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

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

March 2, 2006

March 2, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 2, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: President Sue Lee, Michael Antonini, Shelley Bradford-Bell, Kevin Hughes, William Lee, and Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dwight Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:50 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kelly Amdur; Kate Conner; Alicia John-Baptiste; Jim Miller; Dan DiBartolo; Aaron Starr; Tina Tam; Ben Fu; Linda Avery - Commission

  • 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.

1a. 2005.0946XV (A. LIGHT 415-558-6254)

153 KEARNY STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, Lot 2, in Assessor's Block 293 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit conversion of existing office space on the second through seventh floors of an existing commercial building with ground floor retail to approximately 49 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirements for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

1b. 2005.0946XV (A. LIGHT 415-558-6254)

153 KEARNY STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, Lot 2, in Assessor's Block 293 - Request for the granting by the Zoning Administrator of residential open space, dwelling unit exposure, and parking variances; for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

2. 2004.0973C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

7070 CALIFORNIA STREET (a.k.a. 229 - 32nd Avenue) - north side on a through lot to El Camino del Mar between 32nd Avenue and Lincoln Park; Lot 37 in Assessor's Block 1392 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.3(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to modify a previously approved Planned Unit Development under Motion No. 13678 for Case No. 1994.003C for a private elementary and middle school for girls (Kindergarten through grade 8), The Katherine Delmar Burke School, to allow the construction of a new two-story arts and sciences building, and the renovation of existing facilities, in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family Detached Dwelling) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Planned Unit Development would include an exception to rear yard requirements of the Planning Code.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

3. 2005.0850C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

2200 INGALLS STREET -between Wallace and Yosemite Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 4831 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to include an Auto Dismantling Operation within an existing auto repair shop within the M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District, the Industrial Protection Zone, the Candlestick Park Special Sign District, and a 40-X foot Height and Bulk District. Planning Code Section 225(p) in this case, an automobile dismantling operation, requires Conditional Use Authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to March 9, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

4. 2006.0045D (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

2490 3RD STREET - between 22nd and 20th Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 4108 - Request for a Discretionary Review for the establishment of a Retail-Full Service Restaurant and Wine Bar on the ground floor within the NC-2, Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 50-X foot Height and Bulk District.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Planning Director Sub-committee Meeting of August 19, 2004

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 23, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

· Draft Minutes of Special Joint Hearing of June 23, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of July 28, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

6. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Olague

- I would like to request yet another hearing.

- The Arts Commission may be in collaboration or cooperation with the Mayor's Office of Economic Development and I'd like to figure out what issues the Arts community is facing particularly in the Eastern Neighborhoods.

- I feel that there is the potential of loss there in terms of arts.

- I'd like to know specifically what jobs are associated with the arts.

- So I'd like to maybe have a report on that.

- I realize that a lot of the arts jobs are associated with PDR, so I'd like to have some more specific ideas about what the plans are to preserve some of those jobs and where; and what they are; and where they are.

Commissioner Antonini

- I am heartened to hear that the Mayor announced that we approved 5100 new units of housing last year.

- That goes back to an article in the papers this week in regards to problems that people have seen in the Bay Area--and the number one was transportation. It was closely followed by housing.

- The two were pretty much related inasmuch as people had to go further and further away from the center, San Francisco in particular, to find housing.

- I think that is a strong case being made for infill housing.

- In fact, of the people surveyed, a fairly significant majority preferred concentration be centered on infill housing rather than building more homes in the outlying areas.

- I think that was heartening and to that extent we have to continue to explore different things that can be done, particularly to meet the needs of middle income people looking for ownership opportunities.

- I'm happy so see that we are seeing ideas about smaller units coming forward and different ways of think outside the box that might allow us to produce units that are more affordable to take advantage of the infill opportunities that exist.

Commissioner Bill Lee

- I'd like to request the Department to get information regarding people with Aids and housing issues.

- I think each of us received an email talking about a nexus study -- first trying to figure out what the Mayor's Office of Housing has and what we have citywide regarding people that have Aids that are being displaced.

- If the Director could provide a report to the members of the Commission within the next month, I would greatly appreciate it.

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded

- I think we would also want some input from the Redevelopment Agency, because one of their primary programs is housing for persons with Aids.

- I think we will talk to the Mayor's Office of Housing and also the Redevelopment Agency and get both of them involved.

Commissioner Bradford-Bell

- I'm still getting concerns and questions and requests from members of the public for us to review the Better Neighborhoods Plus and bring it back.

- So I hope we are going to do that.

- I just want to reiterate that I would like to see that even if it was just one planning issue and the Cit Attorney said it wasn't substantive, I think we should still review it.

- I just want to get that back on the table.

Commissioner Hughes

- A question on Better Neighborhoods Plus because I know that it's not on calendar.

- Didn't that get referred back to Committee?

President Sue Lee

- It did. And actually, we'll have a staff report under our next item about all that. So we will hear what happened.

Commissioner Hughes

- Whatever happened, I would certainly embrace rehearing it here after it finishes at the Land Use Subcommittee myself.

Commissioner Antonini

- I just want to agree with Commissioner Hughes and would be very interested in hearing. I think a staff report will deal with that.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

Zoning Administrator Badiner announced:

- One of the results of the budget cuts over the last couple of years was the closure of the Planning Information Counter on Friday afternoons. Although we thought it was a disservice to the public, it was necessary with the resources we had.

