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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

April 15, 2004

April 15, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, April 15, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lisa Feldstein and Kevin Hughes

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Craig Nikitas - Acting Director and Acting Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; Rick Crawford; Ann Marie Rodgers; David Alumbaugh; Joshua Switzky; Jasper Rubin, Dario Jones; Glenn Cabreros; Dan DiBartolo; Matt Snyder; Elaine Tope; 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. 2003.1015E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)

        1905 MISSION STREET- Assessor's Block 3553, Lots 27, 28, 29, and 30 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 34,369-gross-square-foot (gsf), 24-unit, five-story, residential building, which would contain about 26,900 gsf of residential use, 2,600 gsf of retail use, and 5,000-gsf of garage with 24 parking spaces. The proposed project would also include the demolition of three existing commercial buildings. Two of these buildings with a total square footage of 4,431 gsf are located at 1911 Mission Street. The third building, consisting of 1,320 square feet is located at 1581 15th Street. The approximately 8,670-square-foot project site is located at the southeast corner of Mission and 15th Streets in the Mission District. The site is in the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and is in an 80-B height and bulk district.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

      (Proposed for Continuance to May 13, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 13, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

        2. 2004. 0164D (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

            571-573 MISSOURI STREET- east side between 20th and Sierra Streets; Lot 28 in Block 4101 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.19.5267, proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project as Proposed.

      (Proposed for Continuance to May 20, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 20, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

        3a. 2003.1061D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

            133 ST. MARY'S AVENUE - south side, west of Mission Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 6722 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.07.22.0097 proposing the demolition of a fire-damaged one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 20, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 20, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

        3b. 2004.0104D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

            133 ST. MARY'S AVENUE - south side, west of Mission Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 6722 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.22.0093 proposing the construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District

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

      (Proposed for Continuance to May 20, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 20, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

      4a. 2003.1102D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        361 ELSIE STREET - east side south of Cortland Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block

        5676 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.08.08.1577 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Demolition

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 25, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to May 20, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 20, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

      4b. 2003.1103D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        361 ELSIE STREET - east side south of Cortland Avenue; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 5676 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.08.1581, proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 25, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 20, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 20, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

        5. 2003.0724C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

            1287-89 11TH AVENUE - west side between Irving Street and Lincoln Way; Lot 19, in Assessor's Block 1739 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 730.39 of the Planning Code to demolish two residential units on the second and third floors of a building on an approximately 2,400 square-foot lot in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project would demolish the existing two-story over garage, two-family building and construct a new three-story over three-car garage building containing three dwelling units.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 19, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 27, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

        6a. 2003.0746D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

            1234 19th AVENUE - east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1732 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.06.10.8643, proposing to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition.

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004) June 3, 2004

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 3, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

        6b. 2003.0091D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

            1234 19th AVENUE - east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1732 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.06.10.8646, proposing to construct a four-story, three-family residential structure with three off-street parking spaces in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004) June 3, 2004

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 3, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

        7. 2004.0180D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        3364 WASHINGTON STREET - north side between Walnut Street and Presidio Avenue, Lot 011B in Assessor's Block 0984 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.10.9871 proposing front facade alterations and a three-story rear horizontal addition to an existing three-story, single-family residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Proposed for Continuance to June 10, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 10, 2004.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein and Hughes

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      8. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commission Secretary:

        Re: Planning Commission Meetings in May

        - She announced that all hearings in May are closed.

        - She requested that as the Commission considers cases today, and if there is a need to continue cases, please keep that in mind.

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        Re: Housing Element

        - The Housing Element will have a major impact on the City regarding parking and traffic.

        - He requested that we invite staff from the Parking and Traffic Department to discuss and answer questions that may impact the Housing Element under their jurisdiction: the number of registered trucks and cars in the City; the estimated number of people that actually drive from outside of the City into the City; the number of street parking in the City; the number of City owned parking lots and the number of available parking spaces in those parking lots.

