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

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

March 20, 2003

March 20, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, March 20, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Michael J. Antonini; Rev. Edgar E. Boyd,
Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:35 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; Dan Sider; Sara Vellve; David Alumbaugh, John Billovits; Michael Li; Adam Light; Dan Sirois; Kelley Amdur; Carol Roos; Glen Cabreros; Rick Crawford; Ben Fu; Tom Wang; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

      The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

          1. 2002.1310D (K. SIMONSON: (415) 558-6321)

          2625-2627 BRODERICK STREET - west side between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 955 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.23.9747, proposing to merge two dwelling units to create a single-family dwelling. The subject property is in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

          (Proposed for continuance to March 27, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued to March 27, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          2. (L. BADINER (415) 558-6350)

                BRIEFING ON POLICY ON RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS - A presentation of background information and an outline of current policy with preliminary recommendations for revised review procedures. This item will be calendared for a future hearing as an action item, for adoption of a formal policy, following a period of review and public comment.

          (Proposed for continuance to March 27, 2003) April 24, 2003

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          3. 2002.0778E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

          150 BROADWAY (AKA 190 BROADWAY) - Construction of Affordable Housing, Childcare Facility, Retail Space and Parking. Lot 011 of Assessor's Block 0141 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed new construction of 87 affordable housing units, 41 off-street parking spaces (including 3 spaces for the City CarShare Program), a 3,500 square foot childcare facility, a community room, multi-purpose room and offices associated with the residential use, 2,000 square feet of retail space, and one freight-loading space. The proposed project would consist of three separate buildings: one building would be three-stories tall, or approximately 40 feet in height; a second structure would be five-stories tall, or approximately 50 feet in height; and the third structure would be eight-stories tall, or approximately 80-feet tall. The proposed structures would contain approximately 128,000 gross square feet. The site is approximately 30,948 square feet in size and located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Battery Streets, with additional frontage on Front Street. The site currently contains a ground-level asphalt parking lot on a portion of the site and the remainder of the site is vacant. The site was also the former site of the Embarcadero Freeway off-ramp, and is owned by the City and County of San Francisco. The project site is located within a C-2 (Community Business) zoning district, the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 3, the Northeastern Historic District, and an 84-E height and bulk district. The proposed project requires Conditional Use authorization and a Certificate of Appropriateness.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2003)

          (Proposed for Continuance to April 3, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued to April 3, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          4. 2003.0037C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

                165-167 TEXAS STREET - east side between 17th and Mariposa Streets; Lots 016, 017, and 018 in Assessor's Block 3986 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow [1] the expansion of two existing dwelling units in a M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District pursuant to Planning Code Section 215(a) and [2] a revision to a previously built Planned Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304 to allow further modification of Code Sections including the rear yard requirements of Section 134 and the dwelling unit exposure requirements of Section 140. The existing structure contains approximately 1,500 square feet of industrial space in a below-grade basement level, a 1,400 square foot parking garage and 500 square foot outdoor patio on the ground level, and two dwelling units occupying a total of roughly 3,000 square feet on the second and third levels. The proposal would construct a two-story addition atop the existing patio. The project would add approximately 500 square feet on the ground level to the existing industrial space and roughly 250 square feet on the second level for each of the two dwelling units. A 500 square foot outdoor patio would be provided on the roof of the proposed addition. The property is within a M-1 Zoning District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16202.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                (Proposed for Continuance to April 3, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued to April 3, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          5. 2002.0038TZ (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          17th AND RHODE ISLAND GROCERY STORE SPECIAL USE SUB-DISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 781.10 to create the 17th and Rhode Island Grocery Store Special Use Sub-district, applicable to the newly rezoned NC-3 block (previously M-1) bounded by 17th Street, Rhode Island Street, Mariposa Street and Kansas Street (Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1), to permit a neighborhood grocery store at 17th and Rhode Island and amending the Section 712 Zoning Control Table; amending Section Map 8 and 8SU of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco for the property described as Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1; and adopting findings.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

            (Proposed for Continuance to June 19, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      6. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner William Lee:

          Re: Local 21 - Their letter indicating their participation in response to the Budget Analyst's Audit Recommendations

          - He asked the Director of Planning if he was in agreement with this?

          Re: Demolition Permits

          He had a meeting with the head of the Department of Building Inspection regarding Jake McGoldrick's ordinance on demolition. He would like to have the Director of the Department of Building Inspection come to the Commission and give his comments.

          Re: Discretionary Reviews

          If there are any discretionary reviews they should go before a community board before coming before the Commission.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Inappropriate public comment

          - The comments by the public have been pertinent to the matters at hand and have been very respectful yet there was a situation last week when comments were made that were not very proper. Personal attacks do not have a place on this Commission.