- In light of our recent new hiring, we have managed to reverse that.

- As of about two weeks ago, I am very happy to announce that we are once again available to the public from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

Board of Supervisors - Dan Sider of Department Staff reported:

- On the second read, C-3 Parking was finally passed with a vote of 7 to 4. The votes against were Supervisors Elsbernd, Ma, and Dufty. The matter is on the Mayor's desk for review. As an aside, he will be reviewing legislation put forward by Supervisor Alioto-Pier about downtown parking issues.

- Several months ago Supervisor Ammiano put forward and the Board imposed a moratorium on check cashers and pay day lenders. The moratorium expired a couple days ago. On Tuesday at the Board it was renewed or scheduled to take effect again and last for an additional three months. We are working with Supervisor Ammiano's office and the City Attorney to develop permanent controls to be considered at the full Board at a later date.

- The Land Use and Economic Development Committee reviewed the Hunters' Point Shoreline Interim Controls this week. This is an 18-month package of interim controls put forward by Supervisor Maxwell. We see these as setting the stage for further planning efforts in that area. The matter was passed out of Land Use Committee unanimously. Supervisor McGoldrick was absent.

- This week Supervisor Mirkarimi introduced a Special Use District (SUD) in Japan town. This SUD would require conditional use fro any new or changed use. It also has an expanded list of criteria that you, the Commission, can use when considering these conditional use applications. This is just an introduction that will be reviewed by this body and the Land Use Committee at a later date.

- Also introduced this week is the Residential Industrial Compatibility and protection ordinance put forward by Supervisor Maxwell. The ordinance would set city policy; it will preserve and protect future industrial businesses from potentially incompatible near y land uses; and it will provide this Commission and your staff with additional specific consideration when reviewing proposals for residential development in industrial areas. We will be further examining this important piece of legislation and getting back to you. I would just note that this is an amendment to the Administrative Code. In a formal sense, it won't come before this body for action. However, we will keep you apprised of the progress, let you know what it means, and allow you the opportunity to comment if you wish.

Sarah Dennis of Department Staff gave a status update on the Better Neighborhoods Plus legislation proposed by Supervisor McGoldrick.

- This legislation was last heard by the Planning Commission on October 20, 2006.

- After your action on the 20th, it went before the Land Use Committee on both October 26 and November 11th.

- It was then heard at the Board of Supervisors on December 13th where it was continued; again heard on January 17th, where it was amended and sent back to the Land Use Committee.

- It was heard again at Land Use Committee on February 1st.

- It was then sent back to the Board where it was heard on February 14th.

- It was again continued until February 28th, this Tuesday, at which time it was amended one final time and sent back to the Land Use Committee.

- That's its current status in terms of where it has gone.

- Over the course of the hearings at the Land Use Committee and the Board of Supervisors, there were several amendments made to the legislation.

- The primary ones were intended to address the points contained in your Resolution 17129.

- The primary points from that Resolution are (1) that the Planning Commission directed the Planning Director to confer with Supervisor McGoldrick to establish a pilot program for the proposed ordinance with a sunset date--a timeline; (2) The Board was not to adopt the proposed ordinance in its entirety allowing an opportunity to look at the ordinance and see how successful it has been over a period of time.

- The two primary amendments that Supervisor McGoldrick made to address those were (1) he changed the application of the legislation to apply to single new planning process. The original legislation that you reviewed back in October applied the planning process to all new planning processes over 40 acres in scale. His amendment now refers to a single new planning process in a single plan area to serve as a test case for the ordinance. (2) He established a 30-month time frame for the test case. At which time the Better Neighborhoods Plus program could be evaluated, reviewed in terms of its success, changes could be made to it, or it could be determined whether it should or should not be applied to other plans as well.

- Some of the examples of provisions that the Commission brought up during the course of its review were concerns about discretionary review (DR) limitation on conditional uses (CU), and the timeline. The 24-month timeline was what was initially in place from beginning to end of a plan, and the Planning Commission thought that would be a little too tight.

- No amendment was made to address the DR process. However, the limitations to conditional use wording was clarified in the legislation to put across that it was basically intended to show that CUs are to shape certain processes.

- The 24-month timeline was then extended to a 30-month timeline, which is exactly the same period as the sunset date. They would expect the plan to begin and end in 30 months. That would also be the time frame the legislation would sunset and you would take a look at how the legislation was going.

- I have distributed a packet to you that contains a table that lists all of the amendments that are made that are major. It shows the page and line of the amendments and then describes the intent and what that change does. I've also attached a copy of the legislation that compares the October 20th version (the last one before you) to the version that was amended at Tuesday's hearing of February 28th.

SPEAKERS:

John Bardis

- I want to thank you very much for your comments today in response to the Better Neighborhoods Plus issue and for making the request to the staff to give you an update on the Better Neighborhoods planning and implementation process.

- I want to thank you very much for your vote in October that said unanimously for the Board to set it aside and have it go to a trial run, which is a very appropriate position.

- Given what has happened over the past three months, your action in October has been reaffirmed by the way the Board has had to amend the whole since your last hearing.

- Basically, we appreciate the comments and the kind of vigilance t the code and your own responsibilities.

