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

April 21, 2005

April 21, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, April 21, 2005
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Shelley Bradford Bell

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:52 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kate Stacey - Deputy City Attorney; Craig Nikitas; Matthew Snyder; Rick Cooper; Sara Vellve; 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. 2004.0296EKX (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

      631 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 2nd and Hawthorne Streets; Lot 090 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for a Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions. The proposal is to construct a 21-story, 209-foot-high building containing up to 120 dwelling units and a garage with up to 64 parking spaces (36 independently accessible and 28 tandem). The project requires rear yard, wind, height, and bulk exceptions. The project site lies within the C-3-S (Downtown Support) District and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with condition

            (Proposed for Continuance to April 28, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to April 28, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          2. 2004.0798D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

                2070 30TH AVENUE - east side between Pacheco and Quintara Streets, Lot 003M in Assessor's Block 2149 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.26.4825, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          NOTE: On March 3, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to April 21, 2005 in order for Project Sponsor to hire an architect to present alternative designs and to continue to work with the neighborhood trying to reach an agreement on a design. Public Hearing remains open.

          (Proposed for Continuance to May 12, 2005) May 19, 2005

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          C.J. Higley - Reuben and Junius

          - He would rather have this case continued to May 19, 2005.

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 19, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

3a. 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 March 17, 2005)

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 12, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 12, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

      3b. 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 March 17, 2005)

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 12, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 12, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

      4a. 2003.1152DV (M LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

          329 BAY STREET - south side between Powell and Mason Streets through to Vandewater Street; Lot 036, Block 0041 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.16.9064 and 2004.10.05.5976, proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new four-story building approximately 40' high containing 21 dwelling units and 3.100 square feet of retail space. Twenty-one parking spaces would be located below grade, located in C-2 (Community Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 14, 2005)

          (Proposed for Continuance to May 5, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 5, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

4b. 2003.1152DV (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

          329 BAY STREET - south side between Powell and Mason Streets through to Vandewater Street; Lot 036 Block 0041 - Request for Variance from rear yard requirements, pursuant to a project that would demolish the existing, largely vacant, one-story building with 8,550 square feet of existing retail space to construct a new four-story building approximately 40 feet high, containing 21 dwelling units and 3,100 square feet of retail space. Twenty-one parking spaces would be located below grade, with vehicular access from Vandewater Street. Section 134(a)(1) requires that a building, which contains dwellings in this district, have a minimum rear yard depth equal to the larger of 25 percent of the lot depth or 15 feet. The subject lot is 120 feet deep and the required rear yard would be 30 feet. The project proposes no rear yard, but substitutes two light courts approximately 25 feet in depth on each side property line at mid-lot. The site is zoned C-2 (Community Business District), in the Northern Waterfront Special Use District #2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 14, 2005)

          (Proposed for Continuance to May 5, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 5, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          5. 2004.0916L (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          900 INNES AVENUE - northeast side between Griffith and Winters Point Boulevard. Assessor's Block 4646 and Lot 007 - Request for Landmark Designation under Planning Code Sections 1004.1, 1004.2 as City Landmark No. 250. The subject property is within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial - Small Scale) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 3, 2005)

          (Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2005) May 19, 2005

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Alice Barkley

          - She would like to have the case continued to a sooner date.

          Jill Fox - India Basin Neighborhood Association

          - She agrees with the continuance. She as well as the community would like the continuance to a date certain.

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 19, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      6. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of March 24, 2005.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner W. Lee

          Re: Home Depot Project

          - He requested a status of the Home Depot project.

          - It is his understanding that the discussion at the State Assembly level regarding CEQA changes is the review of the EIR for Home Depot.

          - He would like a status of this during the Director's Report.

          Commissioner Olague:

          Re: Health Impact Assessment

          - Even though there was a hearing today on this matter, she would like to schedule a second hearing because she still has a lot of questions.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Meetings Scheduled

          - He asked for a presentation on the role of the Board of Permit appeals relative to the Planning Commission.

          - He aIso requested a presentation by staff on the relative roles of the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Port Commission. This would be to get information on the jurisdictional authorities, where the boundaries are, what happens when there are questions that arise that might cross jurisdictions, etc? Is there any agency that oversees the function(s) of all these agencies or commissions?

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

          Director Macris reported:

          Re: EPS Report

          - The EPS report and analysis on the supply and demand of PDR space is available to the public here at the hearing and it is also available on the Planning Department's website.

          Re: SF STAT

          - The SF STAT program which is the Mayor's program for determining progress made in various departments, is usually scheduled on a quarterly basis.

          - Staff will be making a presentation on Monday to the Mayor, staff and other city officials regarding the progress the department is making.

          - He will inform the Commission about this also.

          Commissioner Olague:

          - Will there be a second report to the Commission with EPS on the PDR Study?

            Director Macris responded:

            - Nothing is scheduled, but he is talking with the Board of Supervisors about whether they would like to have some presentation.

            - But there is no plan to have a second presentation.

          Commissioner Olague:

          - It was her understanding at the first hearing that it was just an overview and when the report was published, there would be a second presentation.

            Director Macris responded:

            - The next step is to have staff draft a statement that would set the implications of that work and combine both things.

            - He could have the previous presenter here to go over the information again and talk about the implications of it.

          Commissioner Olague:

          - When will it be complete?

            Director Macris responded:

            - Sometime in May.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He would be interested in hearing this information also.

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

          (Reported by the Zoning Administrator):

          BOS -

          Re: Harding Theatre

          - This appeal was continued a few times.

          - The Zoning Administrator and Paul Maltzer of staff withdrew the Negative Declaration so the Conditional Use needs to come back before the Commission.

          - A revised Negative Declaration needs to be presented to the project sponsor.

          - It seems there is consensus at the Board that this is a good project.

          Rules Committee:

          - Next Monday there will be a hearing on a moratorium of the medical cannabis dispensers.

          - Dan Sider of Planning Department staff will be preparing a report on this and will present it to the Commission perhaps next week.