          Commissioner Feldstein:

          Re: Cover Memos

          - She wanted to thank Matt Snyder, from staff, for providing cover memos from projects that have been calendared but continued. This helps the Commission a lot.

          Re: Inclusionary Units

          - If inclusionary units rented at 60% of median income are later converted to condominiums, the sales price is set at 100% of AMI. She would like the Commission to work with the Mayor's Office of Housing to not displace people who live in rental units that are converted to ownership housing.

          Commission Secretary

          - Reminded the Commission that that their Economic Interest forms are due by April 1, 2003. Commissioners who were appointed prior to October 1, 2002 are required to submit this form. Commissioners who were appointed after October 1, 2002 do not need to submit this form for this year.

          - There is a publication in Commissioners' correspondence folders called "Planning Made Easy." This publication is made available by the Friends of Planning.

          - Information brought back by Commissioner Feldstein when she attended a training class at UC Davis will be copied and distributed to the Commission.

          - A document that Commissioner Bradford Bell submitted to me called "Building Work Force Housing, Meeting San Francisco's Challenge" will also be copied and distributed to all commissioners.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      7. Director's Announcements

          Re: Vacation

          - He is glad to be back from vacation.

          Re: Item taken off the calendar

          - He requested the amendment of the calendar because he would like to be more prepared to present this item.

          Re: Local 21 Letter and Audit

          - He has not seen the letter that Commissioner William Lee spoke about. He would like to see it before he comments on it.

          Re: Broadcast of Hearings

          - The Broadcast of the hearings will have to cease because of budget constraints.

          - Friends of Planning will give us a grant of $4,500 that will fund the next three hearings.

          The Zoning Administrator (ZA) commented on the following items:

          Re: Major Exterior Alterations Legislation - proposed by Supervisor McGoldrick

          - As the ZA he expressed some concerns about this legislation.

          - He spoke with Director Chu of the Building Department who also has some concerns.

          - They both spoke to Supervisor McGoldrick who indicated that he is willing to address the concerns.

          - The legislation might be presented to the Commission with modifications, or it might come with recommendations for modifications.

          Re: Community Boards for Discretionary Reviews

          - He has met with Donna Salazar who is the Director of Community Boards.

          - Very soon he will bring to the Commission recommendations on how to improve the Discretionary Review process.

          RE: Commissioner Feldstein's comment about inclusionary housing's unforeseen impact

          - Staff will work with the Mayor's Office of Housing on how to mitigate this potential impact.

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

          BOS - There was no Full Board Meeting.

          Land Use Committee - March 17, 2003

          Re: 2126 Sutter Street - Conditional Use

          - The Committee moved this item forward with a positive recommendation.

          Re: 1338 Filbert Street - Landmarking of Cottages

          - The Committee voted a negative recommendation on this item.

          Future Land Use Committee Meeting Items - March 24, 2003

          1) Third Street Alcohol Restricted Use District

          2) Designation of the Dogpatch Historic District

          3) 601 King Street

          BOA - None

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

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

      Re: 111 Manchester Street

      (-) Kendall Goh

      - She is here in opposition to this project.

      - Since January 13, 2003, she has been unable to come to an agreement with the project sponsor. They met with the project sponsor's architect but were unsuccessful in reaching an agreement.

      - There were a few meetings with community boards but still there was no agreement.

      (-) Dan Wolf - Lerner and Associates

      - There has been a considerable amount of time devoted to an alternate plan but there has not been any agreement.

      - He displayed diagrams of alternate plans.

      - The proposed project is out of context with the neighborhood.

      (-) Jeff Berzan

      - There was a meeting scheduled with the project sponsor. There was an alternate plan but there was no agreement.

      - There was continual contact with the architect over a period of a month, but there was no agreement.

      (-) Ginger Rhea

      - This neighborhood is very close in showing support for the Discretionary Review requestor.

      - This house is too tall and is out of context with the neighborhood.

      - She hopes the Commission will understand their position.

      (-) Christopher Pederson

      - This house is a four-story house and is very out of character with the neighborhood.

      - It is difficult to build a four-story house and be in keeping with the neighborhood.

      - He hopes the Commission will listen to the neighborhood.

      (+) Richard Petrocchi

      - A speaker mentioned that the owners lived in Marin County. That is not true. He and his wife have been living in San Francisco for many years. The parents of his wife have owned the property for many years.

      - This is not a monster home. He would like to get along with the neighbors.

      (+) Stephen Antanaros

      - He was surprised by the plans that the DR requestors submitted to him.

      - He displayed diagrams of how the proposed house would look and show that this is not a monster house.