Patricia Vough

- I concur about you asking for the Better Housing to come back.

- What disturbs me the most about this legislation is I've seen it before.

- It was done in the Fillmore District.

- It allows a bunch of political hacks to be put on a committee to decide what they want whether they live in the neighborhood or not.

- It just wreaks of the Fillmore situation where I call it the genocide of the Jewish Community to the African American Community and the Japanese Community, because all of them lost their houses under eminent domain.

- I firmly believe that this is bad legislation.

- I firmly believe that the Citywide section of the Planning Department should be reconstituted because we are seeing the same things over again for the last 20 years.

- Why can't we do something correctly for once instead of seeing the repeat performance of past mistakes?

Judy Berkowitz

- Thank you very much for requesting the update on the status of the proposed Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation Process.

- Probably since October 20th, we unanimously decided to keep it as an internal Planning Department policy until after a sunseted project had been completed and not pass it on the Board to be codified.

- There have been fully six amendments of the whole. Three of these are probably major enough to attribute this to come back to you.

- Thank you again for requesting that they come back to you for your consideration and comment. We appreciate that very much.

Board of Appeals

Zoning Administrator Badiner reported:

- 1998 Golden Gate and 800 Lyon

- I know a number of Commissioners were interested.

- I requested a continuance and received a continuance to March 22nd so we can continue reviewing this issue.

- I will keep you informed as we go along.

- I'm in contact through my staff with both the appellant and the project sponsor.

Commissioner Bradford-Bell asked:

- When it comes back, can I ask that we try to have it calendared so we have an opportunity to comment on it?

9. 2005.1199EX (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

185 POST STREET - Informational presentation on proposed renovation of existing 6-story building at 185 Post Street, the site that was previously approved for construction of a new building designed by Rem Koolhaas for apparel company Prada USA.

SPEAKERS:

Chris Harrelson

- 185 Post Street has sat vacant and unutilized since 1997.

- Fortunately, it's going to be given a new life.

- The building was originally built in 1908. It's a reinforced masonry structure.

- In 1949 it was reclad. It's a steel window system. It has been kind of pieced together and hung off the building.

- The brick was covered up and damaged.

- The current proposal is to remove that façade

- The building is rather small. It is 60 by 60 feet square - symmetrical on both Post and Grant Streets. It is six stories high and has a full basement.

- Part of this upgrade will be a complete renovation of the seismic system with a steel moment frame to take the seismic loads.

- In our investigation of the building, we realized that the existing brick could be worked into the new design.

- We're proposing to clad the exterior of the building in glass. It is a translucent glass combination of translucent and clear glass. The clear glass would express the punched masonry building. They are rather large, 8 feet tall by 8 feet wide, except at the top floor where they are slightly smaller.

- These glass panels will span from floor to floor. Being tall panels, they're going to visually lift the building. We felt that for such a prominent site, this building seemed a little bit squat in its height.

- Another feature to take care of that is to raise the existing parapet height 9 feet so that it mimics the height of other buildings along Post Street and aligns with the top of the Plaster Capital at the arch of the adjacent building. This allows us to reveal sort of a ghost image, if you will, and still give a renovated and modern appearance to the essentially new building that would be there since the building is going through such a major renovation.

- The building was demoed on the interior by the previous owner, so all mechanical systems, everything, was taken out.

- it is basically a structural frame with this 1949 cladding on it.

- By cladding the building in glass, we are expressing the existing brick. We are able to get a strong expression of the base, the shaft, and the new raised parapet, which will be the lighted capital piece, so it has good alignment with the adjacent buildings and a classical expression in its organization.

ACTION: Informational only. No action taken.

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.

SPEAKERS:

Joe O'Donoghue - Residential Builders

- We want to thank the Director and the Zoning Director for requesting a continuance on Golden Gate and Lyon Street

- I'm requesting that you should hold a hearing on this.

- The project sponsor, we understand, has now contacted one of the appellants and is trying to do a buy out of the appellant.

- If that is successful, and let's face it, everyone has their price, but this person happens to be Irish and we don't think there is a price involved. It will be one of principle.

- But looking for the worst, if he decided to accept it as an offer he couldn't refuse, then there is no case.

- What would happen is that the project sponsor then could proceed with the eviction of massive tenants in this building.

- We also point out there was fraud involved here.

- There was an easement granted for this so-called unsafe deck that was subsequently then approved by the Housing Inspection Division to be taken out. It is also now determined that in fact one of those units that was supposed to be declared illegal is legal on the ground floor and the one on the top. Also the attorney that is for the tenants, The Tenderloin Housing Task Force, has also alleged fraud because they [project sponsor] lied on the permit application.

- If the appellant drops out of this case, then if you were to believe what you have been told by the City Attorney's Office, or at least advised by some legal representatives of the project sponsor, you could have made a mistake in issuing the permit because the project sponsor lied.

- And because now there is no appeal basis, would that then mean that because of some jurisdictional issue, you don't have the right to bring that back and correct the mistake?

- It is our premise that this commission and this department has the right to bring back any permit, no matter who has jurisdiction, in order to correct a mistake.

- The mistake was made here in issuing it, not because it was intentional on behalf of staff, but because you were lied to.

- You should request it to come back to you, not just for the public hearing, but also to correct the mistake.