          BOA -

          Re: Elections

          - Mike Garcia was appointed to the Board Commissioner, Bill Sugaya as President and Commissioner Saunders as Vice President.

          - During the Public Comment period the Zoning Administrator expressed the Planning Commission's desire to have a joint hearing with the Board. The Board agreed to this.

          - He has not spoken to Secretary Avery or Commissioner Sue Lee on the date but there is a suggestion for early June.

          Re: 724 Van Ness Avenue

          - The Zoning Administrator made a determination that all units could be turned into condominiums.

          - This was very controversial.

          - Ultimately the Board upheld his decision which said the market rate units were not deemed to be rental, but that the affordable housing/inclusionary housing units must remain rental.

          - There was a +4-0 vote.

          Re: 261 26th Avenue

          - The Commission found the building to be unsound but disapproved the new construction.

          - The Board agreed that the building was unsound but disapproved the new construction because they found that the new units would not be affordable.

      10. 2003.0244C

          2101 BLOCK OF BRYANT STREET & 2830 20TH STREET - (the site formerly referred to as Bryant Square), located on the block bounded by Bryant, 19th, York, and 20th Streets; Lots 60, 62, and 63 in Assessor's Block 4080 - Informational Presentation of design changes to the proposed residential project approved under Planned Unit Development Case No. 2003.0244C and Planning Commission Resolution 16660. The subject property is within both a C-M and an M-1 Zoning District and a 65-B Height and Bulk District.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Tom Sprinkle - Project Architect

          - He displayed photographs of how the site looks now.

          - They decided to refine the project a bit trying to model this project as family-oriented.

          -They included 40 percent more open space; provided elevator access to the new construction; pushed the project one level down below grade; etc.

          (+) Matt Fisher - Palisades Development Group

          - They are continuing with dialogue with various community groups.

          - Everyone is very excited about the opening of the courtyard.

          - The project sponsor will be providing a donation to a non-profit organization.

          (+) Alma Robinson - California Lawyers for the Arts

          - She is in support of the project.

          - She is pleased to be part of the negotiations to make this project more affordable.

          (+) Eric Quezada - MAC

          - They support the agreement they made through the negotiations on this project.

          - For the first time the developers sat down with them in a respectable manner and we have come out with very good agreements.

          - This is one of the first family sized developments that has come to the neighborhood that supports community based art, etc.

          (+) Robert Pender - San Francisco Tenants Network

          - They support this project.

          (+) Patrick Everett - Bryant Square Lofts Home Tenants Association

          - They support this project.

          - Many homeowners have attended the meetings related to this project and support the project.

          (+/-) Sue Hestor

          - The square footage document in the case report is very confusing.

          - The name of the project should be rethought.

          - The project really needs architectural review.

          - The building should have its design tweaked.

          - The big issue is still to preserve PDR space.

          ACTON: Informational Presentation Only. No Action.

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.

          Joe O'Donaghue - Residential Builders

          Re: Public Comment

          - Regarding the recent articles in the Chronicle about the manner of public comment: what the newspaper did not say was the issue behind the discussion, which was the unjust way that a 20 year of service to the Department of Building Inspection employee was terminated.

          - He believes that the writer of this article is a person who has a problem with the Residential Builders.

          - He is happy that there will be a hearing at the Board of Supervisors where many issues like this will be discussed.

          Richard Marquez - Mission Street and 6th Street Agenda

          Re: Mid-Market Plan

          - He applauded the No votes from Commissioner Bradford Bell and Olague last week.

          - The Mission, Bay View Hunters Point, and SOMA have suffered declines due to gentrification.

          - If not for public housing, SRO and rent controlled apartments, there would be no low-income people living in the City.

E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

      At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

          Re: 1223 Bosworth Street

          Cristian Hogan - Project Architect

          - The Discretionary Review requestor was worried about his view but he [the architect] feels that the project will not block the view or limit the light and air.

          - Taking DR would be an abuse to the system.

          - It would be impossible to design the house in a three-story envelope because of the very small size.

          - He has spent hundreds of hours on the design of this project.

          - The proposed home is code compliant.

          James Sanguinetti - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He understands that the Commission viewed the video of the previous hearing.

          - The proposed home will impact his light and privacy.

          - The lot is so extremely shallow that the proposed home will tower over his house.

          - It was mentioned that his house is unique, but there are a few houses that sit back into the hill.

          - He objects also to the overall mass and height of the proposed project.

          - The home would not be in character with the other homes in the neighborhood.

F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

      11. 2004.0893DV (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

          1223 BOSWORTH STREET - south side between Congo Street and O'Shaughnessy Boulevard, Lot 33A in Block 6706 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application 2004.11.04.8581 to construct a new three-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling unit on a substandard size lot measuring 25 feet in width by 42 feet in length. The subject property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 10, 2005)

          NOTE: On March 10, 2005, the Commission voted to Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project. The motion failed by a vote of +2-2; Commissioners Alexander, Bradford Bell and Hughes were absent. The item was continued to April 7, 2005, to allow the absent Commissioners the ability to participate in final action.

          NOTE: On March 10, 2005, the Commission continued this matter to April 7, 2005, to allow absent Commissioners the opportunity to participate in final action. This item was unfortunately left off the April 7, 2005 calendar through Administrative error. Notice was given that this matter was continued to April 21, 2005

          SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

          NAYES: Olague

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

G. CONSENT CALENDAR

      All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

      12. 2005.0020Q (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

          1124 LEAVENWORTH STREET - east side between California and Sacramento Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0247, six dwelling units proposed for a residential condominium conversion subdivision, in an RM-3 (Residential Mixed, Medium Density) and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16986

      13. 2004.1171Q (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

          9 REDFIELD ALLEY/906-910 UNION STREET - north side of Union Street, between Jones and Taylor Streets, Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 0099, five dwelling units proposed for a residential condominium conversion subdivision, in an RM-2 (Residential Mixed, Moderate Density) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16987

          14. 2005.0217C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          601 BROADWAY - southwest corner at Grant Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0161 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to legalize a small self-service restaurant (dba "Yoogo Gelato") of approximately 850 square feet. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The site is within the Chinatown Community Business District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16988

H. REGULAR CALENDAR

            15. 2004.0346DDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          245 - 23RD AVENUE - west side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 1410 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2005.01.14.3280 to construct two additional stories and a rear horizontal addition to the existing two-story, two-unit building resulting in a four-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 5, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          16. 2005.0068D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          4967-4969 - 17TH STREET - south side between Stanyan and Shrader Streets; Lot 059 in Assessor's Block 1289 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application 2004.11.03.8481 proposing to legalize the merger of two dwelling units into one dwelling unit within a two-unit building in an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the permit.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) David Clark - Project Sponsor

          - If he had known what it entailed to merge two units, he would not have purchased the property.

