Source: http://sfplanning.org/index.aspx?page=1008
Timestamp: 2013-05-26 07:10:00
Document Index: 380049515

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2002', 'in Fine', 'Application No. 2002', 'Application No. 2000']

Meeting MinutesCommission Chambers - Room 400City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett PlaceThursday, January 23, 20031:30 PMRegular MeetingCOMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Michael J. Antonini; Rev. Edgar E. Boyd,Lisa Feldstein; Kevin Hughes; Sue Lee; William L. LeeCOMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NoneTHE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:41 p.m.STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green – Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Deputy City Attorney; Nora Priego – Transcription Secretary; Linda 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. 2002.0430C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)378 10TH AVENUE, A.K.A. 389 9TH AVENUE - northwest corner of 9th Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 1441 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of six antennas and related equipment on the roof of an existing three-story, 53-foot tall, industrial structure within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) 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 both a co-location site and an industrial building in an NC-3 District. (Proposed for Continuance to February 6, 2003)SPEAKER(S):Re: Request for continuance to 2/27/03.Bill Stephens – AT&T Wireless Services- They have had two community meetings that he wants the Commission to be aware of.- He agrees to the further request for continuance.ACTION: Continued to February 27, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee2. 2002.0657C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)3725 BUCHANAN STREET - west side between Beach Street and North Point Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0445A: Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of eight antennas and related equipment on the roof of an existing four-story, 45-foot tall, commercial structure within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) 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 4 as it is a commercial building in an NC-2 District. (Proposed for Continuance to February 6, 2003)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to February 27, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 3a. 2002.0735CVK (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)296 TOWNSEND STREET, a landlocked lot between 4th, Brannan, Townsend, and Lusk Streets; Lot 163 in Assessor's Block 3787: Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 818.14 and 102.7 to allow the establishment of a dwelling unit within an SSO (Secondary Service / Office) Mixed-Use Zoning District. The proposal is to convert an existing 3-level live/work unit into a dwelling unit so that (1) the existing 3rd story could be expanded to accommodate 520 additional square feet of floor area and (2) 170 square feet of floor area could be added within the existing 2nd level . The work would include raising the overall height of the building by up to 7 feet. Planning Code Sections 233 and 181 prohibit the expansion or intensification of live/work units. A Rear Yard Modification, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134(e), is also requested as part of this project. The subject property is within an SSO Mixed-Use Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions. (Proposed for Continuance to February 6, 2003)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to February 6, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 3b. 2002.0735CVK (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)296 TOWNSEND STREET, a landlocked lot between 4th, Brannan, Townsend, and Lusk Streets; Lot 163 in Assessor's Block 3787: Request for a Rear Yard Modification to allow the creation of a new dwelling unit without the required rear yard. The proposal is to convert and existing live/work unit into a dwelling unit and to perform interior and exterior alterations. Without such modification, Planning Code Sections 134(a)(1) and 134(a)(1)(C) would require that 25 percent of the total lot depth be provided at the lowest story containing a dwelling unit and at each succeeding level. As measured from 4th Street, the total depth of the subject lot is 136 feet; a 34 foot required rear yard is therefore required for the proposed dwelling unit. At all levels of the proposed dwelling, the rearmost 31 feet of the lot are occupied by a 3-story live/work unit. A rear yard is not required for live/work units. The subject property is within an SSO Mixed-Use Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions. (Proposed for Continuance to February 6, 2003)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to February 6, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 4. 2002.1001C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)2020 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 21st and 22nd Avenues; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 1412 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 717.39 of the Planning Code to demolish an existing two-story, two-family dwelling within the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal also includes construction of a four-story, 3-unit condominium building with three off-street parking spaces. The new residential building does not require Conditional Use authorization. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 21, 2002)(Proposed for Continuance to February 20, 2003)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to February 20, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 5. 2002.0812XC (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291) 61 - 69 CLEMENTINA STREET - south side of Clementina between First and Second Streets, Lots 36 & 37 in Assessor's Block 3736 ﷓﷓ Request under (1) Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions, including: an exception to the rear yard requirements as permitted in Section 134(d); and an exception to the Separation of Towers requirement as permitted in Section 132.1©; to construct a 75-foot tall, 7 story building containing nine (9) residential dwelling units and nine (9) off-street parking spaces; and (2) Planning Code Section 204.5 for Conditional Use authorization to allow non-accessory parking. The project site is within a C-3-) (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 19, 2002)(Proposed for Continuance to February 27 2003)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to February 27, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 6. 2002.0281EC (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)5825-5845 MISSION STREET, 50-68 OLIVER STREET & 846-848 BRUNSWICK STREET (AKA SAN FRANCISCO CHRISTIAN CENTER), Lots 2,3,5,14,15,27 Assessor's Block 6472 - Request for conditional use authorization to amend an existing Planned Unit Development that includes increasing the project site from 51,886 square feet to 70,839 square feet; demolishing an existing two-story office/multiuse building and constructing a new three-story, 13,390 square foot office/multiuse building; converting rear yards on lots 3 & 5 to 53 off-street parking spaces and; converting the existing single-family house on lot 5 to a meeting/multiuse space. The proposal requires conditional use findings for: lot size over 10,000 square feet pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.11 & 121.1; non-residential use size over 4,000 square feet for the proposed office/multiuse building pursuant to Sections 711.21& 121.2; large institutional use at the second and third levels for the proposed office/multiuse building pursuant to Section 711.81 & 790.50; non-accessory parking for 47 stalls in a parking facility located in an RH-1 District pursuant to Sections 151, 157, 204.5 and 209.7 and; institutional use in an RH-1 District to convert a single-family house to meeting/multiuse space. The proposal also requires an exception to the rear yard requirements of Planning Code Section 134. Lots 2 & 27 of the project site are located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and lots 3,5,14 & 15 are located in an RH-1 (Residential House, One-family) District. The entire site lies in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Proposed for Continuance to February 6, 2003)SPEAKER(S):Re: ContinuanceStephen Currier – Outer Mission Residents Association- He has tried several times to get the project sponsor to come to their community meetings but he has not been successful.- This project is in his neighborhood.- He would like to have this continued beyond February 6, 2003 because his organization will not have their next community meeting until after the proposed continuance date.ACTION: Continued to February 6, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 7. 2002.0835DDDDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)2750 GREENWICH STREET - north side between Baker and Broderick Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 0939 -- Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.24.7478 proposing a horizontal expansion to the front of the third floor and a three-story horizontal expansion to the side and rear of the existing three-story, single-family residence located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted. (Proposed for Continuance to February 6, 2003) February 13, 2003SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued to February 13, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 8. 2002.1110DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)323 26TH AVENUE - west side between California and Clement Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1407 - Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review and Requests for Discretionary Review by members of the public of Building Permit Application 2002.03.11.1078, proposing to substantially alter an existing three-story single-family house by extending the building to the front, rear, side, adding a fourth floor, and adding two additional dwelling units in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The altered building will contain three dwelling units and three off-street parking spaces.Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.NOTE: This matter was improperly posted. It will be re-noticed for a future hearing. (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued IndefinitelyAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee 9. 