Source: http://sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1007
Timestamp: 2014-12-22 13:28:56
Document Index: 304687334

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 9914684', 'Application No. 9914683', '§ 4', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002']

San Francisco Planning Department : January 16, 2003
/ January 16, 2003	January 16, 2003
SAN FRANCISCOPLANNING COMMISSIONMeeting MinutesThursday,January 16, 2003PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. LeeABSENT: Bradford BellTHE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-PRESIDENT ANTONIN AT 1:34 P.M.STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Paul Lord; Mark Luellen; Ben Helber; Paul Maltzer; Mathew Snyder; Jim Miller; Adam Light; Kate McGee; Patricia Gerber – Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery – Commission SecretaryA. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCEThe 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. 2002.0876D (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)67 GRANADA AVENUE - west side, between Grafton and Lake View Avenues, Lot 005 in Block 7016 - Discretionary Review request, for a building permit (No. 2002/04/30/5347) to allow the construction of a two-story, rear horizontal extension to an existing two-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as submitted.(Proposed for Continuance to January 23, 2003)SPEAKER (s): NoneACTION: Continued as proposed PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell 2. 2002.0967C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)2000 VAN NESS AVENUE - northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Jackson Street; Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 0595: Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install a total of three (3) antennas and six (6) related equipment cabinets on the roof of an 8-story, 100-foot tall commercial structure, known as the Medical Arts Building, as part of Sprint's wireless telecommunications network within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions(Proposed for Continuance to February 20, 2003)SPEAKER (s): NoneACTION: Continued as proposed PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell 3. 2000.0413DD & 2002.0874DD (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315) 226 17th AVENUE - east side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 29A in Assessor’s Block 1417 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Permit Application No. 9914684 for the demolition of a two-story, single-family dwelling and Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9914683S, requested by the public, proposing to construct a three-story, two-unit building. The subject property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve both applications as proposed. (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 14, 2002) NOTE: On October 10, 2002, following public testimony the Planning Director closed public hearing and continued the matter to November 14, 2002, so project sponsor can respond to questions raised by the Zoning Administrator, and allow the Discretionary Review Requestor to inspect to property. NOTE: On November 14, 2002, the Commission continued this matter to January 16, 2003. (Proposed for Continuance to February 27, 2003)SPEAKER (s): NoneACTION: Continued as proposed PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell4a. 2002.0877CR (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)720 MOSCOW STREET (SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION #43) - northwest side between France and Italy Avenues, Lot 024, Assessor's Block 6338 - Finding of Consistency with the General Plan pursuant to § 4.105 of the San Francisco Charter to install a total of six (6) panel antennas and related equipment at an existing two-story, publicly-used structure (a fire station) as part of Cingular Wireless' wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District, and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location – Publicly-Used Structure).Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of Consistency with the General Plan.(Proposed for Continuance to February 20, 2003)SPEAKER (s): NoneACTION: Continued as proposed PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell4b. 2002.0877CR (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)720 MOSCOW STREET (SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT STATION #43) - northwest side between France and Italy Avenues, Lot 024, Assessor's Block 6338 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 209.6(b) and 234 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) panel antennas and related equipment at an existing two-story, publicly-used structure (a fire station) as part of Cingular Wireless' wireless telecommunications network within a P (Public) Zoning District, and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location – Publicly-Used Structure).Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.(Proposed for Continuance to February 20, 2003)SPEAKER (s): NoneACTION: Continued as proposed PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell 5. 2002.0395C (G. NELSON: (415) 558- 6257)417 31ST AVENUE - southwest corner of Clement Street and 31st Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1463 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 710.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of six antennas and related equipment within the belfry of an existing two-story, 40-foot tall (58 feet to top of tower), publicly-used structure known as the Lincoln Park Presbyterian Church, as part of Cingular's wireless telecommunications network within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 1 as it is a publicly-used structure. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 5, 2002)(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2003) SPEAKER (s): NoneACTION: Continued as proposed PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford BellB. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS 6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year. ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 23, 2003 PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell7. Proposed adoption of Planning Commission hearing schedule for 2003.ACTION: Approved PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell8. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of December 12, 2002. ACTION: Approved PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell 9. Commission Comments/Questions Commissioner W. Lee: Requested a presentation from Landmarks Board, Mayor's Office of Housing, Mayor's Office of Community Development; Transportation Authority; Redevelopment Agency; Coalition of S.F. Neighbors; S.F. Tomorrow; Mayor's Small Business Commission; Chamber of Commerce, and SPURCommissioner S. Lee: Commented on action taken at last week's meeting (1/9/03) on the Fourth and Freelon Streets Special Use District legislation. The Commission agreed to endorse the legislation with a number of amendments. However, they (the Commission) did not receive a copy of the actual legislation with their amendments prior to it being transmitted to the Board of Supervisors. She requested that, in future, the Director should make sure the Commission also receives a copy of that transmittal. She thought that the Commission was very clear that they wanted the project to come back to the Commission, in its entirety, as a conditional use. She would like to see that actual language in the transmittal to the Board and in the legislation. She has had second thoughts and now feels that the Department should charge fees that are commiserate with a conditional use. She recalls that there is language in there (the amended legislation) that is less than what is normally charged. What can the Commission now do if they want to change that?Commissioner Feldstein: Also concerned with the language in the final draft of the legislation on the Special Used District forwarded to the Board. Last week, she specifically wanted to see what they had done in writing, but in the interest of the late hour, we moved on with an oral summary. She is concerned that the language contained in the preliminary draft of the resolution does not reflect all the changes requested by the commissioners. She is very uncomfortable that something might be forwarded that is not an accurate reflection.Commissioner S. Lee: If legislation comes over from the Board, she feels it is very important that this Commission see any changes in writing before they actually adopt them and they are transmitted to the Board.Commissioner Antonini: There are three components to this project--the builder, the recipients of the low cost housing, and the neighborhood. He feels that there is a tendency on the part of the first two to go with as much height and bulk as possible because the incentives are there. Whereas the neighborhood would like us to make the project as acceptable as possible in terms of design, setbacks, and other items. He has met with members of the Forth Street Neighborhood Association and urged them to get in touch with their Supervisors and try to build flexibility into the legislation that would allow us (the Commission) to have a revenue stream available to make modifications to that building to make it as pleasing as possible who live in the area. He feels that all have to agree that compromise is necessary here. It is also very important that since this is the first of what could be many projects of this type, that it not be perceived as some sort of back-room deal and that all parties can try to get something out of this that satisfies them. Commissioner Feldstein: If there is language in the existing draft about a model–that was not part of our (the Commission's) intent last week as she understood it. C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT10. Director's Announcements- Responded to Commissioner W. Lee's request regarding scheduling meetings with different City agencies -- 1) If you would like to create additional meetings to accomplish this, we can do that. 2) It is very difficult to try to organize this and try to at the same time keep the workload we are currently engaged in. February 13 is the target date for our budget and maybe these groups can participate as part of that process. I can't see that discussion taking place without it being linked to resources. We will try to schedule future presentations without overloading the Commission.- Responded to Commissioner S. Lee's concerns regarding the Special Use District legislation. The Department is given 10 days from the day of the Commission's action to transmit that action to the Clerk of the Board. The date for this legislation ends on Tuesday. The resolution with your recommendations has not been transmitted to the Clerk of the Board. He agrees that Commissioners should be given the opportunity to review their amendments and invited all commissioners to review and get back to him with any matter they feel does not represent the action taken (by the Commission). However, in order to have another opportunity to effect some change to the legislation you must first rescind your previous action, set a new hearing date, and allow for re-noticing requirements within the 90-day timeline. (Commissioner Feldstein: Requested that for this legislation and in the future, the Commission receive any written drafts as soon as they are available. She expects to have delivered to her for review the draft language to make sure it is an accurate reflection.) (Commissioner S. Lee: Asked if it was possible to sever the fee amendment from the draft and restate or come to a different recommendation before transmitting to the Board?) The Director responded that the City Attorney or Zoning Administrator might want to respond officially, but he felt that the Commission took an action with a vote. To change that, the Commission would have to rescind that action and schedule another hearing. Stated that Commissioners could still express to the Supervisors their individual views, and the Department would also communicate to the Board that even after the Commission's action, you re-thought it and would really rather see a full conditional use fee consistent with all other conditional uses. (Commissioner Feldstein: Concerned that the draft document transmitted to the Clerk of the Board accurately reflect