          - He thought that the City of San Francisco was supporting family type housing.

          - There was a tenant that was living there and they came to an agreement for this person to leave and he provided benefits to her.

          - The Planning Commission should take many things into consideration.

          - The entire house has been in great disrepair for many, many years.

          - The lower unit is very dismal.

          - They used to live in the Mission Street but had to move because of the gang-related activities.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project and allow them to continue living in the City they love.

          MOTION: To not take Discretionary Review and approve the merger

          AYES: Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee

          NAYES: Hughes and Olague

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          RESULT: The motion failed

          ACTION: Item continued to May 12, 2005 to allow all Commissioners the opportunity to vote.

          AYES: Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

          NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

          NOTE: This motion/action was rescinded

          ACTION: Item continued to April 28, 2005 to allow most Commissioners the opportunity to participate.

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

      17a. 2004.1204DV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

          1420 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Masonic Avenue and Ashbury Street; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1232 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.21.3024 proposing to legalize a stair penthouse and elevator mechanical equipment constructed without permits at the rear of the roof of the subject building, which houses Shoe Biz, in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Mark Brannan - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He is speaking on behalf of the Discretionary Review requestor John Brannan.

          - There is a lot of work that was done to the project without permits being issued.

          - The project sponsor states that he did not need permits and/or conditional use for the work that he did to his house.

          - He submitted letters from neighbors and friends of the Discretionary Review requestor who support the DR.

          (-) Matthew Brannan

          - He supports the Discretionary Review request.

          - The project sponsor has done a lot of work without permits.

          (-) Joe O'Donoghue - Residential Builders

          - The project sponsor has expanded illegally. No permits were ever taken out.

          - This project sponsor should have this expansion denied.

          (-) Andrew Smith

          - He is very much aware of the rules and regulations for building.

          - Merchants who are expanding in this area should be very strictly judged.

          - Many builders follow the rules and these should be applied to this sponsor.

          (+) Terry Lindall - Project Architect

          - He understands that there is an issue here.

          - There was a misinterpretation regarding the square footage and the living square footage.

          - The parking is not affected because it is a minor overage.

          ACTON: Took take Discretionary Review and disapproved the project.

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

      17b. 2004.1204DV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

                1420 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Masonic Avenue and Ashbury Street; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1232 - Rear yard and non-complying structure variances sought per Sections 134 and 188 to legalize a stair penthouse and elevator mechanical equipment constructed without permits at the rear of the roof of the subject building, which houses Shoe Biz, in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 17a.

          ACTON: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.

      18. 2005.0255D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          29 MENDOSA AVENUE - south side between 9th and 10th Avenues, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 2860 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.12.01.0467, proposing to construct a vertical addition and façade alterations on a single-family dwelling by horizontally enlarging the existing top floor towards the front of the building, located in a RH-1(D) [Residential, House, One-Family (Detached)] District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Harold Bright - Forest Hill Neighborhood Association

          - No one is opposed to the addition; they just want the project to follow the Residential Design Guidelines.

          - The proposed second floor would almost build a new structure.

          - They are opposed to the fiberglass tub room.

          - The structure could be considerably more compact.

          - There is no structure of this type anywhere in the neighborhood.

          (-) Timothy Tracy - President of the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association

          - This matter was discussed extensively and it was decided to oppose the fiberglass addition.

          - There are letters in support of the project, but they support the entire project.

          - It is important to try to maintain designs and additions that are compatible with the neighborhood.

          (-) Kay Yomamoto

          - She lives in the neighborhood.

          - She does not support the project because the architecture is not compatible with the neighborhood.

          - Adding a "look at me" design would be wrong.

          (+) Bruce Tomb - Project Designer

          - There is substantial support for the project.

          - The project is very small.

          - They have already made changes in response to the Discretionary Review applicant.

          - Numerous designers have reviewed the project and they made no negative comments.

          (+) Cathy Hibson

          - She lives in the neighborhood.

          - There is nothing particular about her house. Many of the houses in the neighborhood have different designs.

          (+) William Cramer

          - He supports the project sponsor.

          - The neighborhood association is proud of the house currently and will continue to be proud after the project is completed.

          (+) Hollie Pier - Attorney

          - There were a few people that were here to testify in support of the project sponsor but had to leave.

          - Opinions on design are always subjective.

          - The design is within keeping of the architectural and historical character.

          - The project sponsor has worked very hard and very closely with the neighbors.

          - She is requesting that the Commission deny the Discretionary Review.

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

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

          NAYES: Antonini

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      19. 2004.1214D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

                422 ARCH STREET - east side between Garfield and Shields Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 7006 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.03.26.9714, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear and a one-story vertical addition on top of a single-family dwelling, located in a 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 as proposed

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Anastasia Belikstern - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - The addition will create a wall that will come up to the top of her building.

          - The project will impact the light coming to her house.

          - She actually should ask for a Variance according to the Building Code.

          - The surrounding neighbors do not support the extension.

          - She would rather have the project sponsor extend forward.

          (-) Eugene (last name unclear)

          - He displayed various signatures of people who are opposed to the addition.

          - He supports taking Discretionary Review on this project and reducing the size.

          (+) Cydney Skooth - Representing Project Sponsor

          - She was in compliance with the posting.