      Re: 2690 Harrison Street

      (+) Judy West

      - She feels that conditions placed on this project should not be placed on all other projects. There should be flexibility here.

      (+) Fred Snyder

      - The City really needs housing at this time. This project has been going on for way too long.

      - There is a mix of housing units in this area.

      (-) Eric Quezada - MAC

      - There was a speaker who spoke recently at a Planning Commission hearing who is not able to come to the hearing because he passed away - David McGuire.

      - He hopes the Commission will not go backwards and start approving projects on a project-by-project basis just because "a project is better than no project."

      (-) Oscar Grande - PODER/MAC
      - These industrial areas need a higher threshold, there should be more community benefits.

      - The private market should be expected, directed and required to meet the housing goals that are coming out of the Department's Housing Element.

      - Please don't be like the old Planning Commission by approving bad projects just to have a project instead of none.

      - Affordable housing is very important.

      (-) Charlie Siamas

      - There is a lot of data in front of the Planning Commission.

      - There were about 40 people who spoke last week in favor of affordable housing.

      (-) Sue Hestor

      - She submitted information to the Commission regarding live/work units near the proposed site that included the sale price is of each of the units.

      - There are needs that the neighborhood has and the Commission should listen to them.

      (+) Elizabeth Shepard - Chapman and Shepard, Inc.

      - She displayed a worksheet regarding the Construction Loan Underwriting which states that if there is a further decrease in income, it goes below the threshold required to fund the project.

      (+) John Casner - Bond Street Capitol

      - He has reviewed the financial information from the sponsors for underwriting purposes and has determined that the project sponsor cannot afford to reduce the affordable income level or increase the number of low-income units.

      - According to his calculations and scenarios, the project sponsor would have to invest one million dollars more, which he does not have, in order to make the project more affordable.

      (-) Cristina Olague - Mission Agenda

      - She reminded the Commission that when they make a decision on this project, they should take into consideration all the people that are living in SRO hotels, and those who cannot afford to live in high-priced units.

      (-) Teresa Almaguen

      - There were about 40 families here last week that told the Commission what their needs are.

      - About 80% of the people in the Mission pay rent and have low-income jobs.

      (-) Cris Zielig - MAC

      - There has been a lot of talk about whether or not the project sponsor can afford to invest more money on this project. What is matters here is that the project sponsor owns the land and this is industrial land.

      - The Commission needs to question these numbers that are being presented.

      - She urged the Commission to think long-term planning, and think of the needs of the community.

      (+) Joe O'Donaghue

      - The housing problems deal more with supply.

      - Even though the interest rates are low right now, it does not mean they will stay that way. Interest rates are going up.

      - The project sponsor's are not builders.

      (-) Geri Almanza - PODER

      - There is a need for an increase in family housing--two to three bedrooms (a unit); affordability to be at 40% AMI; a guarantee that once apartments become condos that they be available to the people living in the building.

      - They have been working with the Planning Department for the last three years trying to put forth a planning process. They are not trying to put any burden on the developers or any burden on the demand the City has. The demand is that people, students, and workers want affordable housing.

      - The project sponsor is currently building affordable units just across the street.

      (+) Jim Reuben - Reuben and Alter

      - He asked the Commission not to open the issue of affordable housing again.

      - If the public wants to review the affordability part of this case, they are welcome to do so at the Board of Supervisors.

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

      9. 2002.0636DD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

          111 MANCHESTER STREET - east side, south of Stoneman Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 5544 - Two Discretionary Review requests, the first initiated by Department Staff, pursuant to Planning Commission residential demolition policy, of Demolition Permit Application Number 2002.04.22.4580, which would demolish an existing single family dwelling, and the second initiated by a member the public, of Building Permit Application Number 2002.04.22.4585, which would construct a new single family dwelling on the same site. The property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, the Bernal Heights Special Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

                NOTE: On February 13, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to February 27, 2003, by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved both the demolition permit and building permit.

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

          NAYES: Boyd

      10. 2000.1311ECD (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 March 13, 2003)

          BACKGROUND NOTE: On June 27, 2002, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing. The Commission entertained two motions: 1) Approve with modifications and require staff to approve design. The motion failed to carry for lack of a second; 2) Approve with modifications and 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 of the Chair, the matter was continued to July 18, 2002. Following the June 27, 2002, 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.

                On January 23, 2003, this matter was noticed for re-hearing. On that date the Commission continued the item to March 13, 2003 to allow for a briefing on the Eastern Neighborhoods, which includes the Mission District.

                NOTE: On March 13, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to March 20, 2003, instructing the project sponsor to review alternatives for unit mix and affordability components by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approve the project with the unit mix of 11, 2-bedrooms; 42, 1-bedrooms and one studio.

