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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
May 19, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, May 19, 2005
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kate Stacey - Deputy City Attorney; Sue Exline; Sara Vellve; Dan Sirois; Glen Cabreros; Dan Dibartolo; Matt Snyder; Marshall Foster; Paul Lord; Bill Wycko; Rick Crawford; 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. 2005.0256T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          SACRAMENTO STREET NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION TO OTHER INSTITUTION - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 724.1 to allow for conversion of upper floor residential units in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District as a Conditional Use, where: the new use will be an Other Institution, Educational Service use, only one dwelling unit in building will be converted, and that unit is the only non-residential use in the building, and no legally residing tenant with be displaced: and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

      (Continued to Regular Hearing May 26, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 26, 2005

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

      2. 2003.0869E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

          88 FIFTH STREET - THE OLD U.S. MINT - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the rehabilitation plus seismic upgrade and addition to the United States Old Mint located at 88 Fifth Street in downtown San Francisco (Assessor's Block 3704, Lot 11). The existing three-story plus an occupied attic 99,921-gross-square-foot (gsf) building would be retained, and the first floor courtyard enclosed in 1973 for offices would be removed, (a deduction of 4,336 gsf), and additional circulation bridges, stairs and an elevator (addition of 2,642 gsf) would be added within the existing 4-story courtyard. The existing attic would be expanded on the roof along the south side of the courtyard to create a museum gallery (an addition of 1,554 gsf) with a view of the city skyline to the south. The courtyard removal and additions of bridges and roof gallery would result in an overall reduction of gsf, for a total floor area of 99,788 gsf. The building would include 79,957 square feet if usable space total including: 36,326 sf of City History Museum space, 2,082 sf of Museum office space, 2,045 sf of museum back of house space, 2,044 sf of museum retail, and 3,336 sf of museum theater space. Tenants in the building would be the 8,153 sf Gold Rush and Money Museum, 2,492 sf of small retail lease spaces, and 6,360 gsf of restaurant space and cafe. 3,987 sf would be used for the San Francisco Visitor Center, and the remaining 11,108 sf would be circulation, toilets and support spaces ancillary to the museum use. The project would include closure of Jessie Street to vehicles, between Mint and Fifth Streets, to be used for outdoor restaurant seating. The project site is approximately 47,515 sq. ft., is zoned P (Public) within a 90-X height and bulk district, and within the Mid-Market St. Revitalization and Conservation District. Transaction document approvals would be required from the Board of Supervisors, and a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 28, 2005)

      (Continued to Regular Hearing May 26, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 26, 2005

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      3. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of April 14 and 21, 2005.

      Minutes of April 14, 2005:

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      EXCUSED: Alexander

      Minutes of April 21, 2005

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

      4. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: Bicycle Coalition

          - She thanked the Bicycle Coalition for the "Bike to Work Day" and providing her with a bike for the day.

          Re: Home Depot

          - She is concerned when staff is accused of not doing things diligently.

          - She checked on the status of this and found out that Home Depot was delayed in providing information to staff.

          - Planning staff is on the case. She realizes that it has been about two years

          Re: Deliberation Between Commissioners

          - She received some phone calls about the Commissioners passing notes to each other so she asked the Commission Secretary what the procedure would be if they needed to take a break.

                Commission Secretary responded:

                - It is accepted that commissioners let the President know if they need to take a break, but she cautioned Commissioners to be aware of perceptions-because the public doesn't know what's in a note--and, to the extent possible, minimize the note passing.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      5. Director's Announcements

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

          BOS -

          Re: 18th and Alabama - Zoning Map Amendments and Code Amendments

          - Supervisor Daly requested that the ordinance be sent back to Land Use Committee with respect to affordability issues for the 23 percent of the project that would not be income restricted.

          Re: Castro Street Entertainment Exemption from Conditional Use

          - This was passed +11-0 on first reading.

          Re: The Medical Cannabis Dispensaries

          - There was a six month extension of the moratorium but it was heard last week and it was only for 60 days. He and others argued that in fact a proposal could be done in 60 days but it would not be before the Board for adoption because it would have to come back to Land Use for amendments and go before the Commission. In reality, it would have to be extended for another 60 days.

          Re: 2506 Union Street

          - The Commission reviewed this and took Discretionary Review.

          - This was appealed with a categorical exemption and rear yard modifications.

          - This was upheld.

          Land Use Committee

          - There were hearings for various fee proposals for Rincon Hill.

          Marshall Foster reported:

          - Yesterday there was a Land Use Committee that only looked at the fees for Rincon Hill.

          - The $11.00 (local infrastructure fee) was well received.

          - Other types of services were brought up at this meeting like fire, police, citywide services, etc. These services would have to be increased.

          - The new property tax that would be generated from Rincon Hill was also discussed.

          - There was a specific request to do a specific analysis of what the needs will be for additional services in the district and what the Department sees in terms of fees and transfer tax revenue to meet those needs.

          - There was discussion on the Commission's resolution making recommendations to the Board. Supervisor Sandoval specifically proposed a $3.00 citywide fee to deal with things such as parks, street and transit improvements.

          - There was discussion on an additional housing fee and whether it would be south of market or citywide. This would be something the full Board would discuss.

          - Working with the Mayor's Office of Housing, an economic consulting firm (Economic and Planning Systems) made a presentation to the Land Use Committee on what the potential would be for additional fees. They made an analysis and this information will be provided to the Commission next week.

          BOA -

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue

          - This was before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday. This was a categorical exception appeal for a 600 square foot addition.