the actions of the Commission. She has seen the draft and does not feel that it accurately reflects the actions of the Commission. It was her understanding that they (the Commission) would see the draft before it was transmitted to the Board in a timely fashion. If it needs to be delivered to the Clerk by Tuesday, then we need adequate time to review what is quite complex, make sure it's accurate, deliver those comments and have time for those comments to be incorporated, and then see those again to make sure that it is accurate.) The Director stated that he felt that (this discussion) was going beyond what is permissible for a non-scheduled item. He stated that he did not believe that the Commission gave clear instruction to forward the draft document to Commissioners for review prior to transmitting to the Clerk of the Board. He requested that in the future, Commissioners or interested Commissioners should explicitly state that you would like to see the document in a draft form before it is transmitted. The Department wants the document to accurately reflect what the Commission said. If you don't believe it reflects that, we can change that. (Commissioner Antonini: For clarity – The project will come back to the Commission for design, height and bulk before approval?) The Director stated that was always part of the legislation and had not changed. (Commissioner Hughes: The majority of projects or resolutions that we pass may not rise to the level of complexity as this, and it may not require that we see every resolution prior to it being sent to the Clerk. But if we do want to see it, I think we should give clear and direct request to have that occur. I recall the discussion. But as I recall it, I do not recall a clear request sent to the Director to see that. In the future, if we do want to see it, we should give explicit instructions or requests.)- Announced that the Department will received a grant for $100,000. The purpose of this grant is to carry out a community based transportation plan for the Glen Park Neighborhood around the BART station. The source of these funds come from the California Department of Transportation, Bay Area Rapid Transit, as well as the San Francisco Public Library. The grant requires that we execute a contract with a consultant. We have prepared a memorandum to you that includes the contract agreements. The conditions of the funding and the Department's desire is that you (the Commission) play a role in endorsing this before we enter into this contract. If you have any questions related to this, under Commission Matters you can express them or you can let me know as early as possible. (Commissioner W. Lee: Can the work be done in-house instead of contracting it out?) The document will be in your packet for next week. Look it over and we will respond to you questions. My guess to your question however is no. - At last week's meeting, Commission W. Lee requested a status report on several projects that were primarily in the Mayor's Office of Housing. Also, included in your packets will be the Department's response to the status of each of those projects.- 11. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of AppealsBoard of Supervisors (reported by the Director of Planning):- Certification of EIR for the Cruise Terminal was continued for one week. - Appeal of an action taken by the Director of Planning on 10/17/02. I considered a conditional use authorization to install antennas for Metro PCS at 2444-2454 Noriega St. I approved the conditional use. The decision was appealed to the Board of Supervisors and it was continued once to allow the new Supervisor for this District to be sworn in. At last Monday's meeting, the Board voted 10 to 1 to overturn the Planning Director's decision.Board of Appeals (reported by the Zoning Administrator):- In 2000 the Board of Supervisors added the term Liquor Storeto neighborhood commercial. Prior to that, liquor stores were classified as general retail. A concern expressed by the Board of Supervisors and the general public about spill-over facts of liquor stores and such. Our understanding was that there was no accessory use. Any off-site liquor sales–no matter how little–was a liquor store. There was a case at 5843 Geary Blvd. were the Zoning Administrator wrote a determination that adding a very small amount of liquor would not be permitted. This was appealed to the Board of Appeals They found in fact that the language did allow accessory use for liquor.- 1878 Great Highway – property that had a number of property line windows looking down the Great Highway. The adjacent property was building up and there was concern about the view. Board of Appeals upheld the Commission's decision but made modifications to the roof line to allow more air and light.D. REGULAR CALENDAR 12. 2002.1153T. (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)CONDITIONAL USE REVOCATION UPON A FINDING THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED FALSE INFORMATION - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 303 to provide for the revocation of a conditional use authorization upon a finding that the applicant provided false information in obtaining the conditional use; adopting findings under Planning Code Section 302. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval SPEAKER(S): None ACTION: Approved as amended: Page 5, Line 22 to read: & upon substantial evidence, that the applicant for the conditional use had submitted false or misleading information in the application process that could have reasonably had a substantial affect upon the decision of the Commission or the conditional use is not& .Page 6, line 7 & on conditional use abatement when the Director and the Commission has substantial evidence within one year of the effective date of the conditional use authorization; that& Page 6, Line 8 to read: the applicant for the conditional use had submitted false or misleading information in the application process that could have reasonably had a substantial affect upon the decision of the Commission or & .Page 6 Line 16 to read: whether and how the false or misleading information submitted by the applicant affected could have reasonably had a substantial affect upon the decision of the commission& ..PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford BellRESOLUTION No. 16509 13. 