- And finally, you would have to do this by next week because while there was a three-week continuance already, that means there's one week already gone. This week is gone, and the final week for action by this Commission would be next week.

Francisco Da Costa - Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy

- I come here from time to time to speak on some important issues.

- Of late, I am very perturbed when I read some draft Environmental Impact Reports and some Environmental Impact Reports, and how some leading mitigation factors are not addressed.

- What perturbs me is many of these EIRs have no sense of history. When we review an EIR, I think we do great injustice if you leave out issues that pertain to cultural resources. Remember, this land was stolen from the original people it belonged to. There are 18 treaties that were not ratified.

- Just because they were not on the Federal Register until 1927 and then legally removed, that does not mean when we attend to this EIR that we disrespect the first people. We have to pay attention to that.

- We look at a document and we want to see if some main issues or factors adversely impact the constituents of San Francisco.

- If you look at a document and missing from the document are traffic analysis, millions of vehicles that spew particulates into the air and harmful to constituents if such factors are missing, shame on that EIR. And then I think it's a shame when such reports are produced and given to the Commissioners. That's wrong.

- We need to focus on the diverse population.

- And while we cannot do the translations in various languages, at least we should make some special attempt to speak to the leaders of some focus groups so that the right information is given to the population that is adversely impacted by whatever development.

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.

None

  • F.CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

10. 2005.1034D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

943 Church Street - east side between 21st and 22nd Streets. Assessor's Block 3619 Lot 043 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0614 5053 to add a second unit and to construct a two-story addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 9, 2006)

NOTE: On February 9, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained a motion to take Discretionary Review and remove the 4th floor. The motion failed on a tie vote of +3 –3. Commissioners Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee voted no and Commissioner S. Lee was absent. The item was continued to March 2, 2006 by a vote +6 –0. Commissioner S. Lee was absent.

SPEAKERS: - (On the matter of continuance only announced under category A of this calendar):

Todd Mavis - Project Sponsor

- I respectfully request that we not continue the item on calendar for consideration today.

- We are ready to discuss these issues and would like to have a vote of the commissioners on the issue.

- Our Structural Engineer, Rodrigo Santos is here to answer any of your questions and concerns regarding our proposal or the neighborhood's alternative plan proposal.

- Since we do have a quorum today, I would really like to have a vote taken so that we can move forward.

Kevin Chang

- I believe the Commission President has a full packet and the other commissioners have a full packet.

- Perhaps we could clarify that issue so we could move on if possible.

President Sue Lee clarified

- I did receive the packet from the project sponsor as I came into the meeting today. A few minutes review, I don't know?

- I also understand the neighborhood, the people representing the opposition, did not receive the material at the prior hearing.

Zoning Administrator Badiner added

- I believe we all received a packet from the project sponsor just before the hearing.

- I received something maybe an hour or so ago and I obviously haven't had a chance to look at it.

- I don't think you were the only one in that situation.

ACTION: without hearing or deliberation, continued to March 16, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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.

11. 2005.0988C (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

4050 19th Avenue - north side of 19th Avenue, between Byxbee and Monticello Streets, Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 7083 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, under Section 303 (e), to modify conditions of approval of previously approved Conditional Use Authorization for a self storage facility (19th Avenue Self Storage) by increasing the square footage of storage space by 1,600 square feet in an NC-1 (Cluster, Neighborhood Commercial) District in a 26-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and S. Lee

MOTION: 17192

  • H.REGULAR CALENDAR

12. (A. JOHN-BAPTISTE: (415) 558-6547)

UCP PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE CASE REPORTS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT - The Commission will hold a Public hearing to consider adopting a resolution for a change in case report distribution to the Planning Commission from the current paper distribution to the proposed electronic distribution as part of the union and city partnership, a partnership between the City of San Francisco and Local Union 21 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, to bring a private enterprise model to city government, encouraging cost efficiencies and productivity through incentives.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hester

- You have no idea how much paper I get from the Planning Department.

- I think if anything, this is too modest.

- I have been advocating that things be electronically transmitted for a long time.

- Basically, the only things that are difficult are 11 by 17 plans; that is the Section 311 plans and what comes to the commission.

- The developers and others have gotten very sophisticated in what they submit to the commission.

- You can't even copy things down at the department any more because things are in glossy fold outs and there's no way that the department's computer can handle them. It is very frustrating sometimes.

- I think all of the things that don't involve plans should be electronically transmitted.

- I think the department should convert its mailing list into electronic notices. But don't assume that people are going to go onto the web site every day and find what's on your web site. Quite frankly, the department's web site is a mess. It is very hard to find things.

- Notices should go out electronically like the Planning Commission calendar does.

- I have been told that the reason why the Department doesn't have links on its agendas right now is that you have not bought enough capacity from the City's server.

- So I would not try and save all this money if you don't buy the capacity in the City's computer system, because you're going to wind up needing a lot more space.

- So please do it right.

[Name is unclear] - Union representative with Local 21

- This is really great.

- If you are a Local 21 member, we would work with the Planning Department.

- We have really good ideas on how to improve the process.

- Right now we've developed a mechanism to implement and try out.

- We really ask your support of this pilot program and of the professional planners. They do amazing work.