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

          NAYES: Feldstein

          MOTION: 16546

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

          11a. 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 Recommendations: Finding of Consistency with the General Plan

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Kelley Pepper - Cingular Wireless

          - This site is a preference one and is a collocation site.

          - The purpose of this site is to provide coverage to the Excelsior District.

          ACTION: Found Consistent with the General Plan

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          MOTION: 16547

          11b. 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 Section 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 Recommendations: Approval with conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 11a.

          ACTION: Approved with conditions as proposed

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          MOTION: 16548

      12. (D.ALUMBAUGH/J.BILLOVITS: (415) 558-6601/(415) 558-6390)

          MARKET AND OCTAVIA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT - BRIEFING AND PUBLIC COMMENT - Staff presentation and community comments on the public review draft of the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan, distributed on December 17, 2002 as part of the Department's Better Neighborhoods Program - comment gathering only; no approval actions. Information available at www.betterneighborhoods.org.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Ramona Davies - Northern California Presbyterian Homes and Services

          - She supports the vision and the plan of the Rainbow Adult Housing Community since they are interested in parcels P and O as one entity rather than two parcels.

          - However, they would like the plan modified to accommodate their vision for a center that will provide senior housing and services for the LGBT community.

          (+) Norman Rolfe - Member of the Central Freeway Advisory Committee

          - The plan is generally quite good it will be in an urban neighborhood.

          - Regarding the parking requirements: he does urge the Commission to do what is recommended -- make 1 for 1 the maximum and have no minimum. If zero parking is wanted then that should be done.

          (+) Howard Strassner - Sierra Club

          - The club strongly supports this plan.

          - This plan goes "back to the future," before people opened their stores even without parking.

          - It is not necessary to provide parking. Transit will not work if parking is constantly provided.

          (+) Robert Meyers

          - He reviewed the draft and wants to complement staff for producing such an excellent, readable document.

          - This plan has superb goals.

          - There are residents who are anxiously waiting that this plan to be approved.

          - He only has one request: slightly increase the height limits.

          - He urges the continued support of staff.

          (+) Ashley Hamlett - Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

          - This plan and process is quite fabulous.

          - There has been a lot of community involvement, which has made people become more involved in community meetings.

          (+) Ron Hartman

          - He handed out a diagram explaining how the 50-foot height limit is a bit high for certain areas.

          - He encouraged the height of 50 feet around Octavia but the remaining three faces (the uphill side of Fell, uphill side of Oak and all of Laguna) be at the 40-foot height limit.

          - He looks forward to seeing this come together sooner than later.

          (+) Mike Ellis

          - He commended staff on this plan.

          - He recommended a few changes to the plan regarding the 50-foot height restrictions on certain areas because it will be out-of-character with the other buildings on the street.

          - He asked that there not be an extension of Hickory Alley. A pedestrian green belt would make more sense.

          (+) Christopher Pederson

          - He is very enthusiastic about this plan.

          - The central location of the neighborhood and the transit options make this area a great place to live.

          - He supports the provisions of the plan to limit parking.

          - Improving transit gives people an opportunity to visit the arts.

          (+) Anthony Faber - MMPAL SOMA Leadership Council

          - He is very much in support of this plan. He really enjoyed the community plan meetings.

          (+) Robin Levitt

          - He has read the plan and is very supportive of the plan because it really and truly deals with the issues of the neighbors.

          - This plan really reflects the outcome of the community meetings.

          - The reduction of parking and density are very important aspects of the plan.

          (+/-) Jim Haas - Chairman of Civic Pride

          - The proposed plan is an excellent plan for an enhanced residential neighborhood.

          - There are institutions that people attend. They come from outside of the city and drive cars.

          - He is concerned about the people who drive cars into the area.

          - The plan needs to be amended to include these institutions.

          (+/-) Jon Twichell

          - The Civic Center area has many uses: residential, State and Federal employees, and the regional center for performing arts.

          - When a study like this is done, peak times should be taken into account.

          - There are hundreds of people who are already on public transportation, yet during peak performing arts periods people drive to the Civic Center.

          (+/-) John Keazer - Director of Electronic Media for the San Francisco Symphony

          - He asks that the parking situation be looked at closely because the performing arts patrons and institutions would be affected.

          - He is concerned about the reports related to parking and traffic.

          (+) Ron Miguel

          - He complemented staff on the manner in which this plan has been handled.

          - The community input has been incredible.

          - This is a very unusual neighborhood. One that will ask for increased density and reduced parking.

          - He realizes that the Civic Center would have an issue with parking.

          (+) Kate White - Housing Action Coalition

          - They are thrilled with this plan.