2002.1204C (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)222 COLUMBUS AVENUE - east side, between Broadway and Pacific Avenue, on Assessors Block 0162, Lot 003. The subject property is in the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, the Washington-Broadway Special Use District No. 1, and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District. The project requires Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 714.40 to convert an existing vacant retail storefront into Pearlina's Tea Shop,a Retail Coffee Store, as defined in Section 790.102(n). No exterior modifications to the building are proposed. The shop will consist of approximately 630 square feet located on the ground floor and will contain no more than 15 seats. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions SPEAKER(S): None ACTION: Approved PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell MOTION NO. 1651014. 2002.0446E (B. HELBER: (415) 558-5968)40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves the construction of a 155,000 gsf, 8-story residential building containing 81 dwelling units with 81 off-street parking spaces on 2 below-grade garage levels and the demolition of the existing 56,250 gsf, 3-story light-industrial building. The site is located at 40-50 Lansing Street, on Assessor's Block 3749, Lot 11, in the Rincon Hill area. The 20,205 sf site fronts on guy Place and Lansing Street, between First and Second Streets. Two on-street loading spaces are planned; one on Guy Place and one on Lansing Street. The site is within a RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) zoning district, the Rincon Hill Special Use Subdistrict and an 84-X height and bulk district. The project would require variances from the following provisions of the Planning Code: Freight Loading; dwelling unit exposure; and from the Rincon Hill Special Use District; and Conditional Use authorization for construction of a residential structure over 40 feet tall. Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Mitigated Negative Declaration. SPEAKER(S) (on a request to continue only): (-) Ken Morrison, (made the request for continuance)- Received a hand delivered package on Friday of the 39 pages of the staff's comments. It was really truly under a week.- He understands there was a very limited distribution, just to the people who had appealed the findings of the Negative Declaration.(+) Andrew Junius, representative of the Project Sponsor- We are comfortable that all requirements have been met here. We are comfortable moving forward.(+) Paul Maltzer- Believed all notices had been properly taken care (-) Bill Barnes, Supervisor Daly's Aide- There is a combined notice of the Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator hearing, that deals with the conditional use authorization and the variances. That notice was mailed.- It is not clear that the mailed noticed was received by the appellant- The mailed notice that was combined for the Conditional Use and the Variance failed to mentioned the appeal.- Mailed notice was not adequate(-) Paula Roth- Received notice of this meeting for conditional use and variances only. The request, asking for an EIR was only received by hand delivery last Friday.(-) Sara O'Malley- Notification that she received is very clear--that there will be a hearing today regarding conditional use and variances. No where was it mentioned that there would be a hearing on the appeal (of the Neg. Dec.).- No one received a mailed notifications that there was going to be an Appeal ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 20, 2003 AYES: Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee NAYES: Antonini and Boyd ABSENT: Bradford Bell 15a. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) , a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 – Request for Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the construction of a building within a Residential District that would be taller than 40-feet pursuant to Planning Code Section 253(a); and (2) for the construction of a building that would have full lot coverage within the Rincon Hill Special Use District pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B). The building would be 84-feet tall and contain up to 82 dwelling units. The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District, the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions SPEAKER(S): None ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 20, 2003 AYES: Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee NAYES: Antonini and Boyd ABSENT: Bradford Bell15b. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) , a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 – A request for variances from (1) the exposure standard required under Planning Code Section 140; (2) the loading space standard required under Planning Code Section 152; (3) the setback standard for building mass above 50-feet as required under Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(3); (4) the frontage standard that requires at least 50-percent of all frontages be comprised of building entrances and display windows as mandated by Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(1)(C); and (5) the requirement that restricts parking on the first and second levels being any closer than 25-feet horizontal distance from any street grade as mandated from Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C) . The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District, the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, WITHOUT HEARING, CONTINUED THIS MATTER TO FEBRUARY 20, 2003 16. 2002.0915EC (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)1635 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue, Lot 14 in Assessor’s Block 646 - Request for authorization to modify a previously authorized Conditional Use (Case No. 2000.527C, Motion No. 16165). The current request would permit construction of a seven-story building containing 36 dwelling units on six floors over a ground floor with a retail space of up to 5,000 square feet and a below-grade, two-level garage containing 53 off-street parking spaces, on a lot in excess of 10,000 square feet (10.321.5 square feet), after demolition of an automobile storage garage, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 19, 2002) SPEAKER(S): (+) Lu Blazej, representing the Project Sponsor- Gave a general description of the project.