          - The Commission deadlocked on a Discretionary Review vote of +3-3. Since there wasn't a continuance the project was deemed approved.

          - An appeal of the Commission's decision was filed with the Board of Appeals and then a categorical exception was filed and heard on Tuesday.

          - The appellant mentioned that the mid block open space was historic in nature in that it had been subdivided all at one time. The Board upheld the Commission's determination +7-3; Supervisor Daly was absent and Supervisors Amiano, McGoldrick and Mirkarimi voted No.

          - The BOA heard the item and upheld the permit +4-1; Commissioner Saunders dissenting.

          Re: 1921 Webster Street

          - This came before the Commission with concerns about property line windows. The BOA upheld the Commission's decision +3-1; Commissioner Sugaya dissenting.

          Re: Sutro Tower

          - He had issued a determination that no Conditional Use was required--that is why the Commission heard a Discretionary Review last week.

          - This determination was appealed and it was upheld +4-0.

          Re: 4726 Geary Boulevard

          - A determination he made regarding a violation on a massage and acupuncture use that exceeded the allowed size for an accessory massage use was a front for inappropriate activities. The Board did not uphold this, released the suspension, required that they maintain the rules for accessory massage use, etc.

          - The applicant recently hired an acupuncturist that is on call.

          - The Police Department and the Health Department are working together to fight locations that are more for prostitution.

      7. (S. EXLINE: (415) 558-6332)

          BIOSCIENCE PLANNING TASK FORCE - the Board of Supervisors appointed the Bioscience Task Force primarily to determine the land use regulations for bioscience uses. This presentation will be an informational presentation to the Planning Commission by members of the Taskforce on their recently released report, specifically their suggestions for land use controls.

          Presenters:

          Karin Woods - Mission Bay Development/Mission Bay Citizen's Advisory Committee/USF Community Advisory Group

          - She was asked to be a member of the bioscience task force, which was empowered by the Board of Supervisors to analyze the land use and zoning recommendations for the possibility of using bioscience resources outside Mission Bay and Hunter's Point.

          - They discovered during the one and a half year study that it is important to know what the community needs and what the industry needs.

          Scott Williams - MBBG Architecture/Design/Planning

          - They do a lot of work in the bioscience industry.

          - What the industry needs is basically building permits.

          - In order to have bioscience, one needs buildings.

          - The patent time frames are extremely crucial.

          - The difference between success and failure could be a few months.

          - Bioscience truly brings a mixed use.

          - Usually the process follows this order: 1) Research; 2) development; 3) pharmaceutical operations (also known as manufacturing) and 4) marketing operations.

          - Planning helped them with defining PDR and they used it as a template to do their research.

          - There are many types of uses in bioscience. For example, there are offices for laboratory use, which are separate from administrative offices.

          - There is need for chillers and boilers, outdoor and indoor, and many of these items cause a lot of noise.

          Peter Cohen

          - He is a member of the task force and he is involved mostly in community perspectives.

          - Bioscience also needs to be weighed in with the uses in the Eastern Neighborhoods.

          - There are many questions to ask regarding zoning controls and policy perspectives.

          - The land use recommendations received input from many communities and committees.

          Lori Yamaguchi - Assistant Vice Chancellor for Campus Planning for UCSF

          - The recommendations they determined involves various areas that include, for example, safety, size, etc.

          - Their recommendation for zoning bioscience is 1) treat bioscience as Mixed Use grouped into light, medium and core bioscience; 2) use "overlay zones" as land use framework to allow bioscience in industrial PDR areas; 3) two overlay zones of PDR sizes recommended: Zone 1 - areas immediately close to Mission Bay and Hunter's Point Shipyard, Zone 2 - areas to the North and West of Zone 1 areas; 4) BSL 1 and BSL 2 without buffer from residential districts; 5) BSL 3 labs be separated by a 50 foot buffer from residential districts; 6) No BSL 4.

          - She displayed a map of the BSL zones.

          - Other issues include: economic development and job training; etc.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Francisco DeCosta

          - He is very interested in this bioscience technology.

          - Something to take into consideration is to study the history of Mission Bay.

          - There is also concern for the type of soils in the area.

          - Even though protocols have not been discussed in detail, there should be emergency protocols in place.

          - There are residents living close by.

          - It is not sufficient to offer jobs without considering quality of life standards.

          Joe Boss

          - He is happy that the task force was formed thanks to Supervisor Maxwell.

          - As the City embarks on this, he does not want to see a "train wreck" created by saying that a 50-foot separation is good enough.

          - The City does not need more task forces or committees to investigate things.

          - He would like to see more language on separation.

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.

      Julian Lagos

      Re: 800 Brotherhood Way

      - He is opposed to this project. The developer has not put out any notices to the neighbors.

      - He hopes that the Commission will at least continue this project for 30 to 60 days until the neighbors are notified.

      - He is concerned about gentrification, seismic stability and that the area will be in danger with this type of project.

      Joe Morales - Tenant's Union, Senior Action Network, MAC

      Re: Park Merced

      - This area should not be gentrified but protected.

      - It is very important to fight for the neighborhoods.

E. 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.

      8. 2004.0487C (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

          179 SAN CARLOS STREET - east side, between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 23 in Assessor's Block 3589 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for the construction of a new three-unit building over 40 feet in height, per Code Section 253. The property is located within an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is to construct a new three-unit building on a vacant lot with three off-street parking spaces at the ground level.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 28, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

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

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

      9. 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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 21, 2005)

          NOTE: On March 3, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to April 21, 2005 to allow the 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. NOTE: On April 21, 2005, the Commission continued it to May 19, 2005.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 23, 2005

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

      10. 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.