        - He would also like to know if density is increased regarding housing on major transit routs? What would be their sense of traffic congestion?

        - There is a report in the Chronicle about inclusionary policy in the City and the Bay Area.

        - He requested that staff review this report and report back to the Commission within a month.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Article in the Chronicle regarding "Suburbs in the City"

        - This article described the areas of Ingleside Terrace and Jordan Park and how these areas where the first to build homes with a little more space in between them and were the lots are larger.

        - Homes in St. Francis Woods, Sea Cliff, etc were modeled after them.

        - The interesting thing about this is that when the Commission looks at housing alternatives, they should also consider this type of housing.

        - Many people look to move out of San Francisco because there is a demand for these large houses.

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        - A member of the public brought to her attention that there was a published notice announcing a hearing for the Housing Element on April 29. As far as she knows, the Commission does not meet on that day because it is a fifth Thursday.

        - She is wondering how something like this could have happened. What are the steps to make sure that this is corrected?

          Amit Ghosh - Department Staff responded:

          - Commissioner Lee is absolutely right. The Department put an add in the newspaper as a place holder to see if it was possible to hold a hearing.

          - They placed the add just to make sure that they could cover the contingency if the Commission decided to hold the hearing but they had a back up plan--they will have an ad published announcing that the date would be moved to May 13, 2004.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        - She is concerned that there is money being wasted here. Something [this] could have been done right the first time if there had been better communication.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - What is considered an official notice and what is the amount of time to be compliant?

          Acting Director Nikitas responded:

          - The ads need to run 20 days prior to the hearing.

          - By noon of Wednesday, approximately 30 days before the Saturday ad runs, staff needs to email to Los Angeles where the ads are set.

          - The ads typically run in the Independent. But with items like the Housing Element, where there is a high degree of public interest, staff also publishes ads in other newspapers.

ADDENDUM ITEM:

        8a. Presentation from the Office of the City Attorney on the procedures for hiring and releasing the Director of Planning.

        Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney

        - The purpose of this presentation is to continue the discussions about the legal requirements for the appointment of a Planning Director which began about a year ago.

        - The City Attorney recently published a public memorandum concerning the summary of the legal requirements which have been posted on our website.

        - The legal rules that apply to the appointment of a Planning Director and the role of the Commission and the Mayor are the same rules that apply to any other department head or Commission. The Mayor appoints the director of the department form a list of several names provided to him/her by the Commission.

        - This is a shared responsibility. Neither the Mayor nor the Commission can appoint a director on their own. Neither can act without the other and neither needs to wait for the other. The Commission can proceed with a search or a discussion about an appointment and the Mayor can do likewise.

        SPEAKERS: None

        ACTION: None. At the call of the Chair, the item was continued to May 13, 2004.

        9. (ISABEL WADE: (415) 621-3260 ext. 114)

            NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS COUNCIL PRESENTATION - Dr. Isabel Wade, Executive Director of the Neighborhood Parks Council, will discuss the need for an open space plan and the creation of open space zoning that ensures all neighborhoods receive their fair share of green spaces and recreation facilities. The discussion presents the findings of the Council's year-long study and mapping of existing open space by district and funding allocations through the Open Space Fund over 30 years.

        Ms. Isabel Wade gave the following presentation:

        - Open space is relevant for the consideration of the Commission because, in addition to the environmental and social benefits, there are important economic benefits.

        - They embarked on a study of open space last year in order to identify gaps in the open space system. They mapped the city with information from various agencies as well as private parks to develop the Green Map.

        - She displayed a map of district 6. Next to district 3, it is the most deficient district of open space in the City.

        - They also looked at what the Open Space Fund had done for the last 30 years.

        - It is important to set up an open space task force and the Commission should enforce this.

        - The Open Space Element of the General plan has not been revised since 1986. The Commission should request the money to fund the update of this Open Space Element.

        - There could also be open space zoning.

        - Public space--schools and hospitals, about 400 acres, can be used as open space.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Marilyn Amini

        - The consideration of open space opportunities is very well taken.