- The new building would fit in the neighborhood.- This building is smaller than the previously approved project.- 12 one-bedroom units and 24 two-bedroom units. - Would continue to work with staff on design. ACTION: Approved as amended: (1) page 3 of Exhibit A, under Affordability, #11, strike that entire paragraph and substitute the following language: The project shall comply with the requirements of Planning Code Section 315 (Inclusionary Housing Program). In the event of a conflict between this motion and Section 315, Section 315 shall govern; (2) add language that would stipulate one parking space dedicated to a car-share program; (3) page 4, of Exhibit A, the last sentence should be stopped at the subject Conditional Use for the project. Strike the language after that: & or any amendments to Section 315 effective prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the project building. PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell MOTION NO. 16511 17. 2001.0690L (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)88 5TH STREET (OLD SAN FRANCISCO U.S. MINT) - west side between Mission and Jessie Streets, Assessor’s Block 3704, Lot 11 - Consideration of landmark designation and adoption of a resolution recommending landmark designation of the Old San Francisco U.S. Mint as Landmark No. 236. The subject property is zoned P (Public), and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving Landmark designation and recommending that the Board of Supervisors approves the landmark designation. SPEAKER(S): None ACTION: Approved PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell MOTION NO. 16512E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING 18. 2002.0650D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367) 3358 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET - north side between Mission Street and South Van Ness Street; Lot 16 in Assessor's Block 6571 - Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.23.7284, for a change of use. The existing use is classified as a Bar; the proposed use is Other Institution, Large per Planning Code Section 712.81 for La Raza Centro Legal, an organization committed to promoting day labor leadership and self-sufficiency. The property is located in an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 9, 2003) Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditionsNOTE: On October 17, 2002, the Planning Director continued this matter to November 21, 2002 and requested that the Project Sponsor provide staff with a traffic analysis. NOTE: On November 21, 2002, the Planning Commission continued this matter to January 9, 2003. On January 9, 2003, this matter was continued without further hearing to January 16, 2003. Public Hearing is open. SPEAKER(S): (-) Renee Saucedo, Project Director for the S.F. Day Labor Program- Requested that the Commission follow the recommendations of the Planning Department staff.- The proposed use for the Day Labor Program is a needed use for the neighborhood.- This project is very realistic and will comply with the conditions set forth by the staff 100%.- There is overwhelming support by the immediate neighbors.(-) Monica Garcia- Some neighbors have expressed concerned that the new site is not sufficient or large enough for the Day Labor Program's purposes. To explain how the site is insufficient, a brief discussion of the program's structure, services and schedule is in order.- At its current location with 430 square feet, the program serves between 75-90 people per day, spread over the 6 ½ hrs that it is open.- Program services are mostly on a drop-in bases. Some people stay for 5 minutes other stay longer.(-) Bruce Allison- This will bring dignity and honor to laborers. It will also bring down crime and the problem of urination. (-) Ana Marie Loya,- There has been many years of struggles to get this particular site.- When the Day Labor Program was founded 13 years ago, there was controversy about where it should be located. Then it was located at the Franklin Square Park as a temporary site while something better was found.- When we adopted this program, about two or three years ago, the program was still located in those trailers. By this time, the trailers were dilapidated and falling apart. We were told by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor's Office that a priority for us was to find a new site. (-) Sandra Bivanco- Asked Commission to keep in mind that the proposed new home for the Day Labor Program is about providing dignity to hard working people of our community. (-) Tito Mendoza- Supports the Day Labor Program. It has helped him and his colleague obtain jobs.(-) Larry Collins, Property Manager at 3358 Cesar Chavez- The owner of our building and all three tenants who lived there support this program.(-) Martin Rodriguez- Asked the Commission to grant the permit to do the repairs to the building.- Trailers that are occupied right now are very uncomfortable.- We are here to continue struggling for what the workers need to survive.(-) Maria Rodriguez- Day Labor Program should be granted the building on Cesar Chavez.- This will be of great benefit for them.- The workers would be able to support their families. They would have more stability and a safe place where they obtain more jobs- It is not going be prejudicial to anyone. To the contrary, everybody will benefit.(-) G. W. Frederick- I had employed several people from the program for about 12 years.- It is not very dignified for people to have to be house in the kind of situation that exists in the trailers.(-) Teresa Molina- I am here to support the program. I feel that it is very important for them to have that building so they can have a safe place and obtain their jobs without being out on the streets.(-) Francisco Herrera- Worked for the labor program for the last 13 years.