      (Continued from the Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

          NOTE: On April 21, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained a motion to not take Discretionary Review and approve the project. The motion failed with a +3-2 vote (Commissioners Hughes and Olague voted no and Commissioners Alexander and Bradford Bell were absent). Subsequently, the matter was continued to April 28, 2005 by a +5-0 vote (Commissioners Alexander and Bradford Bell were absent. Public comment will remain open only to address any new or modified information or material.

          On April 28, following additional Commission deliberation, this matter was continued to May 5, 2005. The item was subsequently continued to May 19, 2005.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Bernard Tom - past owner

          - When his father purchased the property, there were two units.

          - He later discovered that the property was not legal for two units.

          - He was worked as an inspector for the Building Inspection Department.

          - If he were inspecting the property, he would have to suggest to the owner to legalize a unit or to revert back to single family dwelling.

          (+) Cristine Bruskey

          - She is concerned with the Commission's way of dealing with mergers because it [the Commission's actions] is not promoting family environments.

          - Many families are being pushed out of San Francisco.

          - This City should try to help people. It is hard to raise a family here.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the merger

          AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Hughes, Olague

          NAYES: Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee

      11. 2005.0187D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          3772-3776 20TH STREET - north side between Dolores & Guerrero Lot 021, Assessor's Block 3598 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy on Dwelling Unit Mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.27.4177, proposing to convert a five-family dwelling to a four-family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

          - This house was originally constructed as a three family dwelling and was legally converted to four. The fifth unit was added some time thereafter.

          - The Planning Department placed a restriction that there should be no more units added. Eventually however there was another unit added.

          - The added unit does not function as a separate unit. It was carved out from another unit.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger

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

      12. 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 as submitted.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

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

      13. 2004.0560D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          251 28TH AVENUE - west side between Lake and California Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1388 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.13.6414, proposing to construct a two-story rear addition to an existing two-story, single-family houses in an RH-1(Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (-) Lou Blazej - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

      - There is a pattern to the houses on the street where this project is proposed.

      - This pattern should be maintained and protected.

      - It is an inappropriate proposal. He hopes the Commission will deny this application.

      (-) Bernard Smith - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - If this large, obtrusive structure is allowed, he will loose light and air coming to his house.

          - He understands the need for improving the quality of life of your children, but the previous owner raised four children there.

          - The proposal should be neighbor friendly and it is not.

          (-) Josephine Smith

          - She objects to this rear addition.

          - She and her husband have lived in their home for 33 years.

          - All of the houses in the area have three bedrooms only.

          - She and her husband raised children in their house with the size that it is now.

          - If this project should be approved, she asks for a four-foot setback. This will allow sunshine and air to their home.

          (-) Julia Birmingham

          - There are a few houses on the block that already have diminished light and air and one of them is her parents house.

          - The proposal would cause a tunnel affect on her parent's home.

          - She requested that the Commission not allow this proposal to go forward.

          (-) Teresa Going

          - She objects to the rear expansion. It will strongly affect the quality of her parent's home.

          - Her mom really enjoys putting the clothes out on the line and she enjoys the sunshine.

          - This extension would hurt the character and style of the neighborhood.

          (-) Ann Marie Smith

          - The proposed extension would affect the livability of her parents.

          - The proposal would also be incompatible with the character of the neighborhood.

          (-) Grace Shanahan

          - This proposal would not allow for the current mid block open space.

          - The mid block open space also allows for light to come in to kitchens in the homes on the block.

          - Prices are not the only singular reason that stops people from living in San Francisco; it is also the quality of life.

          - The pattern of the mid block open space will be destroyed if this proposal is approved.

          (-) Angus McCarthy

          - He does not know the Discretionary Review requestor but he is working on a project similar to theirs. Even though the guidelines allow you to build in a certain way, there should be respect for the existing conditions.

          - He hopes that the Commission will revise this plan or deny it all together.

          (-) Oliver McCabe

          - He is a retired building inspector.

          - This proposal will affect the quality of life for the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - The DR requestor has a very small yard and the proposed addition will completely block their light and air.

          (-) Diane O'Malley

          - She lives in the area.

          - She is here to support and guard the light and air and quality of life of the DR requestor.

          - It is important to protect open spaces. She came from Manhattan so she values open spaces.

          (-) Joe O'Donaghue

          - This block has remained unaltered for many years.

          - If this addition is allowed, it will invade the privacy of all neighbors.

          - Price is not just the only thing; it is the quality of life that is important as well.

          (-) Steve Williams

          - He found out about this project and could not resist coming and expressing his opposition to it.

          - This project will impact the light and air for the neighbors.

          - He agrees with the planner's recommendation to modify this project.

          (-) Alex Landsford

          - It is important to maintain historical continuity in neighborhoods.

          (+) Mark English - Project Architect

          - He has been working with the project sponsor for about a year now on this project.

          - He described the project and how this design is allowed from the Residential Design Guidelines.

          (+) Ron Miguel

          - He reviewed the changes made by the architect and he supports this project.

          - Nothing is static and should not remain static. There are always changes being done to homes.

      (+) Beverly Spector

      - She purchased the home many years ago and now they have two children.

      - They spoke to their neighbors about the proposed project.

      - They do not want to harm anyone but the neighbors did not want to speak to her.

      - She agrees with the modifications to the project.

      (+) Kenneth Lipson

      - He feels that he should enjoy his property rights and their project should be allowed.

      - This addition is not intrusive and it is an impressive design scheme.

      - The revised design respects the neighborhood character.