        - As projects are being approved, they are being reviewed as casting shadows on locations that are already designated open space.

        - In the Citywide action plan material which sets forth priorities, it states that streets, because of the proposed increase density, will function as public open space.

        - It is important to analyze what open space is available.

        ACTION: None. Informational only.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      10. Director's Announcements

        Acting Director Craig Nikitas gave the following report:

        - Acting Director Badiner is taking a very brief vacation.

        - Rick Crawford from staff is here to provide staff input.

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

        BOS -

        Land Use Committee

        Re: Planning Code Amendment for the Old Mint

        - This ordinance passed and will now go to the full Board for consideration.

        - It will allow the P Zoned Mint site to transfer development rights to the adjacent C-3 District by amending Section 128. It will also amend Section 149 to allow the landmark to receive art work contributions to help finance the rehabilitation.

        Full Board of Supervisors

        Re: 690 Market Street

        - This package of legislation passed on it's first reading.

        Re: 450 Frederick Street

        - The Board voted to remand this back to the Planning Department because there was new information on the project on a potential historic district in the area.

        Re: 2599 Lombard Street

        - An appeal was filed on a site where the Commission approved an antenna for Verizon.

        - The signatures are about to be verified. If the number of signatures are proper then this appeal will be heard at the full Board on May 11, 2004.

        BOA - None

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

        12. 2003.0860D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

        357 HOWTH STREET east side between Mount Vernon Avenue and Ridge Lane; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 7035 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.21.2744, proposing: a one-story (over storage) rear horizontal extension; stairs leading from the new addition to the rear yard; and a 4' high front yard fence, to an existing single family dwelling within an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Christian Ard - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - The permit applicant has submitted information that he intends to use the space for a musical group.

        - This room is located about 10 feet from his bedroom and he's concerned about the noise.

        - The applicant has a history of non-compliant projects.

        - He tried to avoid this Discretionary Review. He asked for help from a community board but the applicant did not want to cooperate.

        - The Planner has based her recommendation on faulty information.

        - There are also discrepancies with the project drawings.

        - He has submitted various letters to the Department regarding his concerns for safety but these letters have not been included in the case report.

        (+) Mr. Massenkoff

        - He is a professional singer. He also has a dance troop.

        - His son also might use the extra space for drama rehearsals.

        - Regarding the fence in question, he had the fence installed even before the Discretionary Review requester moved into the neighborhood.

        - He feels that the improvement that he wants to do in his house is quite simple.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project with a finding on the limited use of the storage shed.

        AYES: Antonini, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Hughes and Feldstein

        13. 2003.1316DD (F. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

            168 29th STREET - south side between Dolores Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessors Block 6617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.04.6258 pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy for review of all new residential construction for replacement of structures associated with residential demolition (the demolition was previously approved). The new construction is also subject to a request for Discretionary Review from an adjacent neighbor. The proposal is for the new construction of a four-story, four-unit building in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and modify the replacement structure.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Erik Christianson - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - None of the neighbors were contacted, especially the ones who would be mostly impacted.

        - His attorney had a written confirmation of a continuance, but the project will be heard today.

        - He is asking that the light well along with the property line windows be reconfigured to address pollution and privacy concerns.

        - The project is totally out of context with the adjacent buildings.

        - He questions the heights of the proposed building because there were many factual errors in memos previously submitted.

        - Many neighbors are supporting his compromise.

        (-) Houssein Safa

        - He lives near the project sponsor.

        - At the last hearing he felt that the new plans would come back with only a three-floor structure and less windows.

        - The current plans have a 3 ½ foot reduction, which is actually an irony since it is not much.

        - The project sponsor has not taken any of the recommendations given by the Planning Commission.

        (-) Stevan Guevara

        - He is concerned that there has not been much done to reduce the impact.

        - The small reduction of height is not enough.

        - He feels that the project sponsor has not had enough respect for the neighborhood.