2002.1151T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)GENERAL ADVERTISING SIGN MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT FUND - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Sections 604.2 and 358 to require that, except for general advertising signs exempt from the requirements of Article 6 under Section 603, the owner of a general advertising sign located with in the City must register the sign and pay an annual fee to fund monitoring of compliance with and enforcement of sign regulations, to direct deposit of the fees into the Planning Code Enforcement Fund, to require the owner of the sign to submit a current sign inventory and other information and to file an affidavit under penalty of perjury stating that they do not knowingly have any illegal general advertising signs in San Francisco, to authorize reduction of the fee for owners in compliance or who initially register before the deadline, and to impose and increased fee and substantial penalties for failure to comply; and making findings including a determination of consistency with the General Plan and the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b). Preliminary Recommendation: Approval (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Continued IndefinitelyAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeB. COMMISSION MATTERS 10. 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. (Continued from the Regular Meeting of 1/16/03)Nomination for Commission President: Shelley Bradford BellAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeNomination for Vice President: Michael AntoniniAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeNAYES: Feldstein11. Commission Comments/QuestionsCommission Secretary:- She has received a request from a member of the public regarding correspondence and it's availability to the public.- Anything she receives via email, regular mail or hand delivered is available to the public.- Anything that commissioners receive individually, outside the Commission Office, the Commission Secretary has no control over. She requested that anything sent directly to commissioners be forwarded or copied to the Commission Secretary for inclusion in the public file.Commissioner Antonini:- He thought that the hearing last week went very well but wanted to clarify a couple of things:1) Some people filled out more than one speaker card. This caused delays and confusion.2) People are allowed to have an interpreter. If a person elected to use the interpreter they were given twice as much time to speak than those who did not use the interpreter.Commissioner Hughes:- He has a question on information he receives: If he receives something from the public should he send a copy or the original? (Response: Either, as long as a copy is placed in the public file.)Commissioner William Lee:- He would like to commend Kate McGee who was the planner for the day labor program that came before the Commission last week.- Regarding Commissioner Antonini's comment on the language issue. Through Mark Leno's office, he was been working on the language accessibility ordinance which includes most departments (Police, Fire, Health Departments, etc.). He did not witness any violation to language accessibility at last week's meeting, and he states that he would be the first person to enforce this ordinance.Commissioner Feldstein:- Regarding the budget, she would like to know what opportunities exist with working with other departments regarding fee work on planning/environmental services.- She would like the department to look at the Discretionary Review process regarding time and fees.- She would like to have the Director look at mandatory discretionary reviews for demolition and consider whether the Commission needs to look at all cases related to this.- She would like to see ways for staff to be given more ability to determine whether Discretionary Review projects meet the exceptional and extraordinary standard. Sometimes projects come before them that do not meet these standards.Commissioner Boyd- He would like to know what the procedure would be if he receives media type correspondence or presentation type. (Commission Secretary responded that anything physical that a Commissioner receives is subject to public record and should be forwarded via copies to her.)Commissioner Bradford Bell:- She saw the video of last week's hearing.- Her mother is doing fine and she would like to thank everyone for their concern.- She would like to commend Commissioner Hughes for always being prepared and organized and for having thoughtful questions.- She would like to have smarter and not harder meetings for this 2003 Planning Commission year.C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT12. Director's AnnouncementsRe: Continuance of 2690 Harrison StreetHe would recommend that this case be continued to March 20, because on March 13 he has scheduled the Department's 2003/2004 budget and work program before the Commission.Re: Eastern Neighborhoods Briefing - He would suggest that this briefing be scheduled on Monday, March 3, 2003 as a special hearing. We are attempting to reserve the Board of Supervisor's Chambers for that date with a starting time around 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m.- February 20, 2003 is not a suitable hearing date for this item because he would like to have this date also reserved to complete the Commission hearing and action process on the Department's budget–as well as their hearing agenda.- February 27, 2003 is a date that is already impacted with regular hearing items.Re: Antenna Guidelines- He would recommend taking some time on February 20 to address this item.- This would give us enough time to get a representative from the Health Department and have all the different carriers present.Re: Grant- The department will be a beneficiary of a grant.- A copy of this contract has been placed in Commissioner's folders.- If the Commission has no issues on this contract, he will move forward on it.Re: Day Labor Project- He passed forward the conditions that were placed on the approval of this project. He would like to be able to release this project and move it forward. If any commissioner has a question or concern, please let him know.13. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of AppealsJean Paul Samaha gave a presentation on the Board of Supervisor's item:Re: Cruise ship Terminal- The Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by San Franciscans for a Healthy Waterfront of the revised Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisco Cruise Terminal Mixed-Use Project and Brannan Street Wharf project.- The Commission voted to certify on November 21, 2002.- The Board voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning commission's certification of the SEIR.Re: Fourth and Freelon- Department staff forwarded the Commission's recommendations on this project from the hearing that was held on January 9. The Board will vote on Monday whether to take up this issue as a Committee of the Whole at its February 4 meeting. Otherwise, the item will go to committee for a hearing before being sent to the full Board of Supervisors.Re: New Committees- President Gonzales has not yet finalized committees and their members. He (Jean Paul Samaha) will keep the Commission informed- The Land Use Committee has been re-instated to hear housing and land use issues. There will be committees on Budget, Finance, Rules and City Services.Re: Old Mint- This case was forwarded to the Transportation and Commerce Committee and will be going to the full Board in February.D. REGULAR CALENDAR 14. 2001.911E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975) GOLDEN GATE PARK CONCOURSE AUTHORITY PROJECT - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: The site is between the California Academy of Sciences and the M. H. de Young Museum in Golden Gate Park, called the Music Concourse area. In 1998, voters of San Francisco approved Proposition J, Golden Gate Park Revitalization Act, to improve the landscape and pedestrian environment of the Music Concourse area. Phase I of the proposed project would include an underground parking facility of 800 to 1,000 spaces at the Music Concourse, surface improvements, and transportation improvements in the Concourse area, and throughout Golden Gate Park, as described in Proposition J. Proposition J requires removal of surface parking spaces from the Concourse area, and in locations throughout the Park, equivalent to the number of spaces provided in the new underground parking facility upon completion of the parking facility. In addition to the underground parking facility, the Transportation Implementation Plan includes the following elements: intra-park shuttle, cultural shuttle, traffic calming, parking management, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, road closures, and MUNI service improvements. Phase II of the project would entail construction of an Underground Through Street connecting Fulton Street to Middle Drive East, which would allow for through traffic to be restricted or eliminated from Tea Garden Drive and Academy Drive. The proposed underground roadway would ramp down at Eighth Avenue at Kennedy Drive and would extend beneath the east end of the Concourse and alongside the east side of the California Academy of Sciences, where it would ramp up to Middle Drive East. This underground street would not provide access into the parking garage and would be intended to reduce cross-park vehicular traffic through the Music Concourse. The project site is within the P (Public Use) zoning district and within an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District; Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1. Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on January 28, 2003. February 5, 2003.SPEAKER(S):(-) Lisa Orsaba – Inner Sunset Merchants Association- She owns property on 9th Avenue.- There was no study done on the 9th Avenue corridor.- She believes that this report is not properly done.- She will continue to oppose the EIR until the report is properly done.(-) Sandra Treacy – North Park Neighbors Association- She is a member of the North Park Neighbors Association.- She is concerned that the expansion of this project will create an impact on her neighborhood.- This garage will create an impact on the traffic in this neighborhood.- She would like to thank the Concourse Authority for providing information and answering their questions.(-) Steve Abrams – Inner Sunset Neighbors Association- He understands that the neighborhood does not oppose the garage. The issues the neighbors have are that the traffic will be impacted and that additional traffic studies need to be done because they feel that they have not been done with sufficient detail.(-) Michael Grandin – North Park Neighbors Association- Traffic is a big concern to him and his fellow neighbors.- He is concerned with the elimination of the free parking spaces.- The garage will increase the traffic and this will impact the neighborhood.- This report fails to address the issue of traffic impact.(-) Grace Lau – North Park Neighbors Association- She is concerned about pedestrian safety since the garage will increase the public access to the park.(-) Duncan Kennedy – North Park Neighbors Association- He is concerned that the neighborhood will become something he and his family did not expect when they first moved there.- He is concerned that this garage will have a negative impact on the neighborhood instead of a positive one.- He hopes that the Commission will allow this report to be more thoroughly done.(-) Folia Grace – North Park Neighbors Association- She is concerned with the visual aspects of the garage. It is very industrial. A bit of a gaping hole with a utilitarian design.- She would like the design to be more elegant.- She would like the design of the garage be a part of the EIR.