      - Many petitioners who signed opposing the project did not know what they were signing.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications: 1) align the depth of the rear wall of the first floor with the rear wall of the Discretionary Review requestor's building; 2) allow for a two foot bay; 3) the southern wall of the ground floor remains as shown in drawing 51105; 4) the ground floor north wall should have a side set back of three feet from property line; 5) back stairs relocated to the south wall of the ground floor; 6) the existing 11 foot high wall should be reduced to 6 feet; 7) three foot setbacks on both sides of second floor; 8) elimination of three foot section of the walk in closet which extends the light well (light well would therefore be 9x6); 9) deck is still with the restriction on decking on the north side and open railing.

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

          NOTE: During Public Comment at the end of the May 19, 2005 calendar, new information was introduced to the Commission regarding this case. The Commission President instructed that this item be calendared on May 26, 2005, for possible reconsideration.

14. 2005.0284D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

      2430 BROADWAY - north side between Steiner and Pierce Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0562 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.08.06.3311, proposing to construct a rear horizontal addition including a new garage at the rear of a three-story, single-family dwelling 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 as submitted.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

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

      15. 2005.0147D (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          1763-1765 JONES STREET - southwest corner at Vallejo Street; Lot 001, Assessor's Block 0151 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy on dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.12.20.1804, proposing to convert the building at 1763-1765 Jones Street from a two-unit building to a single family dwelling, to result in two single family dwellings within two buildings on the subject lot. The subject property is located in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Emily Huang - Project Sponsor

          - She and her husband moved to San Francisco in 1994.

          - They were able to purchase the home they currently own.

          - They request permission to merge the house because their family is growing.

          - She has her retired parents who love San Francisco and live with them for periods of time.

          - It is their dream to have three generations live under one roof.

          - They started a design firm and their office is located a few blocks away.

          (+) Gregory Iboshi - Project Architect/Project Sponsor

          - No tenants will be displaced with this proposal.

          - This proposal would create a residence with three bedrooms.

          - This is not excessive for the neighborhood.

          - There is only one parking space for the three units.

          - The merger would not alter the design of the house.

          - The proposal will not be negative to the neighbors and they have many supporters.

          (+) Kim Stryker

          - She has known the project sponsors for a few years.

          - They are a very community oriented family.

          - She knows that they value family a lot and she respects that.

          (+) Henry Huang

          - He and his wife are the parents of the project sponsor.

          - He really wanted his family to have a good education and have raised great children.

          - His child's family is growing and this is the reason they want to expand their house.

          (+) Bartholomew Murphy

          - He is a neighbor of the project sponsor.

          - He knows that the Commission is pro-family therefore he hopes that they will approve this merger.

          - San Francisco is known for it's diversity and families are a part of this.

          - He hopes that the Commission will not follow the recommendation of staff and approve the merger.

      MOTION: to not take Discretionary Review and approve the merger

      AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee

      NAYES: Alexander and Olague

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

      RESULT: Motion Failed

          MOTION: Continue the matter to May 26, 2005 to allow absent Commissioners the opportunity to participate in final action.

          AYES: Alexander

          NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague

          ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

          RESULT: Motion Failed

          ACTION: In the absence of a substitute motion the merger is approved

      16a. 2005.0213D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          84 SYCAMORE STREET / 50 CLARION ALLEY - a through lot on the north side of Sycamore Street between Valencia Street and Mission Street, Lot 077 in Assessor's Block 3576 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.15.2333 proposing to demolish two dwelling unit structures. The property is within an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Matthew Brennan - Project Sponsor

          - The demolition consists of two existing structures.

          - There has been concern about the safety of this structure since the roof has already collapsed.

          - The structure has been vacant for two years.

          - The property has been deemed non-conforming and non-compatible.

          - The new structure will consist of three units, which will be very large.

          - It will allow for maximum light and air.

          - The project will contain a height setback to lessen the impact of the height of the structure.

          - Through communication with the neighbors, the project has been revised to deal with their issues.

          - The windows will be soundproofed because there is a neighbor that owns a bar nearby.

          - There is ample transportation nearby.

          (+) Jerry Agosta

          - He owns a building across the street.

          - The structure is dangerous and it should come down right away.

          - He residents of the homeowners association communicated to the project sponsor to design the new building with a setback and he did.

          (-) Nick Pagalagos - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

          - The soundness of this structure is at issue. The building was occupied for many years.

          - Supervisor Matt Gonzales lived there for many years and he stated that the building was fine.

          - The soundness of the structure was compromised with the gutting of the structure and perhaps it was gutted on purpose.

          - The Commission should not reward the project sponsor. He did not take out the necessary permits.

          - The new building will not have affordable units.

          (-) Erick Quesada - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

          - He knows that the project sponsor did things that should not have happened.

          - This should not be a pattern in the neighborhood.

          - This project should not go forward without close scrutiny.

          (+) Kelton Finney - Engineer

          - She wrote the soundness report.

          - She inspected both buildings more than once and both are in a state of severe decay.

          - They were in a state of severe decay even before they were gutted.

          - The building would need a tremendous amount of repairs.

          (-) Sue Hestor

          - There are various permits that were taken out previously.

          - She does not think that a supervisor would live in place that would need demolishing.

          - The new housing will not be family housing.

          - The roof collapsed because it was gutted on purpose.

      ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, and S. Lee

      NAYES: Olague

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

      16b. 2005.0214D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          84 SYCAMORE STREET / 50 CLARION ALLEY - a through lot on the north side of Sycamore Street between Valencia Street and Mission Street, Lot 077 in Assessor's Block 3576 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.15.2333 proposing to construct a three- unit structure. The property is within an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as modified, and with conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for item 16a.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with modifications and conditions: 1) setback top floor; 2) Commission and Planning Staff shall continue to work with sponsor on project; 3) Zoning Administrator will consult with City Attorney regarding permit process.

      AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, and S. Lee

      NAYES: Olague

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

          17. 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.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 21, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S):

      Presenters:

          (+) Erin Farrell - IBNA (India Basin Neighborhood Association)

          - She has lived in India Basin for about five years.

          - The Neighborhood Association has a mission to preserve the history of the area.

          - This cottage has a very important part in this history.

          - Community volunteers have been working to save this property for many years.

          - They have received about 600 signatures supporting saving this property.

          - She has research the history of the property including oral histories from the maritime museum and collections of family photos of people that have lived in China Basin.

          - The Landmarks Board voted to assign this property as a landmark.

          (+) Melita Rines - IBNA

          - She displayed a map of the China Basin area pointing to the various zoning areas--Navy shipyard, PG&E plant and 900 Innes Avenue.

          - She hopes the Commission will support the Landmark designation.

          (+) Wendy Brummer - IBNA

          - She lives on Innes Avenue.

          - The subject property has been a humble structure for many years.

          - The property was built in 1875 and has original ornamentation.

          - The property also has historical architectural significant features.

          - There is dry rot and the foundation is practically non-existent, but the current owner had a family living there up to a month ago. So it was habitable.

          - The issue is not how bad the renovation will be, the issue is whether or not this building is worth preserving based on it's history.

          (+) Jill Fox - IBNA

          - She has lived in India Basin for 12 years.

          - May is National Preservation Month and the Commission can honor this designation by voting yes to this Landmark.

          - The Landmarks Board voted to designate this property a Landmark.

          (-) Hilary Lazar

          - She was hired to verify the facts in this designation report.

          - The report is a flawed document full of misinformation, misrepresentation and irrelevant facts.

          - The document fails to follow typical research protocol.

          - The report seems driven by an assumption and inference rather than hard evidence and verifiable facts.

          (-) John Britain - Gary Gee Architects

          - He displayed a geological map of the area explaining how the area has significantly changed.

          (-) Pat Buskovitch

          - He did a structural investigation of the building.

          - The building was deconstructed in the 1920s and reconstructed.

          - What is there now is not what was there in 1899, but it is seismically dangerous.

          (-) Tom Reeves

          - He is an engineer and studied the building

          - The foundation was constructed in the 1920s using concrete. It is not concrete over brick.

          - The beams and exterior walls are continuous.

          - The rear end of the building is an infill from the 1970s where they leveled in the concrete.

          - Basically, the building went through a number of remodels.

          (-) Alice Barkley

          - If there is any doubt regarding the stability of the property, the presenters are available for questions.

          (+) Julie Lane - IBNA

          - Bulldozing this site is not the answer for this community. It is not what the community needs nor is it their vision.

          (+) Greg Asay - Office of Supervisor Maxwell's Office

          - This is the last stand regarding San Francisco's maritime working community.

          - It is important to think about the basis of the Commission's decision.

          - To rise to the level of preservation, not all the criteria need to be met.

          (-) Pastor Bell - The Church of San Francisco

          - The site is just blight on the community.

          - The project proposed for the site, would create jobs and homes.

          (-) Francisco De Costa - Environmental Justice Advocacy

          - He recently went to the site and it does not meet any of the criteria to designate this a landmark.

          (-) Jeff Condit

          - The site in question is a perfect place to renew and renovate.

          (+) Marcie Prohofsky - Resident/Local Business Owner

          - Designating this site as a Landmark will encourage tourism and this would be good for the City.

          (+) Kelley Lawson - IBNA

          - Although the property is humble, it is solid.

          - If the property were in such a bad condition, there would not have been a family living there with no kitchen.

          - The damage could be fixed.

          - Preservation is about historical significance.

          (+) Pauline Peele

          - Making this site a Landmark fits under the San Francisco Planning Code.

          - It will enhance property values and improve the neighborhood in areas as well as increase financial benefits to the City.

          (+) Tori Freeman

          - She grew up in the area.

          - There is a list of supporters that she presented to the Commission, which includes various organizations and businesses.

          (+) Karen Everett

          - She supports the history of the area because it is a history of working class people.

          - There are people that will benefit if this property is designated a landmark.

          (+) Adrian Card - Bayview Historical Society

          - He lives and works in the neighborhood.

          - The community includes hard working, tax paying people.

          - Saving this structure will benefit the community.

          (+) Ingrid Reissland - IBNA/Our lady of Lourdes

          - As much interest as the developer has, the community wants to make it better by preserving this structure.

          - She would like to have her daughter go to a maritime park or a museum.

          (+) Staci Selinger

          - She lives in the area.

          - Making this site a landmark will make the area a recreation destination for San Franciscans and beyond.

          - It is important for people who travel to have a museum or historical place to visit.

          (+) Brian Scott

          - He has lived in the area since 1996.

          - There are so many people involved in this that it makes it exciting.

          - He will be working with community organization to help youth build a scout schooner.

          (+) Cheri Tsai

          - This structure needs to be saved if that is what the community wants.

          - The neighbors are working hard to improve this area.

          - She requested that this property be preserved in order to have a connection with historical San Francisco.

          (+) Justice Harris

          - She is working hard to save the maritime history of India Basin.

          - The building is irreplaceable and should be preserved at its current location and not anywhere else.