          - The opposition to the extension of the house is concerned with the light. The sun rises from the East and would not impede the light.

          (+) Kilo (last name unclear)

          - They have set back six or nine feet already.

          - They have altered their plans to accommodate their neighbors.

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

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      20. 2004.1300C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          2154 IRVING STREET - northeast corner at 23rd Avenue, Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 1728 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.44 to legalize the existing small self-service restaurant (Star's Flower and Tea Shop) that is currently operating at this location, within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, Irving Street Restaurant and Fast-Food Sub-district, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Shelley Lew

          - They have served the community for many years.

          - The food has always been maintained fresh.

          - They have very positive comments from her customers.

          ACTON: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16990

      21. 2004.1346C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          5260 DIAMOND HEIGHTS BOULEVARD - south side between Duncan Street and Gold Mine Drive, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 7521 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 713.21 to allow the expansion of a non-complying 8,100 square-foot retail space to be occupied by Walgreens further over the permitted use size limitation of 5,999 sq. ft., located in a NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Kevin James - NCG Architecture

          - He displayed various floor plans showing where the store will be located.

          - The purpose of the extension is because Walgreen's would like to expand their pharmacy area.

          - The area the store will be expanding into is a transitional space in the rear of the store.

          - He displayed a rendering of what the project would look like. The sponsor will enhance the pedestrian walkway with more street furniture and landscaping.

          ACTON: Approved

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

          NAYES: Olague

          ABSENT: Hughes and Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16991

          22. 2004.0508C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          3555 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET - d.b.a. "St. Luke's Hospital", the block bordered by Cesar Chavez Street, Valencia Street, Duncan Street and San Jose Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 6575. Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow the installation of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in an RH-2 District as required under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b). The proposed telecommunications facility would consist of six antennas each installed within a stealth vent pipe that would be approximately 16-feet above the roof and 91-feet above grade, and associated equipment cabinets. The WTS facility would be operated by Nextel Communications. The subject property is within an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District, and a 105-E Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 1 Location Site, a public building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Corey Alvin - Nextel Communications

          - This facility will be a replacement for an existing facility from Nextel Communications.

          - The proposed site is lower in elevation and closer to the center of the proposed coverage area.

          - The signals seem to stray on higher sights.

          - The RF engineers are here for questions.

          ACTON: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Olague and Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16992

        23. 2005.0110C (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

          3800 24TH STREET - northwest corner of 24th and Church Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3651 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 728.49 and 303 to establish a financial service within a 2,050 square foot vacant retail space. The subject property is located in the 24th Street - Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Project Sponsor (Sterling Bank and Trust) proposes to establish a financial service into one of two 2,050 square foot retail spaces on the ground floor of a one-story commercial building previously occupied by a laundermat.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Steve Adams - Sterling Bank and Trust

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this site.

          - There are five existing branches in the City and they are very active in community organizations.

          ACTON: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Olague

          MOTION: 16993

Note: The following matter was taken out of order and followed item 17a and b.

      24. 2004.1033Z (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 0185 REZONING - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco, Section Map 2, to change the use district designation of Assessor's Block 0185, Lots, 005, 029, 030, 031, 038, 039, 040, and 041 (mid-block South side of Pacific Street between Hyde Street and Larkin Street) from NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) to RM-1 (Residential, Mixed: Low Density, making finding pursuant to Section 302 and, making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Supervisor Aaron Peskin

          - There is outdated zoning in this area.

          - There is a "spotty" ground floor commercial environment in this area.

          - The ordinance will require Conditional Use for buildings over 40 feet, require the use of the Residential Design Guidelines, etc.

          - The matter has been widely discussed by neighbors.

          - There is some level of acceptance for this ordinance.

          (+) Robin Prior - Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association

          - She urges preservation of her neighborhood. There are many people that would have come to the meeting but were not able to.

          - They are not opposed to the current way that business people conduct business and don't want that to change.

          (+) Carolyn Lee - Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association

          - She supports the rezoning.

          - She is concerned that the project proposed on Pacific Avenue will affect the neighborhood and this rezoning will allow for consistency.

          - Although they support housing, they also support consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines.

          (+) Frank Ancona - PANA (Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association)

          - He lives in the area.

          - He supports the existing height limits as well as the rezoning of the area.

          - The original zoning is obsolete.

          (+) Heather Archibald - PANA

          - It is important to support the Residential Design Guidelines.

          - Rezoning the area would allow for maintaining the character of the neighborhood.

          (+) Galen Archibald - PANA

          - If this area is not rezoned, it will allow for taller structures that would interfere with the character of the neighborhood.

          - It is important for the neighbors to preserve this character and minimize impacts to properties.

          (+) Peter Cling

          - He is not a resident of the neighborhood but does own a business there.

          - He is in support of the rezoning because the proposed project on Pacific Avenue will extremely impact the neighborhood.

          (+) Ezra Denney - California Academy of Family Physicians

          - They are concerned that the project he is planning will not be conservative and consistent with the nature of the neighborhood.

          - He is very concerned with parking in the neighborhood.

          (+) Cynthia Townsend

          - She has lived on Jackson Street for over 12 years.

          - She feels very strongly about supporting this legislation.

          - The neighborhood is very diverse and she enjoys this mix.

          - By approving this legislation, it would allow for this diversity to be maintained.

          (-) Andrew Junius

          - The subject lot is one of the largest in the area.

          - They displayed a model of the structures in the area.

          - He hopes that the Commission will support an RC zoning and not an RM zoning.

          (-) Paul Vogatzy

          - He took into account all the neighbors concerns.

          - He displayed a model of the structures in the area showing how there are many structures that have various heights.

          (-) Ariana Vogatzy

          - She does not support the rezoning and feels it would be a mistake.

          (+) Nancy Swift

          - She supports a historic preservation of her neighborhood.

          (+) Doug Kain

          - This neighborhood is at a "tipping" point.

          - The new zoning that the neighborhood is looking for will only continue to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

          ACTON: Approved as Modified: Strike RM-1 and Replace with RC-1.

          AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

          EXCUSED: W. Lee

          ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

          RESOLUTION: 16989

      25. 2005.0198X (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          301 MISSION STREET - south side between Fremont and Beale Street, Lots 1 and 17 in Assessor's Block 3719 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance and an exception to rear yard requirements (Section 134(d)). The subject property is located within the C-3-O Zoning District as well as the 550-S and 400-S Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project is to change the mix of uses and make minor changes to a portion of the building envelope on a previously approved mixed-use project, which was approved for 130,000 square feet of office space in a nine-story mid-rise building; 320 residential units and 120 extended stay hotel suites in a 58-story tower; 9,400 square feet of ground floor retail and 18,710 square feet of public and private open space contained within a base podium element; and four levels of below-grade parking. The previously approved project was so conditioned that if in the judgment and at the discretion of the property owner, the hotel market did not sufficiently justify the operation of the proposed hotel facility, the 120 extended stay hotel units would be authorized for conversion to an equal number of residential units. Therefore, the previously approved project was approved for a total of 440 dwelling units under specific conditions, all contained within the 58-story tower. The modified project would eliminate the office and hotel uses, and would contain a total of 420 dwelling units, placing 54 of these units in the former 130,000 square-foot office building envelope, and 366 larger dwelling units would occupy the entire tower building envelope. The ground level retail space would be reduced to 7,900 square feet, and there would be approximately 6,700 square feet of public open space, although with the removal of the office and hotel uses, no public open space is actually required by the Planning Code. The proposed residential and retail uses would be contained in substantially the same building envelopes as were approved for the previous mixed-use project, with minor changes to the mid-rise building facade and a rear yard exception required for the dwellings within it.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Shawn Jeffreys - Project Developer

          - They have been working with the Planning Department for many years.

          - This will be an excellent project for San Francisco.

          - A more desirable use would be residential units and that is what they are proposing.

          - There will be about 500 units total brought to San Francisco.

          (+) Rev. Cecil Williams - Glide Memorial Church

          - They have been working to get housing in the Tenderloin for about 10 years.

          - This housing will be affordable and will benefit people who are chronically poor.

          - He believes that within the next two years, they will have at least 79 units of affordable housing.

          - Housing should be developed which is similar to what they have at Glide Memorial.

          (+) Sue Hestor

          - Her main issues are that this is part of the Transbay/Rincon Hill area.

          - She is concerned with the math that is included in the project report.

          - There is also a missing map in the project report, which would show the context of the area.

          - Renderings should have the context included.

          - She is concerned about the manipulation of the housing units.

          ACTON: Approved as Amended: add the additional condition: The project sponsor is volunteering and intends at this time to partner with Glide Memorial Church.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

          MOTION: 16994

      26. (L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)

          PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS - CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT: Article IV, Sections 3 & 6 to address notice and voting; add a new Section 7 to address jurisdiction; renumber remaining section of Article IV.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTON: Without hearing, item continued to May 12, 2005

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

          ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell

      7:00 P. M. 7:35 p.m.

      PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

      At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Bruce Allison

          - Environmental impact issues are not only trees, flowers and buildings, but also people.

          - He demands at least 70 percent of affordability and it should be onsite.

          (+/-) Tom Gilberti

          - He has lived on Townsend Street for about 17 years.

          - At one time, where he lives was the tallest building with 14 stories.

          - The buildings will give off noise from the parking garages, ventilation systems, emergency generators, etc.

          (-) Patrick Malone

          - He lives on Delancy Street.

          - He is against the certification of the EIR.

          - At the Guy/Lansing corner, the project will be very devastating.

          - The charm of these streets lies in the alleys.

          - The towers will be built on an inappropriate shallow lot.

          - The EIR fails to consider other alternatives.

          (+) Neil Mallot

          - He is a student of local San Francisco history.

          - He knows of this district since 1937.

          - He supports this project.

          (-) Stafford Parker

          - He lives in the Fillmore District.

          - He has been homeless for a year now.

          - The homeless people are loosing homes and beds.

          - There are many people who want a place to live.

          - Please do not approve this plan.

          (-) Chris Durazo - South of Market Community Action Network

          - The EIR does not include the cumulative impacts of the neighborhoods surrounding the Rincon Hill.

          - She is very concerned about the traffic. It is impossible to live there because of the parking problems.

          - The EIR is out of compliance with the Housing Element.

          - About 50 percent of the City's jobs are in SOMA and this is not stated in the EIR.

          (-) Bill Murphy

          - He lives in a SOMA shelter.

          - This grandiose plan does not include low-income people.

          - Why not just build a wall around the City, kick out the low-income people and build more condos.

          - He is opposed to the certification of the EIR.

          (-) Rudy Corpus

          - The community of SOMA has gone through a transition.

          - He is opposed to the Rincon Hill plan.

          - All the people are not getting all the right information.

          - There are people that are still struggling to keep the places where they live.

          - Decisions should not be made without involving all of the people.

          (-) Ken Warner - Trinity Plaza Tenants Association

          - He is opposed to the Certification of the EIR.

          - Staff failed to respond to the issues he had regarding rental housing.

          - A limited community is only concerned with creating condos.

          - San Francisco is turning into a Manhattan Island and this is unacceptable to residents of SOMA.

          (-) Ellis McDonald

          - More places like shelters are needed in the City.

          - There are many people who really need a place to live and are in danger living on the streets.

          (-) Ed Espanio

          - He has seen his neighborhood deteriorate because the cost of living is so high.

          - He has two children and has lived in SOMA for many, many years.

          - There have been a lot of people who have to move away from the City.

          - The community needs to meet eye to eye and discuss the needs of the community.

          (-) Gino Height

          - He lives in SOMA.

          - He does not see anything for the community of SOMA.

          - Homeless people should have a voice in their neighborhood.

          (-) Teresa Baladas

          - She has lived in SOMA all her life.

          - She is concerned about her neighborhood.