- At Saint Anthony's Church there is a group of 6 ladies, who prepare food for the laborers every day.- We have the support of most of the churches in the neighborhood.- Urged the Commission to approve the use of the building.(-) Lina Ramirez- The workers deserve a dignified place to work.(-) Laurie McKenzie- Supports this program.(-) Mauricio Vela, Executive Director of Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center- Has lived in the neighborhood for 45 years.- Expressed his support as well as that of the Neighborhood Center for the San Francisco Labor Day Program.(-) Francisco Martin del Campo- Strongly supports the Day Labor Program moving to this site.(-) Luis Granados- This kind of use on Cesar Chavez is the proper use. There are no planning issues to be discuss.- If this were any other project, or if this building would serve any other contingency, it would have been approved.(-) Joe Triguero- Asked the Commission to push this project forward and not allow anybody to sidetrack them from making the positive decision for the Day Labor Program.(-) Eric Quezada- After 20 years of not being located at the source, this project will help and improve the situation.(-) Antonio Diaz, Director of Poder- Our organization strongly support this project.(-) Jason Alexander- Giving the Labor Program this building is a great idea.- Urged the Commission to approve this project.(-) Dr. Bahia Batia, Department of Public Health- The move to Cesar Chavez will enhance health in the following ways: 1) will increase worker accessibility to health services; 2) it will improve the safety conditions of the workers; 3) it will improve pedestrian safety; 4) it will improve public sanitation; and 5) it will decrease the risk of violence to labors resulting from robberies.(-) Sister Ann Marie Sullivan- Supports this project.(-) Hector Valdez- I think it is only fair that there will an office on Cesar Chavez Street for the Day Labor Program because that has been their dream for many years.(-) Eduardo Palomo- As a staff member of the Day Labor Program, I feel that it is very important for us to have an office on Cesar Chavez where we can render the services. This will be beneficial not only for the workers, but for the neighbors.(-) Ellie Kugler- Urged the Commission to approve the project.(-) Iris Biblowitz- Supports the project whole heartedly.(-) Supervisor Chris Daly- Before becoming a Supervisor in San Francisco, he served on the Advisory Committee to the Day Labor Program. - Day Laborers have really been doing the work for the rest of us in San Francisco, with the population that really struggles to make ends meet- When we talk about poor people in San Francisco, we talk about poor Latino people specifically. They make up the majority of the day laborers and they would benefit from this new center. We talk about a population that is definitely under served. We talk about a group of people, although they work incredible hard, very rarely get many of the advantages many of us take for granted here in San Francisco.- For probably ten years, this is a program, the Day Labor Program are a group of people, that had political problems in front of them. People who had been seen by others, who has more, people who are undesirable in the neighborhood- Currently they are operating out of trailers. Day Labor Program can no provide the services, can not provide the access that really the labors deserve in San Francisco. - Day Laborers deserve this center. This center proposed in any neighborhood in San Francisco would probably come with some neighborhood opposition. - Urged the Commission to favorably consider this project. Do your best for the entire City and County of San Francisco--in this case, the City of Saint Francis--where we have open arms. We are a city of refuge. We are known to do what we can to give the underdog any advantage, or any opportunity we can.(-) Steve Williams- It is crucial that this Commission vote yes in favor of this proposal for the safety and dignity of the day labors.(-) Mariana Biturro- The workers need a dignified place. There have been too many years that the City has been denying them the right to have their own space on Cesar Chavez.(-) Jill Shanker- Please grant the workers a dignified place.(-) Brooke Atherton- The proposed use for the Day Labor Program is a permitted used in the neighborhood.- An independent traffic consultant anticipated no increase in traffic caused by the programs move to the new building.(-) Paul Moore- In his opinion, this debate should be about how to provide justice and humane working conditions for workers.(-) Maria Marroquin- Respectfully requested that the Planning Commission not to delay the project and approve the permit.(-) David Corona- In the name of my co-workers, I want to remind you that all of us are going to benefit.(-) Supervisor Tom Ammiano- Expressed his support for this project. - This program is in his district--district 9--and is not without controversy, but he very much supports it.- What is an appropriate site? Sometimes what is appropriate is in the mind or eyes of the beholder. And sometimes those situations change on a daily basis.- I have read the report and believe this will be an appropriate site.(-) Toby Levine- She would like to see this Commission vote in favor that the program and have it established at this site.(-) Rosabella Safron- There are a lot of political issues surrounding this project. But the issue that we are here today to discuss is whether this is an appropriate site for the Day Labor Program? - She urged the Commission to look at the fact that traffic congestion is a non-issue. Once the laborers are at the site, it will do a lot to alleviate the traffic problem. The current traffic problems are not caused solely because of the day labors. They are caused by speeders and by all kinds of issues that have nothing to do with the labors.(-) Andre Rocker- Supports the project.(-) Joaquin Gutierrez- Us laborers do not have support from the Police. That causes a lot of problems with the neighbors. The solution is to grant us the permit to occupy the building on Cesar Chavez.(-) Philip Chew- The Day Labor Program is a good program that benefits not only the Mission community, but also the City and County of San Francisco at large.