          (+) Greg Freeman - Contractor/Union Member

          - He is a resident of Innes Avenue.

          - The community's vision is to have a maritime museum.

          (+) Courtney Clarkson

          - She expressed her dismay at an earlier Commission hearing regarding the many demolitions going on in San Francisco.

          - She urged the Commission to landmark this property because it is what the community wants and from which the community will benefit.

          (-) Gary Gee

          - The building was completely gutted sometime after 1926.

          - There are various renovations to the structure.

          - There is no proof that the building was around as it was stated previously.

          (-) Bruce Baumann

          - He is opposed to the landmark designation.

          - The question is whether this structure is worthy of a landmark designation?

          - The project has been renovated many times.

          - Did anyone from the Landmarks Board or the Planning Department come and inspect the property?

          (+) Pamela Ward

          - This area is being a target of environmental prejudice.

          - What the community wants to do is viable to the community.

          - She feels that this is money vs. the locals.

          (+) Alex Lantsberg - Norcal Carpenters

          - She supports the designation of landmark for this building.

          - There have been no presentations on the proposed new structure.

          (-) Lynn Geyer

          - She read a letter from a neighbor who is opposed to making this project a landmark.

          - She is appalled by the "witch hunt" going on here.

          (-) Grace Shanahan

          - She continued reading the letter read from the previous speaker.

          (-) Michael Spear

          - If this property is landmarked it would cost a lot of money and the structure would continue to deteriorate.

          (-) Patrick Doherty

          - He owns a business on Innes Avenue.

          - He believes that the property is not historically significant.

          - The supporters submitted 600 signatures but he was never approached to sign.

          - He feels that this is just a personal vendetta against the project sponsor.

          (+) Melissa Sherman

          - Designating this a landmark will create revenue to the community and would allow residents to enjoy various amenities.

          (+) Bill Glover

          - The staff planner who is supposed to be impartial is really not.

          (-) Demetrius James

          - He protests the planning process by the India Basin residents.

          - Initially the group made up a story that the proposed site was a site of a historical school.

          - The truth of the matter is that the IBNA's involvement is just because they are opposed to any type of housing.

          (-) Casey Caruso

          - This process has gotten out of hand and has cost residents a lot of time.

          - Many people are supportive of housing and new businesses.

          (-) Maryanne Diaz

          - The structure is just a run down shack and is rotten from the core.

          - The Commission should see this with their own eyes.

          - Preserving it would do a disservice to the community. It is a haven for crime.

          (-) Angus McCarthy - Residential Building Association

          - He attended the Landmark Board hearing.

          - It is important to do this City well be demolishing it.

          - He hopes the Commission will not allow this designation.

          (-) Richie Hart

          - There is only one house that has been in the area for a long time and it is not 900 Innes Avenue.

          - The City needs jobs and the proposed project would provide that.

          (-) Bart Murphy

          - He is opposed to making this structure a landmark.

          - The evidence before the Commission does not take this to the level of a landmark.

          (-) Simon Casey

          - He is opposed to making this structure a landmark.

          - Many of the statements made today are not accurate.

          (-) Dennis Bruney

          - There is no documentation to support what the conditions are in the building.

          - He opposes the landmark status.

          (-) Mark Brennan

          - No one seems to know what this structure was.

          - This is only a shack.

          - Why did the community wait to ask for landmark status when something better is being proposed?

          (-) Joe O'Donaghue

          - This process is just a waist of money.

          - The site is just a disgrace.

          - Jobs are more important than landmark status at this location.

          (+) Hellen Collin

          - The subject property has evidence that it has been around for hundreds of years.

          (+) Eva Hum

          - She wants palm trees around her neighborhood or swimming pools, etc., but it is important to her that her children have a place that is of historical significance.

          ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Item Continued to July 7, 2005. Staff is to do more historical research on property. (The Public Hearing will remain open if new information is provided).

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

          18. 2004.0055R (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

          AMENDMENTS TO THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (GENERAL PLAN REFERRAL) - The Planning Commission adopted General Plan conformity findings for the Transbay Redevelopment Plan on December 9, 2004. However the Redevelopment Agency has proposed amendments to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan resulting from Board of Supervisors input on the Plan, requiring new General Plan conformity findings, pursuant to Section 4.105 of the City Charter and Section 2A.53 of the San Francisco Administrative Code.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Motion finding the proposed amendments to the Transbay Redevelopment Plan in conformity with the General Plan.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 12, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 26, 2005

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

      19. 2002.0805RTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

          MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Assessor's Blocks 0341; 0342; 0350; 0351, lot 035; 0355; 3507, lot 039; 3508; 3509, lots 002, 018, 019, 036, 037, 040, 041, 042, and 043; 3510, lot 001; 3701; 3702, excluding lots 015, 016, 029, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 055, and 056 (eastern portion); 3703, excluding lots 004, 005, 006, 027, 028, and 029; 3704, lots 025, 026, 049, 050, 051, 052, and 053; 3725, lots 078, 082, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, and 093; 3727, lots 001, 091, 094, 096, 097, 101, 102, 103, 109, 117, 118, 120, 130, 134, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and Block 3728, lots 001, 072, 075, 076, 081, 082, 083, 089, and 103. The Commission will consider proposed amendments to the Mid-Market Preliminary Plan, Adopting Amendments to the Mid-Market Preliminary Plan, and Making CEQA findings and findings of General Plan Conformity related to the Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan as amended.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Amendments to the Mid-Market Preliminary Plan and make CEQA findings and findings of Conformity of the Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan, as amended, with the General Plan

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

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

          20. 2005.0076T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

          ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SRO UNITS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 890.88 to define a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) unit as a unit that is affordable to very low income or extremely low income households and making findings of consistency with Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 14, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

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

      21. 2005.0212T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          DIVISADERO STREET FORMULA RETAIL CONTROLS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 703.3 to designate formula retail uses as a conditional use in the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District along Divisadero Street from Haight to Turk Streets 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):

          Mark Brennan

          - He was opposed to this type of legislation for the Haight and he is opposed to it now.