          - She has never seen such enthusiasm for a plan that the Planning Department worked on.

          - The Department is doing a great job on educating the neighborhood.

          - The plan is very specific; the zoning is very clear, etc.

          (+) Heather Thomson - Transportation for a Livable City

          - Her organization supports this plan completely.

          - This plan will increase housing density while improving traffic and transit issues.

          - She urges the Commission to support this plan as well.

          (-) Marcy Adelman - Rainbow Adult Community Housing

          - Housing in support of the LGBT elder population is very important.

          - The plan generally reflects the desires of the neighborhood.

          - Her concerns are related to Parcels O and P.

          - The plan, as now written, subdivides these parcels preventing the possibility of creating a mixed-used, community-serving hub as they envision.

          (-) Clark Seally - Rainbow Adult Community Housing

          - The plan is confusing about the division of Parcels O and P.

          - Subdividing these parcels will prevent the opportunity of creating a community-serving organization.

          (-) Judy Macks - Rainbow Adult Community Housing

          - There are plans for an expansion of their housing organization.

          - She would like the Market Street/Octavia Street plan be revised to allow flexibility for expanding organizations.

          (-) Matile Ruthschild - Rainbow Adult Community Housing

          - She is a senior who is a lesbian and would like to live in a place where she will be able to feel comfortable with other seniors who share her same ideas.

          - She asked the Commission to support senior housing in the Market Street area.

          - The plans for parcels O and P would make it difficult for the ROCK organization to expand.

          (-) Nolan Madson - Hay Valley Resident

          - Although there are a number of details to be addressed, this is an excellent plan.

          - He supports the ROCK project and recommends that parcels O and P not be combined.

          - He fears the boring loft condos developers will build in the area if lots are divided.

          (-) Jan Faulkner - Rainbow Adult Community Housing

          - She supports what the pervious speakers have said.

          - She recently moved to San Francisco after living in Berkley. She moved to San Francisco to live closer to her community, yet she would have loved to move into her community.

          (+) Patricia Walkup - Friends of Octavia Boulevard

          - There are very few green spaces where people can congregate.

          - Streets and sidewalks should be able to be used for people to congregate.

          - The parking requirement should be reduced for new developments.

          - Storefronts are needed and not just blank garages as some of the more recent developments have.

          - Transit first is very important for Van Ness and Mission Streets.

          - She asked the Commission to support these elements because without them the plan does not work.

          (+) Nancy Brundy - Institute on Aging

          - They are here in support of the ROCK group--to not divide lots P and O.

          - There are special needs for the LGBT community.

          - She hopes that the Commission will allow the flexibility to maximize the potential for this site.

          (+) Stefan Hastrup - HVNA

          - He has attended almost all of the Better Neighborhoods workshops.

          - This plan is what the neighborhood has been waiting for many years.

          - He hopes that this plan is developed in the quickest way possible.

          - Housing is more important than garages.

          - He commends the Planning Department for listening to their needs.

          (-) Ingrid Summerfield

          - This plan is excellent and she hopes that the pan goes forward.

          - She is concerned with the height limit in the Laguna/Oak/Fell area.

          - Hopefully the developer will come up with a creative way to build there.

          - She is in favor with the ROCK project and hopes that their height can be limited.

          (+) Gary Gee - Gary Gee Architects

          - He complimented staff on a great document.

          - He submitted a document with all his concerns.

          (+/-) Calvin Welch - Council for Community Housing Organizations

          - His organization pushed the Mayor to fund this kind of planning.

          - They were the ones doing affordable housing in neighborhoods before the Planning Department did this.

          - They are very happy with this and happy to move forward with it. They are delighted that many people support affordable housing, but he is stunned with the language in the plan.

          - All of the policies on affordable housing talk about home ownership in this document.

          - This document is not properly written. This is not the policy of this Commission on this policy.

          (+) George Orleas

          - He thanked the Commission for their time during these hearings. He also thanked the community for coming out and making this plan work.

          - Because there are a lot of seniors who are living on the street he supports senior affordable housing in this area.

          (-) Sean Kiegran

          - Housing is sacrificed to satisfy this 1 to 1 ration for parking.

          - He encourages a plan that allows less than 1 to 1 parking.