(-) Richard Marquez, Mission Agenda- Finally, today, the voices of the excluded are being heard.- Give the Day Labor Program the site that they deserve.(-) Julio Loyola- I am here to ask you to grant permission for the building.(-) Nora Calderon- Supports the project.(-) Carlos Mares- Asked the Commission to grant the petition to the Day Labor Program.(-) Jane Morrison- Let's treat the labors with respect. Cesar Chavez is a good location.(-) Judy Rebord- I have lived in the neighborhood for the last five years and would like to welcome the Day Labor Program to my community.(-) Howard Wallace- He spoke in support of the project.(-) Jeff Jankito- He supports the project.(-) Charlie Shamus- Supports day laborers in their struggle to earn a living wage; to seek work free of harassment; to build the day labor program that provides comprehensive job referral services; and to have a secure funded site at 3358 Cesar Chavez Street.- The City has wasted too much time by not approving this permit--and this is precious time that has been taken away from more important tasks, such as, building a strong network of services to support the workers and enforcing their rights.(-) Mr. Radney- Most of the neighbors around this site are supporting this project.(-) Juanita Brown- In strong support of the site.- The issue is not whether or not the day labors need to be present--their presence is a reality.- The proposed site is a viable organized way of honoring and acknowledging the work that they do and their presence.(-) Paulette Budro- Supports this program(-) Hector Molina- As a day laborer I am here to let you know that we have been asking the City for a long time to provide us with some bathrooms. We have also petitioned the Police to not harass us. We are just people who stand there everyday trying to get a job.(-) Jennifer Fridenbach- Supports day labors whole heartedly and welcome them with open arms.- The program will be an excellent addition to the neighborhood.(-) Gloria Estevan- I am in favor of the workers obtaining their own building.(-) Maira Rera- Strongly supports the move of the labor program to its new location.(-) Refugio Lopez- What we are asking, is very little. Please, approve the permit so we can continue supporting our families.(-) Miguel Carrera- It is important that the workers have a bathroom. Basic needs are not being met.- Because the workers basic needs are not being met, it is very important for you to be determined to solve this issue.(-) Jon Lowitz- Supports the Day Labor Program.(-) Eddy Chan- The Day Labor Program is part of the community development in the Mission District.(-) Carmelo Diaz- Supports the program, and asked the Commission to give them a hand, with the approval.(-) Christina Loggi- Hoped that the Commission will vote in favor for the Day Labor Program, so the workers can have a decent place.(+) Jamie Roth- The traffic reports in the Discretionary Review are flawed.- This project will affect the conditions on Cesar Chavez Street.- This place is too small to accommodate 20 of 30 people comfortably.- There will be traffic accidents, pedestrian blockage, and there will be additional stress to the huge budget cuts on City services that are already stretched to the limit.- The conditions that the Planning Department is recommending are unenforceable and they will be ignored by the Centro La Raza.(+) Captain Greg Shur (last name unclear)- Responded to different concerns expressed by Planning Commissioners.(+) Neil Sthaling- Concerned about the independent consulting methodology for calculating expected trip generation–believes it is fundamentally flawed.(+) John Wilson- Traffic options are not really bearing on the issue of the location.- This site will increase the accessibility and participation by day labors. It will only be appropriate to say that if, in fact, the day labors can come into the site.(+) Howard Gastad- I believe the community at large really supports better conditions for day labors and good hiring hall. This is not it.(+) Rafael Franco- He does not agree that the building on Cesar Chavez should be given to the staff of La Raza Legal Center.(+) Eva Soltes- Requested that the Commission give the workers a decent place to be. (+) Julia Ramachiote- The site is extremely small to accommodate all the workers and give the services that they are planning to provide them.(+) Craig Weber- Expressed his strong opposition on this project- Stated that the conditions of approval are unenforceable. They lack clarity and purpose and they are impossible to implement.(+) Al Lopez- You can not put all these people into that tiny place and expect them to have the quality (of life) that we all expect to have in our community.- There are a lot of empty buildings in other areas, why do we want to have 500 people overcrowd in the neighborhood?(+) Kathy Ramiachiote- The site is inadequate. It is a health hazard for these men.(+) Christine Pascual- Feels that the site is very small to be used as a large institution or a hiring hall.- Concerned about traffic and parking issues.(+) Laura Muniz- Opposed the 3358 Cesar Chavez Street as a hiring hall proposed - This will institutionalize the existing practice of using the street of this neighborhood as a hiring hall.(+) Maria Leon- Concerned about traffic hazards and pedestrian safety.(+) Jose Muniz- This location is too small and the practice of chasing after vehicles to get a job will continue.(+) John Barbey- This is not a hiring hall, it is a tiny office.- Workers need something better than this. It is a shame that the City cannot provide something better for them.(+) Chris Saver- Does not support this project.(+) Pat Delgado- This is not a race issue. It is very important that we all remember that this is a building that is a totally inadequate site for working conditions.- It does not provide shelter during inclement weather. It does not provide bathrooms. It does not provide areas for services that are needed in all areas. It does seriously affect the quality of life in the Mission District.(+) Milt Gaines (read a letter from Jane and Ed Perry)- The Perry's oppose the proposed project.(+) Roxane Melik- As an architect, she believes that the scale of the project seems very disconnected with its intended purpose.