ACTION: Following hearing and Commission deliberation, this item was continued to the call of the Chair

Items 13 and 14 were called and heard together

13a. 2005.1068CKVX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. 2002.0927E) and request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for the construction of a new building, 12 stories in height, containing approximately 136 units of affordable family housing and 201,627 gross square feet plus ground-floor space for community use and retail use, and second-floor space for housing support services, offices and building management, including requests for exceptions to Planning Code requirements for rear-yard area (Section 309(a)(1)), ground-level wind currents (Section 309(a)(2)), freight loading (Section 309(a)(5)) and building bulk (Section 309(a)(8)).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS:

Barbara - Mercy Housing

- The housing developments before you provide the city with a great housing opportunity.

- The new construction of 243 units of very high quality affordable housing is for families and elders in San Francisco.

- Mercy Housing has been working to put this development together since 2001.

- Facing two big challenges that first included creating an attractive and appropriate design scheme for the site.

- And secondly, putting together a viable affordable housing financing plan.

- We are thrilled that in the last three months we have been successful in competing for over $25 million of both State and Federal funds, which will go a long way towards making the units permanently affordable.

- Additionally, we think we have come up with a very exciting design proposal that we are hopeful you will approve today.

- I would like to thank Jim Miller and the planning staff for hanging in there with us on this development for the last four years.

Richard Shing - Project Architect

- The project is on Mission Street, between 10th and ninth and the Alley Jessie.

- Across Jessie is the 10-story, 125 square foot tall furniture mart. That family business is on one end and the Senior building on the other with an elevated deck connecting the two.

- There is an interior deck that is also accessible to the Boys and Girls Club

- The first floor of the Senior building at ninth and Jessie is comprised of the main entrance, Mercy offices, the computer room, a library and support services, along with parking and a very small but sheltered courtyard at the back.

- The second floor starts housing with a community room that opens onto the elevated deck.

- The remainder of the floors are housing, primarily one bedrooms and studios with a manager s unit at the very top floor.

- The construction of the building will be all concrete slabs and concrete beams and columns.

- There is a lounge that is accessible for all residents on each floor of the corner above the main entrance.

- We have chosen to start to break up the façade by creating a two-story base.

- All of the material you see, with the exception of the glass, will be a very lightweight concrete pre-cast concrete panel system called GFIC concrete.

- The most common material you see for many of these facilities is cement plaster or stucco, which for a building this size and for the longevity that we anticipate is not what we consider an appropriate material.

- The other significant elevation would be the one that is on Jessie Street.

- These units have two-story bases with entrances to the parking and service entrances off of Jessie Street.

- Moving to the family building, the first floor is comprised of the main entrance to the facility.

- Mercy office is here, with retail space and tenants to be determined.

- The Boys and Girls Club access to the interior courtyard.

- The second floor starts housing on this side (picture shown).

- [He went on to show pictures detailing the layout of the facility and emphasize the design enhancements and qualities.]

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17193

13b. 2005.1068CKVX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 124(f), for additional square footage (to be devoted to affordable housing) above the 6.0 to 1 floor area ratio (approximately 6.06 to 1 – 201,627 gross square feet when 199,500 would be allowed) ) established for the C-3-G zoning district subject to the limitations set forth therein in conjunction with the construction of approximately 136 units of affordable family housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17194

13c. 2005.1068CKVX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1340-1390 MISSION STREET (FAMILY HOUSING BUILDING) - northeast corner at Tenth Street, with additional frontage on Jessie Street, Lots 026, 027 and a portion of 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Dwelling-unit-exposure and off-street-parking variances sought in conjunction with the construction of approximately 136 units of affordable family housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses, for dwelling units with their exposure onto an interior courtyard with dimensions insufficient to meet the standards for dwelling-unit exposure contained in Planning Code Section 140, and 24 off-street parking spaces when Planning Code Section 151 would require 34 such spaces. The request for variances will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: ZA closed public hearing and granted the variances subject to the standard conditions of approval

14a. 2005.1127CX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1340 MISSION STREET (SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING) - north side between Ninth and Tenth Streets, with additional frontage on Ninth and Jessie Streets, a portion of Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in a 120-X Height and Bulk District - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of an Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (Case No. 2002.0927E) and request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code for the construction of a new building, 11 stories in height, containing approximately 107 units of affordable senior housing and 93,954 gross square feet of floor area plus ground-floor space for community use, housing support services and building management and upper-floor space for housing support services, including a request for an exception to Planning Code requirements for ground-level wind currents (Section 309(a)(2)).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17195

14b. 2005.1127CX (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1340 MISSION STREET (SENIOR HOUSING BUILDING) - north side between Ninth and Tenth Streets, with additional frontage on Ninth and Jessie Streets, a portion of Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in a 120-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 124(f), for additional square footage (to be devoted to affordable housing) above the 6.0 to 1 floor area ratio (approximately 7.60 to 1 – 93,954 gross square feet when 76,500 would be allowed) established for the C-3-G zoning district subject to the limitations set forth therein and, pursuant to Planning Code Section 157, for off-street parking in excess of accessory amounts (ten spaces when five would be required), in conjunction with the construction of approximately 107 units of affordable senior housing plus ancillary ground- and upper-floor uses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17196

15. 2006.0133EKC (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558 6291)

1299 Bush Street - southeast corner at Larkin Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0279 - Adoption of environmental findings related to the adoption of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 161 (j) of the Planning Code to reduce the number of residential parking spaces. The project would demolish an existing two-story commercial building and then construct a new eight-story mixed-use structure with 26 dwelling units over ground floor commercial space. The project would accommodate 20 independently accessible parking spaces where 26 are required by the Planning Code. The project site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Project Architect - [Mr. Schmaltz (his name was not clear)]

- Principally, this project is before you because of the parking situation.