          ACTION: Meeting held to receive public comment. No action required by the Commission

          13. 2002.1084C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

          321-323 GRANT AVENUE - west side between Bush and Sutter Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0286 - Request for conditional use authorization to convert residential hotel rooms to nonresidential use and to establish a tourist hotel use within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. The existing building, the Baldwin Hotel, contains 61 residential hotel rooms, of which 45 are vacant. The proposed project is to convert the vacant residential hotel rooms to tourist hotel rooms. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 8, 2003

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          14. 2003.0073H (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

                1355 MARKET STREET - south side between 9th and 10th Streets, in Assessor's Block 3508, Lot 1 - Request for a Permit to Alter under Article 11 of the Planning Code to allow a Major Alteration to a Category I Downtown building consisting of the replacement of 1,000 original steel frame windows with new metal windows. The project is located in a C-3-G (Downtown, General) Zoning District and both the 120-X and the 200-S Height and Bulk Districts.

                Preliminary Recommendations: Approval

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Steve Atkinson

          - There is no opposition to this project.

          (+) Sue Hestor

          - Are there any pending permit applications and will this be converted to office because of these windows?

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16549

          15. 2002.1120C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

                678 629 PORTOLA DRIVE - north side between Sydney Way & Woodside Avenue, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 2892 (AKA Ebenezer Lutheran Church) - Request for Conditional Use authorization by Verizon to install a wireless telecommunications facility at the Ebenezer Lutheran Church pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.6(b), which includes the installation of 2 panel antennas, and associated equipment in an RH-1 (D) (Residential House One-Family Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The subject site is a preference 1 location (publically-used structures) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, 1996.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 27, 2003 because of an incorrect printed address.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

          16a. 2002.0771CDV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

          559 VALLEJO STREET - south side between Grant Avenue and Romolo Place; Lots 27, 35 and 36 in Assessor's Block 145 - Request for conditional use authorization for three community parking spaces in addition to the existing 28-space public parking lot, as part of project to demolish the existing three dwellings and construct five new dwellings above the parking levels. Five new residential parking spaces would be provided for the new dwelling units. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential: Low Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Russel Meakes - Project Architect

          - He presented the architectural aspects of the project.

          (+) Jerry Crowley - President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association

          - The project sponsor agreed to do some setbacks that satisfies their concerns.

          - This project was done with great sensitivity.

          (+) Lorenzo Pitroni

          - There are residents that park in the area on a monthly bases.

          - He welcomes people in the area to park there.

          ACTION: Approved with the following amendments: 1) require that the community parking spaces be used by people residing within 600 feet of the project site; and 2) require that the project be consistent with the agreement made between the Telegraph Hill Dwellers and the Project Sponsor..

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

          MOTION: 16550

          16b. 2002.0771CDV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

          559 VALLEJO STREET - south side between Grant Avenue and Romolo Place; Lots 27, 35 and 36 in Assessor's Block 145 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, pursuant to Demolition Applications 2003.02.28.8544 and 2003.02.28.8546, to demolish a single family residence on lot 27 and a two-family residence on lot 35. Five new dwellings are proposed for construction above the existing commercial parking lot.

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

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 16a.

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

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

          ABSENT: Boyd

16c. 2002.0771CDV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

          559 VALLEJO STREET - south side between Grant Avenue and Romolo Place; Lots 27, 35 and 36 in Assessor's Block 145 - Request for a variance regarding rear yard requirements of the Planning Code, because no rear yard would be provided. Five new dwellings are proposed for construction above the existing commercial parking lot.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 16a.

          ACTION: The Acting Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and has taken this matter under advisement.

          17. 2001.0792E (C. ROOS (415) 558-5981)

                301 MISSION STREET - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report. The project proposes demolition of three existing two- to six-story structures on the project site, totaling about 173,650 gross square feet (gsf), and the building of a 58-story, 605 foot-tall, mixed userdevelopment, totaling about 1,156,500 gsf. The net change in area for the site would be an increase of about 982,850 gsf. The proposed development would contain about 130,560 gsf of office space; a 120-suite extended-stay hotel (about 164,800 gsf); 320 residential units (about 551,000 gsf); ground-floor retail and restaurant space (about 9,400 gsf); a publicly accessible atrium (about 6,400 gsf); and lobbies (about 4,340 gsf). Building services would occupy about 33,400 gsf and mechanical space would occupy about 104,840 gsf. There would be three off-street loading docks and four off-street van spaces, and 400 spaces of underground parking and vehicular circulation on four levels (about 151,760 gsf). The site includes Lots 1 and 17 on Assessor's Block 3719. The project requires approval as new construction in a C-3 District under Planning Code Section 309; a Bulk Limits: Special Exceptions in C-3 District authorization under Section 272; a Height Limits: Special Exception for Upper Tower Extensions in S Districts authorization under Section 263.9; Conditional Use authorization for a Major (Nonaccessory) Parking Garage Not Open to the Public under Section 223(p); Conditional Use authorization for Hotel Use in a C-3-O District under Section 216(c); transfer of development rights in a C-3 District authorization under Section 128; a lot line adjustment to merge the existing lots by the Public Works Department; and approval by the Board of Supervisors to eliminate the mid-block pedestrian crosswalk across Fremont Street between Mission and Natoma Streets.

          Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5 pm, April 3, 2003.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Public Hearing to receive comments. No action required.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Norman Rolfe

          - Proposition H would extend the Transbay Terminal. This project would conflict with this expansion of the terminal.

          - There is the issue of the housing demand, which is highly questionable.

          - This is really a faulty environmental report. It is based on assumptions that are not correct.

          (-) Ian Lewis - H.E.R.E. - Local 2

          - The union will be submitting comments regarding the EIR.

          - This EIR does not adequately address the review of any project that includes a hotel dimension.

          - Whatever extensions the jobs create, the burden on social services would fall on the City. He is concerned with the jobs created by this project.

          - There are a number of concerns beyond section 303 (of the code). In particular, this project needs to be considered closely in context of the Transbay Terminal development and the Cal Train station.

          - With good coordination, there would be less problems with the projects proposed in the area.

          (-) John Carney

          - He was shocked to see this project on the agenda because it requires seven variances.

          - He believes that the environmental review should be done on a project that has no basic variances from seven different codes.

          - This project is out of scale for the neighborhood even if the code allows it.

          (-) Sue Hestor

          - Part of this project should include the removal of the pedestrian bridge.

          - This project is going to put a lot of pedestrians in the area.

          - This project will be just too tall.

          ACTION: Public hearing held. No action required.

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

      Approximately 7:10 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

      18. 2002.1064D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

          2508 19TH AVENUE - east side of the street between Ulloa and Vicente Streets, Lot 013B in Assessor's Block 2419 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.13.1301, proposing to construct a two-story over garage single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Discretionary Review request has been withdrawn.

          19. 2003.0190D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          442 - 20TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 034 in Assessor's Block 1525 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 9917935 proposing to demolish a two-story single-family residence, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-x Height and Bulk District. The project also proposes the construction of a new four-story, three-family dwelling on the site.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Demolition Permit Application.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2003)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Sue Hestor

          - A soundness report should be required as it always has been.

          (+) Rev. Arnold Townsend

          - The reason there is no soundness report is because at the time of the application it was not required.

          MOTION No. 1: Take Discretionary Review and deny demolition permit

          AYES: Feldstein and S. Lee

          NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

                    RESULT: The motion failed

          ACTION: Item continued indefinitely

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee,

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          20. 2002.1284D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          710 EDINBURGH STREET - west side between Italy and France Avenues. Assessor's Block 6342 Lot 004 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002 0828 5143, to construct a two-story, horizontal addition, to the front of the rear building (dwelling) on the property and to construct a second story, vertical addition, to the front building (garage) in an RH-1 (Residential House, 1 Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Leticia Redondo

          - She is concerned about her kitchen window because the proposed property will block her main source of daylight. This would cause her to use electric light all day.

          - Garages are intended to house cars, not people. It would just take a simple stove, microwave or hot place to make the downstairs unit into an apartment.

          (-) Mike Hutchinson

          - His concern is more about the entire structure because it will block out light to his whole house--not just his kitchen.

          - The project sponsor has been doing construction to his house without obtaining permits. After the neighbors complained, the project sponsor quickly obtained permits.

          - He does not understand why the project sponsor cannot build toward the back of his house instead of above.

          (+) Corazon Metraparel

          - She asked the Commission to approve her project because she has met all the requirements.

          - There is a light well so the window will not be blocked.

          - She spoke to the DR requestor, Ms. Rodondo, and suggested she could build a roof for her.

          - She has already had a Notice of Special Restriction issued on her property.

          (+) Sean Kriegan

          - If you begin a practice of protecting existing property line windows, the amount of housing that can be produced will be limited.

          - The Project Sponsor has already designed a cut out and he believes that should be enough for the DR requestor.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the building application with the requirement to record a Notice of Special Restriction limiting the use of the subject property to single-family residential use.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          21a. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

                891 CAROLINA STREET - east side, between 20th Street and 22nd Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.08.6090 proposing to construct a new two-story vertical and horizontal addition to the existing single-story over garage building with an attic level. The project proposes an increase from one to two dwelling units. The project is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The proposal also requires a front setback Variance for the second story, which will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Kris Gardner - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She is encouraged that the project sponsor wants to expand his building.

          - The design of the proposed structure is not compatible with the other homes on the street.

          - The propped design is a 235% increase to the original property but is considered only an alternation.

          - She is in agreement with the Planning Department to reduce the height by eliminating the top story. This would be in keeping with the block face.