(+) Judy Berkowitz- There is overwhelming opposition to this project in the neighborhood.- All surrounding business are against the location of the Day Labor Program at this site.- Asked the Commission to deny the permit.(+) Rolandid Limas- Not in favor of this project.(+) Arturo Rodriguez- Strongly opposes the approval of this project.(+) Mauricio Avilez- Is opposed to this project.(+) Dendraco Zelaya- As far as he is concerned, the proposed site is too small.(+) Pedro Rosas- I am opposed to the project.(+) Joe Porcoro- Requested that the Commission deny the permit.(+) Michael Quintana- This site is not appropriate for the large number of workers. (+) Julio Arrendodo- Is opposed to giving Centro Legal La Raza the permit to have 3358 Cesar Chavez as a hiring hall.(+) Salomon Jimenez- Against granting the permit for this building, because it is too small.(+) Babette Drefky- The hiring hall should be placed at another site.(+) Eric Arguello- I support the program, but I am against the proposed site because it is extremely small. ACTION: Approved with amendments: 1. A staff person shall be stationed outside the building during work peak hours, from 8-10a.m., ensuring that employers park in the designated white zone spaces in order to hire workers from the Program. 2. Staff will conduct outreach to the day laborers gathering on Cesar Chavez Street to promote neighborhood cleanliness.3. Twice a year, the Project Sponsor will hold a Day Labor Program Open House/Community Meeting at the new site. All interested individuals will be welcome to learn about how the program is operating, discuss the program, and provide input. The Project Sponsor will provide a mailed notice similar to that required per Planning Code Section 312, meetings shall be held within three months and nine months following the first certificate of occupancy of the project. Specific groups will receive a notice in addition to regular notice recipients required under Planning Code Section 312, these groups include; East Mission Improvement Association, Cesar Chavez Neighbors in Action, Rolph Playground Neighborhood Association, Northwest Bernal Alliance, Coalition of San Francisco Neighbors, Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center, the District Supervisor, and the Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services. 5. One year from the date of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, a program report, including a traffic analysis, shall be given to the Planning Commission at a properly noticed public hearing. 6. Staff for the facility shall maintain the white zone in front of the project site and monitor parking activity in order to avoid congestion.11. The Project Sponsor shall obtain all Building Permits and commence construction within one year (to commence date commission action is final). This authorization may be extended by the ZA where failure to construct the project is caused by a delay by another permit approval agency, or by legal challenge. 12. The use of the ground floor of 3358 Cesar Chavez is restricted to the Day Labor Program. No other uses are permitted. The kitchen on the ground floor is restricted to use for employees. 13. The Project Sponsor shall make a good faith effort to locate a more suitable space within the year (to commence date commission action is final). The results of this effort are to be presented to the Commission after the one-year period has expired. The groups identified in Condition 4 above, and other interested parties, shall be invited to participate in the site selection process. PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford-Bell19. 2002.1236D (W. HASTIE: (4150 558-6381)1724 20TH STREET- north side between Wisconsin and Arkansas Streets, Lot 16 in Assessor’s Block 4069 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.0307.0841 and Building Permit Application No. 2002.0307.0843; the proposal is to demolish an existing one-unit, single story over garage residence and construct a new two-unit, three story over garage residence. The subject property is zoned RH-2 (House, Two- Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted. SPEAKER(S): None ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 6, 2003 PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford Bell 20. (M.CHION: (415) 558-6314) EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS - Presentation on the community planning program of the Eastern Neighborhoods of Bayview, Mission, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, South of Market, and Visitation Valley. Overview of a spectrum of land use options to be considered in the rezoning effort. There is no action to be taken by the Planning Commission at this hearing. The objective of this hearing is to explain the various options which have been developed through the community workshops in preparation for future hearings in February. SPEAKER(S): None ACTION: Without hearing, continued indefinitely. PRESENT: Antonini; Boyd; Feldstein; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee ABSENT: Bradford BellF. PUBLIC COMMENTAt this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest tothe 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)) SPEAKER(s): Judy West: re: Eastern Neighborhood presentation- Appreciated the extra time to review all the rezonings because this is a complicated issue.- Encouraged the Commission to get a place large enough to hear the different presentations from the different neighborhoods. This will also allow people to hear input from different groups and hear about their experience during the process. Barbara Caldwell: re: Eastern Neighborhood presentation- What neighborhoods are included? Where you draw the line when you decide to do a public meeting? Who do you notify? Sue Hestor: re: Public Comment - Asked the Commission to change Public Comment back to the beginning of their meeting schedule.Adjournment: 10: 28 p.m.THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, February 20, 2003SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: ApprovedAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeABSENT: Feldstein Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:04 PM