- The staff has done a good job of explaining our position.

- The project sponsor has no problem with reducing the parking.

- This is a very well served site by public transit.

- it is very well pedestrian oriented with shopping, jobs, close to downtown.

- We think its is appropriate to reduce the size of the parking.

- We have taken an approach that takes this very disparate neighborhood that is composed of high-rises that are contemporary, older buildings that are brick - some with bay windows, some with wooden exteriors - and tried to knit this together into a building that interpreted, if you will, all of these parts.

- The most immediate neighbor to the south on Larkin Street has a very interesting façade, primarily red brick.

- The building across the street is also red brick.

- We have chosen to carry this material in a contemporary tile form through our building while at the same time using colors of materials that are very much replicated throughout the neighborhood.

- Up the street, the more contemporary buildings are white and beige using contemporary materials.

- The buildings across the street, while not architecturally admirable in our opinion, are very contemporary and use neutral materials.

- We are trying to use materials that give a compelling look to the corner; to organize these elements. And because it is an invisible site, we are trying to create a contemporary statement using appropriate technology and also a strong pedestrian character.

- We had not heard anything from the neighborhood up to yesterday.

- But I would say in looking at the site plan that this is a very small site.

- From the very beginning we respected the existing light well by setting back a three-foot light well. We don't use that light well at all. There are privacy issues there. So we presented and staff concurred that this is an appropriate response to the light well.

- Regarding the neighbor to the south, while it is a three-story building, we are permitted by code to go to eight stories.

- But as the rendering can show, we have setback the rear yard adjacent to the building.

- Architecturally we responded to the scale of the building by dividing our building with a bay window to emulate theirs.

- We tried to be respectful knowing we are a taller building than theirs.

- We ask for approval of our conditional use application.

Amy - A senior at Lowell

- I will be translating because most of the tenants and owners here today can't speak English.

Mr. Chun addressed the Commission through the Interpreter

- They [we] are asking if instead of making it eight stories tall, make it just four stories tall so that it will be the same height as the other apartment.

- Because on one side of the apartment there is a body shop where they fix cars.

- Then there are the exhaust fumes that get trapped in the building already.

- Then with a building on the other end that is taller than their [our] own building, it will affect the air circulation.

- Then on that one side of the wall there is a paid advertisement and it gets factored into the income.

- So if the building blocks that, it will affect their [our] income and their [our] cost of living will be affected.

- The whole building is objecting to the project due to the above reasons.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17197

16. 2006.0005C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1224 - 9TH AVENUE - east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; Lot 033, in Assessor's Block 1742 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, under Planning Code Sections 303, 730.21 and 730.42 to allow the establishment of a full-service restaurant (dba Sephia) in a space that was previously occupied by a retail furniture store (dba Suma Imports), and for a non-residential use over 2,499 sq. ft. The site is within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Adam - Architect and Project Sponsor

- With staff's recommendation, we held a meeting open to the public. We sent out notices and this was prior to submittal for this.

- We did not receive any objections for doing a restaurant.

- We think that a restaurant in this neighborhood will benefit the area, especially with the new addition of the De Young Museum. It will provide people with more options to dine.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Antonini

MOTION: 17198

17a. 2005.0488CEV (T. Tam: (415) 558-6325)

25 LUSK STREET - north side between Townsend and Brannan Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 3787 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 817.16 and 890.88(c) to allow construction of up to 26 single room occupancy units. The project will include a two-story vertical addition to and conversion of an existing two-story-above-basement building with the existing Business Service use in the basement retained. The property is in an SLI (Service, Light Industrial) District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 16, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

17b. 2005.0488CEV (T. Tam: (415) 558-6325)

25 LUSK STREET - north side between Townsend and Brannan Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 3787 - Request for a Rear Yard, Parking, and Minimum Dimensions for Usable Open Space Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134, 151, 135(f)(1), and 135(g)(2). Whereas the Planning Code requires a minimum rear yard of 15 feet for SRO projects in the South of Market Base District, the project proposes an inner court instead. Whereas the Planning Code requires a one parking space for each 20 units with a minimum of two off-street parking spaces, the project proposes none. While the proposed project would exceed the minimum usable open space area required under Section 135(d)(2), the proposed project would not comply with the minimum horizontal and vertical dimensions for some portions of the proposed private and common usable open space.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 16, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

18. 2004.0481X (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

45 LANSING - south side of Lansing Street on a through lot that also fronts Harrison Street, between First and Essex Streets, Lot 059 in Assessor's Block 3749 - Request under Planning Code Sections 309.1 and 827 for Determinations of Compliance, and exceptions to allow greater than one parking space for every two units, to provide off-site open space in lieu of on-site, and for dwelling unit exposure. The subject property is located within the RH DTR (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use) District with a 65/400-R Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Ezra Mercy - Representing 45 Lansing Street

- We are here to request certification of compliance with the Rincon Hill Plan

- The Rincon Hill Plan and EIR specifically identified and evaluated this project and highlighted it in the preferred plan option.