(-) Tom Harriman – Alliance for Golden Gate Park- He is concerned that public transportation will be stalled because of the heavy traffic this project will cause.- Please send back the EIR and have a more thorough one done.(-) Cris Dudedstadt- He knows every detail of this park.- The general garage plan will cause many negative impacts on the park and the neighborhood.- Alternatives have been presented that address all the issues brought up, yet they were not considered.- He would like the Planning Department to consider alternatives presented by individual who do not belong to the funding bodies.(-) Jim Iwersen – Inner Sunset Merchants and Residents- This is a very complicated and radical proposal for this park.- Congestion is very much of an issue.- He asked the Commission to look at this report quite closely.(-) Elizabeth Thompson - NPNA- She does not object to the garage in this park or improvements to the park.- She is concerned that the improvement will come at a very high cost to the neighbors. - There will be an increase in traffic and vehicles–causing people to cruise around looking for free parking.- She is also concerned with crime and graffiti on the structure.- She urges the Commission to allow revisions to the design.(-) Mary Ann Miller – San Francisco Tomorrow- She opposes the way Phase I and Phase II are described in this EIR.- This EIR is inadequate and should be sent back for further work.(-) Steven Chapman- He is very disturbed with the EIR for this project.- This project will make this park into a more park friendlypark, which will cause traffic congestion problems.- It is time that San Francisco concentrate on its transit-first policy.(-) Steve Willis – Save Golden Gate Park- This EIR is not very efficient.- The EIR fails to consider the impact of the current expansion of the museum and Academy of Sciences.- There are hundreds of unanswered questions that were not placed in the minutes of the Concourse Authority meetings.(-) John Rizzo – Commissioner of the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority- He believes that the no vehicle alternative could be flushed outfrom the EIR.- The mitigation section does deal a lot with the north side of the park. Some language on the south part of the park could be added.(+) Peter Winkelstein - SPUR- He recommends that the Commission approve this EIR.(+) Jill Wynns – Board of Education- This garage was the key to bringing a compromise to renovate the park.- She believes that the garage should be built as soon as possible so that the renovation of the other parts of the park can move forward.(-) Joshua Hart – San Francisco Bicycle Coalition- They are opposed to this garage but are in support for improvements to the park and public transportation to the park as well.- This EIR is a flawed document.- There has been no consideration to the safety of pedestrians and bicycle traffic.(-) Katherine Roberts- She is opposed to the garage.- Prop J did not mandate a garage it authorized a garage.- The opening statement in this EIR is misleading and needs to be changed.(-) Sandy Linder- She has been a long-time volunteer and docent at the Academy of Sciences for over 25 years.- She has some concerns about the negative effects to the institutions in the park.- She agrees with the pedestrian commodities yet there is a need for more services for children and handicap people.- She hopes the Commission looks carefully at a through road--either underground or above ground--because it could affect the integrity of the park.(+) Roberta Borgonovo- She supports Phase I of this project and to make the concourse safe and accessible.- She does not have an objection to the underground component.- She hopes Phase II will be examined more fully.(-) Ronald Konopaski – Richmond District Neighbors- There is misinformation throughout the EIR.- He submitted a counter proposal that he would like the Commission to consider.(-) John Laskin- He opposes the renovation of the park as well as the garage.(-) Martha Kropt – California Academy of Sciences- The committee of the academy will submit a formal response to the Concourse Authority.- The academy believes that Phase I has adequately taken into consideration the renovation of the Academy.- The Academy will not support any alternative that eliminates access to the public of the concourse.(+) Megan Levitay – California Academy of Sciences- This document is adequate and complete.- Phase I appropriately balances the need for all users.(-) Keith Saggers – SF Bicycle Coalition- There are improvements that still need to be addressed in this EIR.(-) Carolyn Blair – San Francisco Tree Council- She objects to the garage and the draft EIR as it is because it does not adequately deal with the issue of traffic.(+) Tish Brown – Fine Arts Museums- She read a letter from someone who supports the EIR but could not attend the meeting because of a disability.(+) Carolyn McMillan – Fine Arts Museums- She supports the EIR and feels that the Planning Department has done an adequate job dealing with all the issues presented.- This project will allow access to the disabled public.ACTION: Public hearing held to receive public comment only. Public hearing closed. No action required. 15. 2002.0942C (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)470-476 CASTRO STREET - west side of Castro Street between 17th and 18th Streets, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 2647- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code sections 715.67 and 303 to establish a video store (Superstar Video) on the ground floor of a retail commercial building with an existing non-conforming use size of approximately 4,400 square feet within the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The current use of the subject property is a retail grocery store (Valley Pride). Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 19, 2002)NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to January 23, 2003.SPEAKER(S):(+) George Ramer – Project Sponsor- There is a need for more space for his store.- This expansion will not affect neighboring businesses.- He has over 100 letters of support for this project.(+) Ken Hobnet- He supports this project.- Many businesses have to expand to be successful and this project will not cause negative impacts on the neighborhood.(-) Jeremy Paul- He gave a PowerPoint presentation that addressed his concerns about this project.ACTION: Approved as Amended: Project shall comply with local and state laws regarding displays of harmful matter and/or of sexually explicit material as determined by the appropriate enforcement agency. AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeACTION: 16513 16a. 2001.1058CEKZ (G. CABREROS: (415) 558﷓6169)2161 SUTTER STREET - south side between Pierce and Steiner Streets; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0682 - Request to amend the Planning Code Zoning Map to reclassify Lot 005 from an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District to an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) Zoning District. The proposal to reclassify Lot 005 (5,156 square feet in area), which abuts an existing RM-3 Zoning District to the south, is to allow for up to 24 new dwelling units to be constructed as an addition to the adjacent apartment complex, known as 2000 Post Street which contains 304 dwelling units and which was originally approved in 1981 as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Reclassification and forward to Board of Supervisors. (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 19, 2002)NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to January 23, 2003.SPEAKER(S):(+) Andrew Junius – Project Sponsor- The Planning Department is doing a good job.- This project will not cause any negative impacts.- He displayed an aerial photograph of the location where the project will be built.- There is a significant advantage to letting this project sponsor go forward with this project.(+) Heather Wright- She is the community director at the 200 Post apartments.- She looks forwarding to getting these additional units built.ACTION: ApprovedAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeRESOLUTION: 16514 16b. 2001.1058CEKZ (G. CABREROS: (415) 558﷓6169)2161 SUTTER STREET - south side between Pierce and Steiner Streets; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0682 in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District–Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 304 of the Planning Code to allow the addition of up to 24 new dwelling units to the existing adjacent 304-unit Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as 2000 Post Street, which was originally approved in 1981. The proposal to construct up to 24 units is permitted with Conditional Use authorization provided that Lot 005 is reclassified to an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) Zoning District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 19, 2002)NOTE: On December 19, 2002, before losing a quorum, the Commission continued this matter to January 23, 2003.SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 16a.ACTION: Approved as amended by staff: 1) Façade should have some shingling and other stucco materials providing some variety; 2) Authorization shall be for three years; 3) New subjection shall be added to the Conditions of Approval called Parking. Parking plans are submitted as part of the building application. Project sponsor is proposing 328 individual parking spaces for the completed project (one for one parking).AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeMOTION: 16515 17. 2002.0223B (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)501 FOLSOM STREET - southwest corner of Folsom Street and 1st Street, Block 1 in Assessor's Block 3749 – Request for Planning Commission authorization under Planning Code Sections 320-325, to establish up to 32,000 gross square feet of office space in a building whose officially recognized use is light industrial /warehousing. The exterior of the building will remain as it is. The subject site is within a M-1 (Light Industrial) District, an 84-X Height and Bulk District, and a Rincon Hill Special Use District / Commercial/Industrial Subdistrict. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditionsSPEAKER(S):Steve Atkinson- Like many older buildings, this project has a very confusing permit use (history).- The owner has gone through and converted the building to legal office.- Office is appropriate here and is very compatible with the area.- The project is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building.- The project sponsor will be paying housing and transit fees.ACTION: Approved as Amended: Item 2a on Page 2 had indicated that the housing fee for large development projects would be due when the cumulative tenant improvement would reach the $25,000 threshold. This has been changed to say: The fee shall be due prior to the approval of the building permit that would authorize additional office space on this site.AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeMOTION: 16516 18. 