        - He does appreciate the windows that have been removed and that there is actually a building proposed in that area yet it is just too massive.

        (-) Amy Van der Wyk

        - She appreciates that the property line windows on the west side have been eliminated and that the building has been sunk down.

        - Her concerns are the same regarding the fourth floor.

        - Her neighbor was going to attend this hearing but had emergency surgery.

        (-) David Bushnell

        - He is a friend of the Discretionary Review requestors.

        - He lives in Noe Valley.

        - At the last meeting, the Planning Commission made significant changes and this has not been done.

        - The project sponsor had requested a continuance but then retracted, causing a lot of confusion.

        (-) David Bob

        - He lives near the project site.

        - He was here at the last hearing.

        - He is sorry that not all of the Commissioners are here today.

        - At the previous hearing, there was a consensus from the Commission to remove the 4th floor.

        - He feels insulted that the project sponsor has not taken the Commissions requests into consideration.

        (-) Maria Cordero

        - She appreciates that many of the windows have been removed but she is still concerned with the height.

        - She hopes that the Commission will listen to their request.

        (-) Jeremy Paul

        - He met with the project sponsor and was clear that this item was going to be continued.

        - He just received a phone call about twenty-minutes ago that the item was going to go forward.

        - He is very concerned about the lack of communication from the planner.

        - He feels that the Commission should continued this case so that there is proper time to analyze this or to just take Discretionary Review and have the Commission revise this project.

        (+) Michael Levit - Project Architect

        - At the previous hearing, the concerns from the neighbors were building height, scale and privacy.

        - He submitted project revision documents on April 6 to the Commission.

        - The building height has been reduced four feet. The scale of the building has been reduced as well.

        - He displayed renderings of the project displaying the height and bulk dimensions.

        - He also displayed the property line windows, which have been removed.

        (+) Lou Blazej - Representing Project Sponsor

        - He feels that he did all that was needed to request a continuance and to notify the attorney of the Discretionary Review requestor about hearing the case today.

        - He displayed a diagram of the project and what changes had been made since the previous hearing.

        - The neighbors in the back yard are the ones who are asking to have a floor removed so that the proposed building will be lower than their homes.

        - He displayed aerial photographs of the area showing how many of the neighbors have large trees and sheds that cause shadows already.

        - He feels that this project is within the neighborhood context.

        (+) Ron Berrony - Project Sponsor

        - He has a long history with the neighborhood.

        - He collected many signatures of neighbors who are in support of the project.

        (+) Peter Reily

        - He owns a building on 29th Street.

        - He hopes that the project will get approved.

        - He agrees with the revised plans and feels that this is a very good project.

        (+) David Hagel

        - He lives in the neighborhood.

        - When a person purchases a house with a yard, they are not going to get a whole lot of privacy anyway.

        (+) Jessica Abul

        - She has lived in the neighborhood for many years.

        - This project will allow many people, like her family, to own a home.

        - She hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

        (+) Phillip Compton - Project Sponsor

        - This project has a good design for the neighborhood.

        - There are various multi unit buildings in the area.

        - He is not a large developer.

        - He is just trying to make a living and support his family.

        (+) Dennis Francis - Project Sponsor

        - They have totally redesigned the top floors to accommodate the neighbors concerns.

        - One of the Commissioners mentioned at the previous hearing that loss of light is not a substantial circumstance.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following conditions: 1) railings on the west side elevation would be solid railings; 2) bulk of the penthouse roof would be reduce by sloping half of the roof to follow the downward slope of the stairs and reduce the height on half of it; 3) building length will remain as designed by the Project Sponsor and 4) property line windows on the east side will remain by mutual agreement.

        AYES: Antonini, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Feldstein and Hughes

        14. 2004.0067DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        5734-5736 CALIFORNIA STREET - north side between 19th and 20th Avenues, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 1379 -- Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.04.0585 proposing a horizontal addition, a new partial fourth floor and the addition of a third dwelling unit to an existing three-story, two-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Diana Tam - Representing the Discretionary Review Requestor

        - The Discretionary Review requestors are concerned that the project will create a significant shadow on their property, tower over their home, and invade their privacy.