          - Instead of implementing these controls, there should be a wait period to see what happens in the Haight first.

      MOTION: To disapprove

      AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell

      NAYES: S. Lee and Olague

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

      EXCUSED: Alexander

      RESULT: Motion Failed

      MOTION: To approve

      RESULT: The motion did not receive a second. The motion died.

          ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Item Continued to May 26, 2005 to allow absent Commissioners the ability to participate in deliberation and action.

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

      ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee

      EXCUSED: Alexander

      22. 2004.0076C: (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          1350 NATOMA STREET - west side, between 14th and 15th Streets, Lot 089 in Assessor's Block 3548 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 215 and 303 to allow the construction of 8 residential dwelling units in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation, and in a Housing/Mixed overlay as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727. The proposal is to demolish the existing industrial building and construct 8 dwelling units within a new four-story over ground floor parking garage building containing a total of 8 off-street parking spaces.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approve project with a maximum height of 40 feet with conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 28, 2005)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 2, 2005

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

      23. 2003.0536ECR (B. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

          800 BROTHERHOOD WAY (A.K.A. 3711 19TH AVENUE) - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the construction of up to 182 dwelling units on an approximately 7.7 acre undeveloped site located on the north side of Brotherhood Way, west of Chumasero Drive, east of Lake Merced Boulevard. The project would involve subdividing the site into about 121 lots and constructing 60 single-family homes and 61 2-unit dwellings. The 121 buildings would be between 3 and 4 stories tall, with heights up to 40 feet and would total about 444,273 gross square feet. A mix of independently accessible and tandem parking spaces would be provided, for a total of 364 off-street parking spaces. Twenty-one on-street parking spaces would also be created along a new two-way internal private loop road. Access to the site would be via a new driveway on the unimproved portion of the north side of Brotherhood Way abutting the site. There would be a traffic signal at the new access driveway and Brotherhood Way intersection that would be interconnected with the existing signals at Brotherhood Way/School (Church) Access Road, located about 330 feet to the west, and the Chumasero Drive/Brotherhood Way intersection, about 560 feet to the east. The project site is located in an RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would require approval of a Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development and exceptions for minimum lot sizes, minimum rear yards depths, and bay window dimension.

      SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Adena Rosmarin - 1st Appellant - Lakeshore Acres Improvement Club

          - The Planning Department has used the wrong "ruler" to measure the impacts on this project.

          - Planning has used the uses to the north as a base for their findings on this report when they should be based on both north and south.

          - There is inaccurate data in the report.

          - Regarding the biological assessment, Planning has failed to do a thorough analysis because their investigation only covers one season when certain species are migrating.

          - The information and determination from Planning is invalid.

          (-) Armand Kilijian - 2nd Appellant - St. Gregory Armenian Apostolic Church

          - He does not agree with staff's report or response.

          - The area has a variety of ethnic and religious communities.

          - Traffic along the corridor is growing rapidly.

          - There are five different schools in the area.

          - The proposed housing development would hinder the growth of these schools.

          - No one has received a straight answer on why the entrance to the housing unit has to be on Brotherhood Way instead of Park Merced Boulevard.

          (-) Ollia Yanikomshian - 3rd Appellant - K.Z.V. Armenian School

          - She represents parents who are opposed to this development.

          - Brotherhood Way has been a combination of schools and churches.

          - The increase in traffic would be tremendous.

          - The community has issues of safety and traffic.

          (-)Marie Brooks - 4th Appellant - Lake Merced Church of Christ

          - There are beautiful trees on the streets where the project is proposed.

          - The area was never meant for housing.

          - The area still feels like open space and country surroundings.

          - The increase in traffic would create a hazard for the children attending the schools in the area.

          (-) Andrew Thanos - Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church (Parish Council)

          - He understands that Park Merced is selling the property with the condition that the new structure should have the entrance on Brotherhood Way.

          - This would impact the area tremendously.

          - One solution would be to reduce the density of the project.

          (-) Lynn Lynch - Preserve Our Neighborhood

          - There are inaccuracies with the information provided by the developer.

          - This was a similar situation when the Stonestown project was done.

          - An EIR should be written because it needs a thorough analysis.

          (+) Ron Miguel - HAC

          - He has looked at the answers the Department has provided.

          - The negative declaration is accurate.

          - He is very informed about this area.

          - The area is a highway link to various areas of San Francisco.

          (-) Robert Pender - Vice President - Park Merced Residents

          - He has lived in the area for many years.

          - The area is a haven for housing because of its beauty.

          - There were about four other people here in support of the project but they had to leave.

          (+) Bert Polacci - Carmel Partners

          - The proposed project would benefit the area because it will be a connection to various amenities.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this proposal.

          (-) Father Michael Pappas

          - At one point, it was decided that the corridor should be reserved for religious institutions.

          - The proposed project would be a violation of the spirit of these religious institutions.

          - The project would increase vehicular traffic that would be dangerous to the children who attend the schools.

          (+) Steve Vettel - Morrison and Forrester - Representing Project Applicant

          - The document addresses all the issues that have been raised today.

          - The area is not park land and it has never been park land.