2000.1311EC (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697) 2690 HARRISON STREET (A.K.A. 3000 - 23rd STREET) - northwest corner of 23rd Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 3639 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow [1] the construction of 54 dwelling units pursuant to Planning Code Section 215(a), [2] the creation of housing not providing at least 25 percent of the total number of units as affordable units pursuant to Section A(iv) of the Mission District Interim Controls (MDIC; as set forth in Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 500-02), [3] the conversion of a PDR (Production, Distribution, or Repair) use to a non-PDR use pursuant to Section E(v) of the MDIC, and [4] the provision of off-street parking in excess of that which is required pursuant to Section A(x) of the MDIC, in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District, the NEMIZ (Northeast Mission Industrial Zone) as defined in Planning Commission Resolution 13794, a Mixed-Use Housing Zone as defined in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to demolish an existing 21,000 square foot industrial building and construct a new structure containing 54 dwelling units on upper levels and 60 off-street parking spaces in a ground level garage. The building would be a maximum of four stories tall (approximately 40 feet in height).Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the project with modifications and conditions. (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 12, 2002)NOTE: On June 27, 2002, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing. The Commission entertained two motions: 1) Approve with modifications to require staff to approve design. The motion failed to carry for lack of a second; 2) Approve with modifications to require staff to approve design, bedroom mix and open space. The motion failed to carry by vote of +3 –3. Commissioners Baltimore, Joe and Salinas voted no. Commissioner Fay was absent. At the call the Chair, the matter was continued to July 18, 2002. Following the June 27 hearing, the Mission Interim Controls were amended such that a new Conditional Use Authorization is now required. Accordingly, the Commission will conduct a new hearing during which public comment will be re-opened. SPEAKER(S):Re: A request for continuance only.Ada Chan- She would like the Commission commit to a date for the Eastern Neighborhood so that projects in these areas can start to be scheduled.Cris Selig- She would like to have a concrete date for this project and hopes it could be scheduled about 6:00 p.m.Oscar Grande - PODER- He is in agreement with this continuance.- He feels that before the commission can make a decision on this project, the Commission needs to be briefed on the Eastern Neighborhoods.Charlie Sciammas- He agrees that this case should be continued until the Commission gets completely briefed on the Eastern Neighborhoods.Jim Reuben – Project Sponsor- He agrees to a continuance.- He agrees with the neighbors and would like a date certain for the briefing on the Eastern neighborhoods.ACTION: Without hearing on the merits of the case, continued to March 13, 2003AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. LeeE. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING Approximately 5:30 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing. 19. 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. (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2003)SPEAKER(S):(-) Dezhuo Jiang- He is against this project because it will block sunlight coming into his home especially the room where his newborn baby will be.(+) Mark Lenzell- The proposed project is for a very small home.- He has spoken with many of the neighbors who have not been against this project.(+) Ann Finegold- The neighborhood is very quaint and small.- Many of the homes are very small.- She is in support of this project because she understands the need to expand a home.(+) (name unclear)- She supports this project.ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. LeeABSENT: Boyd and Hughes 20. 2002.1066D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)700 LAWTON STREET - on the northwest corner of Lawton Street and Funston Avenue; Lot 013C in Assessor's Block 1860A - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.04.19.4511 to construct a third story vertical addition to an existing one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Building Permit Application as submitted.SPEAKER(S):(-) John Welch – Discretionary Review requestor- He did not file this DR because of view only. The reason he filed a DR is because this project will have a severe negative impact on his light and privacy.- This project will look like a sore thumbin the neighborhood.(-) Connie Hom- There is another neighbor who could not come to the hearing but is against this project.- She is against this project because it will alter the integrity of the neighborhood.- The construction of this project will affect negatively the property value of various homes.(-) Ludmila Brott- She is speaking on behalf of Virginia who could not be here because she is very ill.- Virginia would loose the view she has from her home as well as light coming into her home.- She read a letter from another neighbor who could not attend but is very much against the project because it will also block light coming into her home.(-) Ralf Brott- He lives next to the subject property.- They will loose light coming into their home if this project is approved.- This project will also increase the density of the neighborhood.(+) Paul Bruzzo – Project Sponsor- He would like to thank everyone in the Planning Department for the help they provided throughout this project.