- The project design before you is consistent with the Plan and the Department and we have provided the extensive documentation and review to just that point.

- We also present the developed project design where we have sought to create excellent architecture and urban design both at the ground level where we will create a living human scale addition to Lansing Street, and at the city level where we create a slender tower and distinctive addition to the skyline.

- The Rincon Hill Plan was created through years of public review and input, and consideration by this Commission.

- The Plan brings several extraordinary things to this study.

- First, it is a well thought out rendition of urban planning that has exceptional neighborhood planning in place.

- Second, it provides much needed housing near downtown geared to people who live and work in San Francisco.

- It will provide vital and substantial contributions to affordable housing for San Francisco.

- It will provide an extraordinary level of direct economic benefits for the Rincon neighborhood and for the greater SOMA community.

- 45 Lansing stands to contribute over $25 million through transfer and property taxes, affordable exclusionary housing, Rincon neighborhood improvements, improvements in the South of Market Community, and specifically a rebuilding of Lansing Street itself to turn it into a pedestrian oriented open space. $20 million will be in direct benefits to the neighborhood, to SOMA, and the entire city.

- 45 Lansing is a keystone of the Rincon Plan envisioned and studied clearly and completely in the plan process, which was a long open process that led to the completion of the Rincon Hill Plan.

- That process is complete now and this project is consistent with the Plan.

- We believe 45 Lansing is something that we and the Commission and the city can be proud of, and we are requesting your final approval today.

Chuck Davis - Project Architect

- We have been working on this note worthy project with the objective of providing not only an excellent living environment, but to provide the design and contemporary accent to the skyline of our beautiful city.

- Rincon Hill is one of the oldest sites in our city.

- A proposed slender and elegant tower will add to the site.

- It is within the approved guidelines of the Rincon Hill Plan and our aim has been to produce a tower of slender proportion that sits atop a podium base.

- The tower has been designed to respond to the context of the neighborhood and help enliven the street.

- [Using images and a pointer, he described the site, its surroundings, and the design qualities.]

- The entrance to our building is off of Lansing.

- The podium base of the arcade along Lansing is setback from the street and we are proposing an extensive landscape treatment to Lansing.

- The images showed the proposed project entrance, the recessed arcade, new street trees, new paving, and new sidewalks, depicting a really nice enrichment to the existing context.

- The last rendering was of the proposed design that included the existing Mariners building.

Jim Salinas - Representing Local 22

- We are proud to support this project sponsor.

- We feel very strongly this is a very responsible project sponsor in that they have chosen to use union general contractors and subcontractors.

- It is my understanding that they are considering working with the Mayor's City Build program.

- Obviously we are here because of the jobs that help us to fuel the local economic engine.

- Let us not forget that we are a large part of the tax base as well.

- But obviously, this is much needed housing.

- There is still a housing crisis in this city.

- We are here again asking for your support for this great project and looking to move it forward.

- It can only benefit the greater community of San Francisco.

Patrick Malone

- I live at 81 Lansing and I'm here again, even though I've never been successful in front of this body, to try to hopefully share some of my comments.

- I think I'm expressing the view of most of the neighborhood of Lansing Street and asking once again that you please give us a building that is something in scale with the neighborhood.

- I hope that before you approve this building, you all go out and visit the site because you should see how this building is going to affect the neighborhood.

- It is not just the Lansing Street side. It's also the Harrison Street side.

- When I tell acquaintances that come by and visit me what the city plans to build here - a 400-foot building on that lot - the people laugh.

- This building is not even on a corner lot. It is right in the middle of the Guy Lansing neighborhood and it goes all the way through to Harrison Street.

- I can't think of any other city that would allow a 400-foot building with absolutely no setback and 100% lot coverage and no true public open space. The street is already there and adding shrubs and favors doesn't make it an open space.

- Even down in the financial district, if you look at the buildings, the ones that are 400 feet, have some open space or plaza to them that is accessible to the public.

- By allowing this building with 100% lot coverage, the Department actually proposes to condemn some of my neighbors at 81 Lansing Street who aren't here because they think I'm crazy to come down here to try this again, to live in a virtual tunnel where they actually will get no sunlight until the late afternoon because of the way the buildings are configured.

- The neighborhood is not averse to building.

- It is not about blocking views. I would have a view blocked by this building. But I would suspect my view would be blocked at some point.

- The question really is just the scale of the building.

- This building is 350 feet taller than the average building in the whole neighborhood.

- As a resident, I can tell you that the disruption from this building's construction is going to be ongoing. We have four major construction sites within 150 feet of each other. We have the One Rincon Hill kitty-corner to this building, the 450 Lansing building, which was supposed to be finished a year ago but is currently being constructed, and we have the Caltrans freeway construction, which literally envelops the neighborhood.

- I would just ask that all of you consider if you lived in Rincon Hill or the Guy Lansing neighborhood, what would you then believe the correct thing to do on this building would be?

Reed - Rincon Hill Residents Association

- The Rincon Hill Plan was adopted after a great deal of input from members of the community such as myself, Mr. Malone and others, and also a great deal of time and effort by the staff and by this Commission.