          - She remembers that for a time there were laws against building high-rises, lofts, etc.

          - The Commission needs to fight for them. Otherwise, they are not helping the people.

          (-) James Collins - South of Market Community Action Network

          - This project is a "slap" in the face.

          - The community needs to have more input on this EIR.

          - The community does not need condos.

          (-) Glen Jermyn Andag - Filipino American Development Foundation

          - He is involved in many Filipino organizations in the area.

          - There are so many problems with lack of jobs, lack of places to live, etc.

          - The EIR fails to address the problems of the area.

          - The community is facing a lot of strife.

          - He urges the Commission to not pass the EIR.

          (-) Jano Avanessian - GVS, Inc.

          - He has a light manufacturing company in the area.

          - The EIR does not address the traffic in the area.

          - The EIR does not state the impacts that this project will have on the businesses in the area.

          (-) Eric Quezada - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

          - This is a citywide and regional issue.

          - The EIR states that there is no way to predict who will be living in the towers.

          - If more affordable housing were constructed in the area it would be easy to predict who would be living in there.

          - There are various environmental and health impacts with this project that will affect real people.

          - This area is one of the last available areas of the City.

          (-) Angelica Canbande - SOMCAN

          - She came previously to speak regarding the issues she had on the EIR.

          - Is the Commission reaching out to the community?

          - She hopes that the Commission will not pass this EIR.

          (-) April Monorosco - South of Market Community Action Network

          - She hopes that the Commission will really look at the impacts stated in the EIR.

          - There is no proposed housing for the low and very low income.

          - Increasing Inclusionary housing is important.

          (-) Richard Marquez

          - Since the 80s this area has been reserved for the more deserving.

          - Ample affordable housing could be included in surrounding areas for real people that actually work in area.

          - 20,000 residents are planned to live in the Rincon, Mid-Market, etc.

          (-) Ted Chow - Chinatown Coalition for Better Housing

          - The EIR should include a human impact report.

          - There is an affordable housing crisis.

          - There are thousands of people who are waiting to receive housing.

          - Working families of the City do not benefit from this Rincon Hill Plan.

          (-) Eduardo Gonzalez

          - He is disabled and lives in a place for disabled people.

          - It is very hard to pay high rent when one is sick and loosing hope.

          - It is not easy for people like him to come out and speak here and talk about affordable housing.

          - There are a lot of poor people that can hardly pay rent.

          (-) Ada Chan

          - She is working on affordable housing in Oakland and two of her first applicants came from San Francisco.

          - The demographics of the speakers on the Rincon Hill Plan will reflect the people that will live there yet the people speaking on affordable housing will certainly not be living there.

27. 2000.1081EMTZ (R. COOPER: (415) 558-5974)

          RINCON HILL PLAN - Certification of Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is a revised Rincon Hill Plan (an Area Plan of the San Francisco General Plan) and revised planning controls for the Rincon Hill area. The San Francisco Planning Department proposes to replace the Planning Code's existing Rincon Hill Special Use District (SUD), as set out in Planning Code Section 249.1, with a new Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use District (DTR), which would increase height limits, revise the "R" bulk district, amend the Rincon Hill Area Plan, and make other General Plan and zoning changes intended to stimulate additional high-density, residential development in the Rincon Hill area. Improvements to the streetscape, transportation system and open space would result from implementation of the new Plan. Rincon Hill is in the northeast section of San Francisco, south of the Financial District and Transbay Terminal, and north of the South Beach neighborhood. The project area is bounded generally by Folsom Street, Steuart Street, The Embarcadero, Bryant Street, the Bay Bridge approach and the Transbay Terminal ramps and encompasses about 12 city blocks.

          NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on December 10, 2004. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Certify EIR

          ACTON: Item continued to April 28, 2005. Public Hearing Closed.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

28a. 2000.1081EMTZ (R. COOPER: (415) 558-5974)

          RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt CEQA Findings regarding General Plan Amendments and Planning Code and Zoning Map Amendments pursuant to adoption of the Rincon Hill Area Plan.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution

          SPEAKER(S):

          Judson True - Legislative Aid - Supervisor Sandoval

          - Supervisor Sandoval is Vice Chair of the Land Use Committee

          - Supervisor Sandoval has a few issues related to the Rincon Hill Plan: 1) development impact fees for public benefits both within the plan area and citywide; 2) the use of increased revenues from property and transfer taxes; and 3) inclusionary housing requirements associated with the project.

          - The Board of Supervisors will look closely at this plan.

          - There will be a committee hearing on this plan as well.

          - These are the issues that Supervisor Sandoval plans to address: 1) what additional fees will be added per square foot; 2) the impact this plan will have on the residents; 3) he will try to raise the inclusionary requirements as well as the location, etc.

          Dee Dee Workman - San Francisco Beautiful

          - Her organization has contributed with comments and ideas for this plan for over two years.

          - They are very supportive of the plan.

          - The only issue they have is a park near a freeway.

          - They recommend adopting the plan without exceptions.

          Tamar Cooper - San Francisco Beautiful

          - They have various environmental concerns regarding the park near the freeway.

          - There are studies that state that there are tremendous amounts of pollution near freeways and there should not be any parks near them.

          Robin Chiang - San Francisco Beautiful

          - He supports the Rincon Hill Plan.

          - He hopes that the Commission will move the exceptions because it will set a significant precedent for the Commission.

          Michael Alexander - San Francisco Beautiful

          - His organization supports the Rincon Hill plan.

          - Granting the exception is not fair to the hundreds of people who have participated to craft this plan.

          - He urged the Commission not to accept the exceptions.

          Jeffrey Liebovitz

          - He lives in the area.

          - A park should not be located beneath the bridge because that area is not environmentally friendly.

          - Sixty eight percent of people are moving into homes, which means they are moving out of their apartments.

          - Creating these units will impede people from the purchase of their house.

          Alex Wilbur - Theadore Brown and Partners, Inc.

          - Many of the units on the Fremont Street project will create an opportunity for purchase.