          - Regarding traffic: there was a lot of time spent determining where the entrance and exits would be located. The negative declaration specifies that where the driveway is located is the best place.

          - There is no evidence of any endangered species using the area as their habitat.

          - All trees that need to be removed will be replaced.

          (+) J.C. Wallace

          - He is a resident and homeowner of Lakeshore Acres

          - He takes his children to play near the lake.

          - The project will be very well designed and appropriate for the site.

          - There is a need for housing in the area.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

      ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 17021

      24a. 2003.0536CR (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          800 BROTHERHOOD WAY (A.K.A. 3711 19TH AVENUE) - north side (between Chumasero Drive and Lake Merced Blvd Assessor's Block 7332 Lot 002 and Block 7331 Lot 003) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.9 and 304 to develop a Planned Unit Development with up to 121 lots and up to 185 residential units in a mix of single family and two family dwellings. The Conditional Use authorization allows reductions in lot area and width as well as reduction of set back and rear yard requirements. The Project will have, lots as small as 963 square feet where 2,500 square feet is required under the Planning Code, as narrow as 18 feet where 25 feet is required by the Planning Code, and rear yards as shallow as 18% of lot depth where the Planning Code requirement is 45%. This project lies within an RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low Density) and RM-4 (Residential Mixed, High Density) Districts and within the 40-X and 130-D Height and Bulk Districts.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Michael Stantan - Project Sponsor

          - He presented a PowerPoint presentation on the architectural aspects of the project.

          (+) Tim Colen

          - He lives in the West Portal area.

          - He supports the project.

          - The lake is a significant environmental resource for migratory birds. All the work being done in the area has not been harmful for these birds.

          - This is a well planned, well designed project that provides desperately needed housing.

          (+) Kate White - San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

          - They strongly support the housing.

          - This will not be luxury housing.

          - There have been a number of great improvements based on the neighbor's issues.

          (+) Ron Miguel - Housing Action Coalition

          - The south side of the area has always had religious institutions.

          - If there was an aerial picture it would show that there are planned communities.

          - This project would fit in perfectly.

          (+) Bert Hill

          - He lives in the area.

          - He is not an advocate for housing that has a lot of parking but this project is different.

          - The project is family housing.

          - His children are grown and they cannot afford to buy a home in San Francisco.

          - This project would allow young adults to remain in the city and raise families.

          - The only thing he recommends is that the crosswalks and sidewalks are created for safety of the residents.

          (+/-) Armand Kilijian - St. Gregory Armenian Apostolic Church

          - If there will be family housing in the area, then the project should have a place for children to play.

          - He is afraid that if this is not done, the children will come to play on their property, which would not be bad, but there is a liability issue.

          - The crosswalks should be improved so that they are not a hazard to the residents.

          - The whole picture needs to be evaluated, not just the three traffic lights.

          - If this is going to go through it should be a great project not just a good one.

          (-) did not state name

          - There are certain issues to this project that just don't click regarding the square footage.

          - He is not saying no to housing.

          - A variance needs to be discussed as well.

          (+) Steve Riter - Mission Valley Properties

          - When there is dialogue with the residents, a better project is created.

          - They have had many dialogues with the residents and have heard all the issues.

          - He has gone over and above the CEQA requirements.

          - A majority of the institutions are in support of the project even though they were not able to convince everyone.

          (+) Steve Vettel

          - Regarding the density issue: the zoning allows for density.

          - Regarding the traffic issue: there will not be any changes to the current levels of service to the intersections.

          - A new intersection will be created and the impacts of the project will only be at this intersection.

          - The morning peak impacts are because of the drop off of the school children.

          ACTION: Approved as amended: request that project sponsor continue to work with respective City agencies to put an emergency only access between the lower loop road at the western end and Brotherhood Way.

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 17022

      24b. 2003.0536CR (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          800 BROTHERHOOD WAY (A.K.A. 3711 19TH AVENUE) - north side (between Chumasero Drive and Lake Merced Blvd Assessor's Block 7332 Lot 002 and Block 7331 Lot 003) - Request for Determination of General Plan Compliance that the development of an access drive across a portion of unimproved right of way north of Brotherhood Way, to provide access to a 182 unit residential Planned Unit Development, would be consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan. This project lies within an RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low Density) and RM-4 (Residential Mixed, High Density) Districts and within the 40-X and 130-D Height and Bulk Districts.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for 24a.

          ACTION: Determination of General Plan Compliance Approved as Amended: request that project sponsor continue to work with respective City agencies to put an emergency only access between the lower loop road at the western end and Brotherhood Way.

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

          NAYES: Alexander and Hughes

          ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 17023

G. 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))

      Eileen Boken - SPEAK

      Re: 1234 19th Avenue

      - She requested a rehearing of this project.

      Re: Disconnection between the Planning Department and the Board of Appeals.

      - She asked the Board of Appeals staff what percentages of [Commission] determinations were overturned by the Board. She received the information that 60 to 80 percent were overturned.

      - This is in part due to project sponsor and their legal councils believing that they can act with impunity at the Board of Appeals and malign not only the Planning Commission but also members of the public.

      - She received negative criticism at the Board of Appeals as well.

      - The organization she belongs to does not have any interest in acquiring the property. She is only interested in this property to designate it historically significant.

      Joe O'Donaghue

      Re: 251 28th Avenue

      - He requested that this project be reopened because there was misinformation presented.

      - The pop out is 6'x6' from the Smith's residence. From the project sponsor, the measurement is 9'. This information should be corrected and cleared up.

Adjournment: 11:44 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

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