- One of the primary goals of adopting the Plan was to avoid planning by exception.

- Yet here today, you are being asked to approve a project with exceptions.

- Those exceptions are ones that should not be permitted and the developer who has been given more than generous allowances under the Plan itself for a huge project as the renderings have made clear can build a building consistent with the Plan without the exceptions that he has requested.

- Therefore, I urge you to approve the project without the exceptions that are requested.

Stephen

- I am here to speak in favor of the project.

- I have appeared before this body as an advocate for housing in San Francisco. And although I'm not here in an official capacity, I am here to provide my personal support to this project.

- The Rincon Hill Plan was the product of many years of work.

- Although this project might require a few exceptions to make the building itself specifically work for the specific site, this specific site was identified for this height and this density on Rincon Hill.

- I'm definitely sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns.

- I actually was the project reviewer for the adjacent project at 40-50 Lansing Street, which I know generated a great deal of controversy in the neighborhood.

- But when looked at from a regional perspective and a city wide perspective, where else would we put large buildings?

- It seems as though the western half of the city has been shut off for a long time to this type of development and the eastern side of the city is really where most of the new development is happening.

- Large buildings are not out of place in a world-class metropolitan city like San Francisco.

- I think it is important for the Planning Commission to remember that.

- EHDD is a renowned architectural firm and I'm sure they will bring their best efforts to creating a beautiful building that San Francisco can be proud of.

Glen

- I'm speaking on behalf of the sponsor.

- I have several letters here in support of the project from Rincon Hill residents.

- He read a letter from John Strickland who is in support of the project.

- He also read a letter from Leo Wolf in support of the project.

Daniel Shambar

- I'm with the sponsor.

- He read a letter from Gabriel Metcalf, Executive Director of SPUR who could not be here today but supports the Rincon Hill Neighborhood Plan.

Eric Robbins

- I'm a resident in downtown San Francisco; I reside at 85 Natoma Street.

- I am in favor of the project.

- I've enjoyed living downtown for 3.5 years now, and I'm enjoying it as the density increases more and more.

- I've found that the neighborhood has become more of a neighborhood as we increase units down there.

- I look forward to seeing that happen again.

Andrew Junius - Representing Alta Vista Ventures.

- We are about a year into the Rincon Hill Plan.

- In every one of the options, almost from the beginning, there is a tower on Lansing Street listed in the Plan.

- There has been a tower identified for this site and this block since that time.

- The Plan was passed last year.

- This project is consistent with that Plan.

- The project should come as no surprise to anybody.

- It is intended to allow the tower sites to move forward quickly and be approved rapidly.

- Earlier this year you saw One Rincon and it has been approved. 45 Lansing is up next.

- The goal of the city in passing the Plan was to build the housing, not just to pass the Plan, but see the housing get built.

- The developers are ready to go.

- 45 Lansing is ready.

- Let's approve this project today.

Chris Curtis

- I co-own a small business on Harrison Street, 511 Harrison is the exact address.

- It is called Terra Gallery in the Event Space.

- We are almost immediately across the street from this particular project.

- Although we have been aware of all the development plans in our neighborhood for quite some time--and actually I welcome it because some of these developments may bring clientele to us--but we are a little bit concerned about this particular project due to what we particularly offer our clients, which was until very recently, a tremendous skyline view of San Francisco.

- We sit on top of Rincon Hill. We abut against the Bay Bridge and we are right next to the First and Harrison Bay Bridge entrance.

- We have had tremendous views.

- We have floor to ceiling windows that look out onto the skyline. Well, over time that has been diminished.

- The 45 Lansing project has already eaten away some of our view. This project will do tremendously more to diminish more.

- So we are concerned.

- I'm not sure we feel we are able to stand in front of this progress because we understand the need for housing. And again, we have no problem with having additional neighbors who might frequent our establishment.

- But again, I think maybe there is a misnomer that there are no businesses in this area that are going to be affected by it.

- I'm concerned about the size and scope.

- It certainly is going to impact our ability to attract clientele, especially during construction.

- We have a very strong weekday corporate sales and seminar, sales and marketing meetings, business.

- It is difficult to do corporate meetings when you have got jackhammers going across the street.

- We are also an art gallery at times.

- We have a tremendous amount of natural light that flows into our windows.

- A 400 foot building and across the street is obviously going to cast quite a shadow on our building and we are not going to have the same quality of light.

- Again, I know I'm a small business, and one of a few voices here that are concerned, but I just wanted to let you know that there are more than just residential issues at hand.

- I hope you will take that into consideration as you look at this project.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17199

19. 2006.0085D (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

2217 9th Avenue - north side, between Mendosa and 12th Avenue, Lot 008, Assessor's Block 2860 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2005.10.18.5860, to construct a new three-story single-family dwelling on a vacant lot, located in an RH-1(D) (Residential, Single-Family, Detached) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Prior to hearing, discretionary review application withdrawn

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))

SPEAKERS:

Ena Aguirre

- There is supposed to be a joint meeting of the Planning and Redevelopment Agency.

Response

- Yes, that will follow at 6:30 p.m.

Adjournment: 6:10 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PORPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2006

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Adopted

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

EXCUSED: Alexander

ABSENT: Hughes

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:21 PM