          - A certain amount of fees will go to the San Francisco Unified School District.

          - The tax revenue for this project will benefit many organizations.

          Alison Pool - Theadore Brown and Partners, Inc.

          - She thanked the Commission for grandfathering the 375 Fremont Street project.

          - The Fremont Street project will contribute to the City's current housing needs.

          Mike Denunzio - D56, Inc.

          - He works with the mayor's program to end homelessness.

          - He urged the Commission to grandfather the archdiocese project on Fremont Street.

          - The archdiocese of San Francisco plays a major role in benefiting communities.

          Michael Theriault - San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council

          - Many working class people like this project because it will create jobs.

          - He hopes the Commission will approve this project.

          Richard Hanlin

          - He has been a landlord in North Beach for about 20 years.

          - Many of his tenants have purchased property because they were tired of renting.

          Marsha O'Bannon - Russian Hill Association

          - The proposed plan proposes fair treatment for 375 Fremont Street and other pipeline projects.

          - The decision that the Commission makes today will play an important role in future projects.

          George Williams - SPUR

          - They endorse the Rincon Hill Plan.

          - It is important to talk about public benefits but it should not kill a project completely.

          Dave Connolly - Sailors' Union of the Pacific

          - He manages a building on Harrison Street near Rincon Hill.

          - He wants to participate in the development of this plan.

          - He supports the plan.

          Albert Costa

          - Grandfathering the 375 Fremont Street project is the right thing to do because it will lower the cost of housing. It will also provide housing for many people.

          Adrian Bradford

          - He works with investing in businesses that are just starting out.

          - There is a company that he will be financing and one of the issues to deal with is where this company will be located.

          - They have been looking in the Freemont Street and Folsom Street areas because it would benefit them greatly.

          - He hopes the Commission will "grandfather" the projects in the pipeline.

          Collin Mazza - Theodore Brown and Partners

          - He thanked the Commission for "grandfathering" the 375 Fremont Street project.

          - 375 Fremont Street has been in process for years now.

          - The Fremont Street project will provide real housing to real people.

          Gregg Miller - Pillsbury

          - He thanked the Commission for grandfathering the projects that have been in the pipeline.

          - The Fremont Street project will generate millions of dollars of taxes and will provide financial benefits to the San Francisco Unified School district.

          - This is much needed tax revenue and benefits.

          Steven Aiello - Greenbelt Alliance

          - He volunteers with Green Belt Alliance.

          - They endorse the Rincon Hill Plan.

          - He was born and raised in San Francisco.

          - San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area.

          Robert Herr - Pillsbury

          - This plan is a great advance for downtown San Francisco.

          - San Francisco needs more housing and the only way to achieve this is to go higher and denser.

          - There was already a Rincon Hill plan in place but is outdated.

          Kate White - San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

          - This is a momentous occasion for San Francisco.

          - She congratulated the Planning staff for their hard work for so many years.

          - They support projects if they accompany open spaces, affordable housing, community space, retail, etc. This is exactly what this plan entails.

          Joe Curtin

          - He works for an organization in the Castro.

          - Does not support high towers that are only for rich people.

          - He does support slender towers that will provide benefits to the community.

          - He hopes that there are a high percentage of low-income units.

          Robert Meyers

          - He urged the Commission to approve this plan and "grandfather" 375 Fremont Street.

          - This plan will allow a park and a great open space.

          - The project sponsor of 375 Fremont Street submitted their permits and plans many years ago. Their project should be decided upon under the old zoning. This project should not be looked at under the same guidelines as this Rincon Hill plan.

          John Schlesinger

          - They endorse the plan.

          - The only issue they have is regarding the exceptions.

          - The Commission should approve this plan and not allow exceptions.

          Theodore Brown - Brown Brown, LLC

          - He submitted plans for a project many years ago.

          - The specifics of his project have changed. The zoning of the Rincon Hill area has changed.

          - He hopes that the Commission will "grandfather" the projects that have been in the pipeline.

          - It would be good to keep Discretionary language in the text.

          Ellen Lou - Skidmore, Owings & Merrill

          - There are certain points that are critical for this plan. It is very important to specifically locate tall buildings. Towers should be slender. Views should be ensured. If there is not enough space between the towers it would create a wall like use. Being pedestrian friendly is an important issue as well.

          Susan Vaughan - Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee

          - The committee endorses the Rincon Hill Plan but also encourages in addition an on demand pedestrian crossing at the pedestrian alley and First Street.

          - They would also like to review the pedestrian and traffic proposals for Harrison Street since it had not been finished at the time.

          - Eliminating all parking for privately owned automobiles would be a good idea.

          - The area is an extremely rich transit area.

          Fernando Marti - Asian Neighborhood Design

          - The purpose of the plan is to increase housing in San Francisco.

          - Yet the EIR states that the project would do little to alleviate the housing needs of the City.

          Peter Cohen - Urban Solutions

          - This plan is an economic opportunity for community building.

          - The Commission needs to look at this enormous packet.

          - There is a lot of information on the fee program.

          - The Commission should look at the Mello-Roos that could be imposed on future property owners as well as impact fees being charged on current property developments.

          Reed Bement - Rincon Hill Residents Association

          - He commends the long range planning staff.

          - Eliminate the special treatment on Fremont Street because they are not consistent with the rest of the Rincon Hill projects.

          Tom Radulovich - Transportation for a Livable City

          - There is too much parking in this plan.

          - This neighborhood could be made an ecological place for people to live.

          - This area has the best public transportation.

          - Many people do not own a car.

          - Is this housing for San Franciscans?

          - It would be a big mistake to approve the pipeline projects on Fremont Street.

          John O. Ebenesian

          - He owns property in the area.

          - He has been working in the area also and is concerned with the traffic.

          - The noise level for his business is very difficult.

          - He supports this plan but he does not see any consideration of what would happen to small businesses during the process of this plan.

          - He commends staff for their hard work.

          Sarah Silva - SF Archdiocese

          - Many parishioners are worried about housing and income levels.