- His wife's father and mother have been living in this property for many, many years.- The proposed construction is the only way they will be able to provide space for he and his family.(+) James Lee- He has been living in the neighborhood since 1944.- This project meets all the Planning requirements.- Special attention was made to design because the home is situated on a corner.- He believes that this project should not be granted Discretionary Review.(+) Rick Schrammel- His in-laws have been living in this neighborhood for many years.- They have reviewed the plans and can say that the only impacts are positive and progressive.- He considers the Bruzzo's as neighbors.ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved the permit application as submitted.AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. LeeABSENT: Boyd and Hughes 21. 2002.1165D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)1680-1682 UNION STREET - north side between Gough and Franklin Streets, Lot 009A in Assessor's Block 0528 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.07.03.0596 proposing to raise the top two floors of the existing three-story, two-unit building to allow for the insertion of an additional story above the ground floor, to add two dwelling units and to extend the ground floor at the rear in order to expand the garage. The altered building would be four stories in height, contain four dwelling units and four independently accessible parking spaces. The subject property is within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.SPEAKER(S):(-) Polly Stephenson- She is here on behalf of her mother, Barbara Clark.- Her building is being threatened by the proposed project.- She has spoken to all the tenants of her father's building. They are concerned about the noise, the dust, etc. from the alterations made to this building.- She is also concerned about the risk and damage during and after the construction phase.- She objects to the aesthetics of the proposed project.- She hopes that the Commission will consider the ramifications of a project that offers no benefits to the neighborhood, or the residents of her building.(-) Robert Pivirotto- He is opposed to this project.- This construction project will cause mayor traffic problems.- There are tenants who have left the area because of the negative impacts from City work being done.- Many of the neighbors feel the same as he.(-) Martin Fineman- This proposal will excavate, add another floor, and jack up the building.- This project will cause a shadow to the rest of the block.(+) David Silverman – Project Sponsor- This project will seismically upgrade the proposed building as well as add units to the housing stock of the City.(+) Al Clifford- He read a letter from a neighbor who is in support of the project.ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved the project as submitted.AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. LeeNAYES: Boyd and Hughes 22. 2002.1141D (J. PURVIS (415) 558-6354)127-129 PARK STREET - north side between Mission Street and Holly Park Circle; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 5718 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.08.22.4726 proposing to extend the ground floor 9 feet to the rear with a roof deck on top accessible from the second floor of this two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.SPEAKER(S):(-) Keven Slaughter- He understands the applicant's desire to expand their home.- He and his wife have suggested alternatives to deal with their issues.- They will loose afternoon sun and light.(-) Lynn Reddick- She read a letter from a neighbor who is opposed to the project.(-) Scott Tipping- This proposed construction would affect his home by blocking sunlight and invade his privacy.(+) Milan Patrensik- He has spoken to his neighbors about the plans he had for construction to his home.- He discussed with them several times his ideas and has made changes to the original design to accommodate his neighbors issues.(+) Lewis Rolason – Project Architect- Most of the homes are two stories with an attic space which already cause shadows.- He is designing a modest addition and deck.ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as submitted.AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. LeeABSENT: Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee 23. 2002.0948D (J. PURVIS (415) 558-6354)3215 FOLSOM STREET – east side between Precita Avenue and Ripley Street; Lot 065 in Assessor's Block 5524 – Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2000.12.06.7308 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling to be replaced with a two-story-over-garage, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. LeeABSENT: Boyd, Hughes, W. Lee 24. 2002.1193D (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)1138 TAYLOR STREET - east side, between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 222 - Discretionary Review request, for a building permit (No. 2002 05 29 7688) to allow the expansion of the fourth floor as a rear horizontal extension. The existing building is a four-story, two-family dwelling, with commercial (office), over garage. The property is located in an RM-3 (Mixed-Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.SPEAKER(S): NoneACTION: Discretionary Review WithdrawnF. PUBLIC COMMENTAt 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)) NoneAdjournment: 7:21 p.m.THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2003.SPEAKERS: NoneACTION: ApprovedAYES: Antonini, Boyd, Bradford Bell, HughesABSENT: Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:05 PM