109 to 113 units and would add a fourth story to the already approved three-story element at the rear of the lot, both of which increase the required number of off-street parking spaces by 8 additional spaces. The modified project includes the same number of spaces originally approved (32), which is now 64 spaces under the required amount. The modified proposed addition, to be built above a previously approved element, obstructs the required rear yard. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High-Density) District and located within the North of Market Residential Special Use District and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District.

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 14a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variances.

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

None

Adjournment: 6:30 p.m.

          THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2005.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Alexander and S. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

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