          - She hopes that the pipeline project on Fremont Street will be included in this plan.

          - They afford housing at all income levels.

          George Wesoleh - SF Archdiocese

          - He hopes that the Commission will include the Fremont Street project into this plan. It is a matter of fairness.

          - They have spent a lot of money on this.

          - He believes that this project really fits with the plan.

          Charles Kullman - Old St. Mary's Church

          - They are very concerned about community.

          - Although they are in favor of the plan, the increase of inclusionary housing is very important.

          - Affordable housing is really needed.

          - He hopes the Commission will include the pipeline projects on Fremont Street.

          Bill Applegate - Catholics for the Common Good

          - This is a very good plan.

          - He hopes that the Fremont Street project will be included into the project because it is a win, win proposition.

          - The project will enhance livability.

          Rev. John A. Balleza - St. Patrick's Church

          - They have a vested interest in the inclusion to the Fremont Street project because it will ensure more housing for their families.

          Eleanor F. Killebrew - Brownbrew

          - She hopes that the Commission will include the projects on Fremont Street.

          - Plans were submitted three expensive years ago for these projects.

          - Each delay causes more money to be lost.

          Ben Ortega

          - He commended staff for putting on a great project.

          - The projects on Fremont Street were submitted about three years ago.

          - Staff has recommended that the projects need to conform to the new specific plan and many people want to see this.

          - The Commission should approve to include these projects.

          Jerry Rampelberg

          - He agrees with including the Fremont Street projects with the Rincon Hill plan.

          - These projects filed their permits a few years ago.

          - It is unfair to ask the project sponsor to revise their plans even thought they have abided by all the guidelines.

          Duane Carlson - Avalon Bay

          - The Fremont Street project should be included into the Rincon Hill Plan because it will allow for more housing.

          - The projects will be more comfortable because of the tower separation.

          Jim Salinas, Sr. - Carpenter's Union - Local 22

          - He urged the Commission to support allowing the two projects on Fremont Street to be included in the Rincon Hill Plan.

          - The jobs provided and the housing are beneficial to the City.

          - It is important to support responsible developers that use union workers.

          (did not state name)

          - Many people have felt disenfranchised because the Rincon Hill Plan has been separate from the other community plans.

          - Rincon Hill is not a new neighborhood.

          - Even though there has been a lot of work done on the plan, there have been surrounding neighborhoods that have been ignored.

          - The plan should respect the look and feel of the Lansing Neighborhood.

          Diego Sanchez

          - He works in a company that provides affordable housing.

          - The Rincon Hill Plan does not deal with the needs of the City of San Francisco much less the residents of the South of Market.

          - This plan should not move forward until there has been more dialogue.

          Erick Quesada

          - There is still a lot to look at in this plan.

          - Not one job on this plan should be non-union.

          - The working class community will come here to work for union jobs and affordability.

          Chis Durazo - SOMECAN

          - She agrees with union jobs.

          - The residents of the South of Market feel ignored.

          - Access is what the residents want but it seems that the Rincon Hill Plan will be for exclusive people only.

          - There are very few parks in the area.

          April Veneracion - SOMECAN

          - She does not want to dismiss all the work that staff has done on this plan.

          - The discussion here is about equity.

          - The plan does not meet the needs of all the residents of San Francisco.

          - She is encouraged on the movement of community benefits but she would like to see it first.

          Sue Hestor

          - The most precious resource of the City is land.

          - If 85% of the housing is high-end, the rest of the residents are being ignored.

          - South of Market is a place where there should be inclusionary housing.

          - There is not a very good transit plan included. The area is not very transit rich.

          Azalia Merrell

          - She agrees with including the Fremont Street projects in this plan.

          - There are many people who are willing and available to start working.

          Bob McCarthy

          - The projects on Fremont Street did not "drop out of the sky."

          - The planning policies of the last 25 years should be respected.

          - These projects should be included in the Rincon Hill Plan.

          Angelica Cobande - SOMECAN

          - She hopes that the Commission will not forget all the families and residents of South of Market that were here to speak bout affordable housing.

          - These residents have been here for many years.

          ACTON: Hearing held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to April 28, 2005.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      28b. 2000.1081EMTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

          RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt Proposed Amendments to the Rincon Hill Area Plan and other elements of the General Plan (Revising the Rincon Hill Area Plan and amending the Urban Design and Recreation and Open Space

          Elements, the Downtown and South of Market Area Plans, and the Land Use Index) pursuant to the Rincon Hill Plan.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution

          SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for item 28a.

          ACTON: Hearing held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to April 28, 2005.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      28c. 2005.1081EMTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

          RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt Proposed Amendments to the Planning Code (Adding Sections 145.4, 166, 167, 175.7, 309.1, and 827, and amending Sections 102.5, 135, 141, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 182, 201, 207.5, 209, 249.1, 260, 270, 603, 608.13, 802.1, 803, 809). Proposed amendments will establish the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and make related text changes pursuant to the Rincon Hill Plan.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution

          SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for item 28a.

          ACTON: Hearing held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to April 28, 2005.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      28d. 2005.1081EMTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

          RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Map (Amending Maps 1,1H, and 1SU). Proposed amendments will establish the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed-Use ("DTR") District, revise height and bulk districts in the area, and revise the boundaries of the existing "Rincon Hill Residential/Commercial Special Use District" and rename it the "Folsom and Main Residential/Commercial Special Use District" pursuant to the Rincon Hill Plan.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution

          SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for item 28a.

          ACTON: Hearing held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to April 28, 2005.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

      28e. 2005.1081EMTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

          RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt Proposed Amendments to the Planning Code (Adding Section 318). Proposed amendments will establish "Community Improvements Funds" and "Community Improvement Impact Fees" in Downtown Residential Districts, and a specific Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund and Community Improvement Impact Fee pursuant to the Rincon Hill Plan.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Resolution

          SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 28a.

          ACTON: Hearing held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to April 28, 2005.

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

          ABSENT: Bradford Bell

I. 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: 11:48 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:16 PM