          (-) John Carney

          - He agrees with the Planning Department's recommendation to reduce the top floor.

          (-) Dick Millet

          - He was happy to hear what the Planning Department had to say.

          - The scale is so much better after taking the recommendations of the Department.

          (-) Peter Rudolfi

          - Builders should not be allowed to build to the full extent of the building envelope.

          - The design of the building is not in character with the other buildings on Potrero Hill.

          - The Planning Department should be complemented on their study and recommendation of this project.

          (-) Julie Jackson

          - This project is significantly out of scale with the buildings on the block.

          - She supports the recommendation from the Planning Department to reduce the height and mass of the building.

          (-) Foster Reed

          - This is the third project to come up on the block.

          - These projects should not even come to this stage.

          - The neighborhoods will be destroyed if this is allowed as presented.

          (-) Chris Cole

          - He displayed a large model showing other ways to build the project by not impacting the DR requestor.

          (-) Ches Herbert

          - He gets a lot of sunlight into his home and his yard. The proposed project would block this sunlight.

          - The proposed alternation in the back is no less disruptive.

          - He also recommended reducing the pitched roof, therefore reducing the height even more.

          (-) Bobbi Frioli

          - She is concerned with privacy issues. Staff has done a great job to revise the project to deal with the neighbor's issues. However, she is still concerned with all the windows on the side of her house.

          (-) Lewis Goldhammer

          - The issues he has are related to the audacity of this proposal--the project sponsor has taken advantage of the rear neighbor.

          - The project sponsor is trying to push the envelope and go as far as he can.

          (-) Richard Katz

          - There have been a lot of changes in the San Francisco area.

          - His major concerns are that this project would change the character of the neighborhood, and it doesn't respect the blockface of the street.

          - This is a bad project for the neighborhood.

          - His wife suffers from SAD and it is important to receive all the sunlight as possible.

          (+) William Walters - Project Architect

          - He commended staff for a great job on this project.

          - He has had an architectural practice in Potrero Hill for about 15 years.

          - The current house has been deteriorating for a long time.

          - About five years ago the project sponsor came to him with an idea to demolish the house and rebuild it.

          - The proposed design is similar to structures on the opposite side of the street.

          (+) Pete Loskotoff

          - He was born and raised in the Potrero Hill area.

          - This project is not going to hurt anybody. The views are not blocked. The City would be benefited if this project is approved.

          (+) Bill Canihan

          - His family was born and raised in San Francisco.

          - There is a firehouse behind the subject property.

          - He feels challenged that the neighbors say that this project is out of scale with the neighborhood.

          - The upper level is important to him. He is willing to change the windows on the south side, willing to change materials, etc. He has been working for several years to try to meet the concerns of the neighbors.

                      ACTION: Following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this item to April 3, 2003. Both Discretionary Review requestor and Project Sponsor were asked to explore possible alternatives to the plans.

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

                      NAYES: Feldstein

                      ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          21b. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

                891 CAROLINA STREET - east side, between 20th Street and 22nd Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Request for a front setback Variance for the construction of a new second story in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family House) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The proposal also requires a request for Discretionary Review for the construction of a new two-story vertical and horizontal addition to the existing single-story over garage building with an attic level. The project proposes an increase from one to two dwelling units.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 21a.

          ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to April 3, 2003

ITEMS 22 AND 23 WERE CALLED AND HEARD TOGETHER

          22. 2003.0219D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

          149 PANAMA STREET - south side approximately 170 feet west of the intersection of Panama Street and Niantic Avenue; Lots 011, 012 and 013 in Assessor's Block 7178 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.09.19.6880, to demolish an existing one-story, single-family dwelling, which was constructed straddling three lots (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-story over garage, single-family dwelling on each of the three subject lots) 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 Demolition Permit Application.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Jeremy Paul - Representing the Project Sponsor

          - He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition permit application.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

          23. 2003.0221D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

                44 NIANTIC AVENUE - northwest side between Panama Street and St. Charles Avenue; Lots 005 and 006 in Assessor's Block 7178 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.09.19.6879, to demolish an existing one-story, single-family dwelling, which was constructed straddling two lots (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-story over garage, single-family dwelling on each of the two subject lots) 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 Demolition Permit Application.

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 22.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition permit application.

          AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

          ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

      At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

      The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

      (1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

      (2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

      (3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

          Terry Milne

          - He spoke about Discretionary Reviews.

          - He received a notice about a project with a rear yard extension--the calculations are incorrect.

          - The Planning staff has told him that they accept the plans/calculations the Project Sponsor gives them.

          - There have been a few cases in his neighborhood where the survey for the lot (for a proposed project) was miscalculated.

Adjournment: 9:00 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:05 PM