        - Their property value will also reduce because no one will want to purchase a home where there is no sunlight cast upon it and there is no privacy.

        - They are strongly opposed to the new construction.

        - She urged the Commission not to grant this approval.

        - If this project were to be approved, they ask that a 15 to 20 foot setback from the rear wall be recommended instead of the 10 feet as proposed.

        (-) Kun-she Tsuei

        - This project will have a negative impact on her home.

        - She and her husband are elderly and this project will affect their sunlight, view and air.

        - They really enjoy and need the sunlight that comes into their bedrooms and kitchen.

        - The higher the project the less she will enjoy the sunlight.

        (+) K.Y. Chiu - Project Architect/Engineer

        - This house is a very small house.

        - It does not matter what angle you look at the house, it is very small.

        - He is only requesting to extend 11 feet.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project with the following conditions:

            · At the ground floor, eliminate the bath tub and allow only a half bath.

            · Move the rear of the garage up against the interior stairs (approximately 3 feet) to provide additional maneuvering space within the garage.

            · Provide one tandem parking space within the garage to accommodate a total of three vehicles within the garage.

            · Provide landscaping within the front setback area.

            · At the rear of the building, relocate the proposed stairs up against the rear building wall.

        AYES: Antonini, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Bradford Bell, Feldstein and Hughes

        15. (RODGERS/ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6395/558-6601)

        DRAFT GLEN PARK COMMUNITY PLAN - (Generally bounded by a quarter mile radius from the Glen Park Bart Station) - Informational presentation on Commission consideration of endorsement of the Draft Glen Park Community Plan, and a summary of community comments to date. The Draft Plan would serve as framework to guide future development and as a tool for the neighborhood to enhance its unique character. In addition, the plan identifies specific public improvements and recommendations for traffic calming measures, on-street parking adjustments, streetscape enhancements, and greenway connections.

        More information is available at www.sfgov.org/planning/citywide/glenpark.html

        Preliminary Recommendation: Endorse the draft version of the November 2003 Glen Park Community Plan.

      SPEAKER(S):

      Toby Levine - San Jose Avenue to Save our Streets

      - They just saw this plan a few days ago. She actually just saw it today.

      - They are very fortunate to have such a gorgeous plan.

      - The fact that there is an implementation plan with money attached to it is great.

      - She is concerned with the area of San Jose Avenue.

        - They would like to bring forward their suggestions, but they have not been tied into the process and have not yet provided their input.

        Paul Nixon - San Jose Avenue Coalition

        - He and Toby have been involved in this area for about five years.

        - They were not part in the Glenn Park process because he did not know that the San Jose area was included.

        - They would like to add something to this proposal.

        - Having a two way bike lane would eliminate the overcross structure on San Jose Avenue.

        Supervisor Dufty

        - He commended the Planning Department staff for their hard work on this plan.

        - He also thanked the various agencies that provided input to this report.

        - He attended neighborhood meetings and invited Ms. Levine to participate in this process.

        - There are a lot of good things that this plan will give the neighborhood and it has help him as Supervisor of this district.

        Zoanne Nordstrom

        - She read a letter from the Glen Park Executive Board who supports this plan and recommendations.

        Bruce Bonacker

        - He is very excited by this process.

        - Supervisor Dufty has been very helpful to his organization.

        - He also helped Bill Warn who works at BART and was able to gather money for funding.

        Dan Tuttle

        - He lives in Glen Park.

        - He thanked staff for participating in this plan and making it happen.

        - He thanked Congressman Lantos for obtaining funding.

        - This community plan has the opportunity to heal a very hurt neighborhood.

        - If the plan is supposed to do what it plans to do, it should be implemented with utmost honesty.

        Kate Benn

        - She participated in the plan last year.

        - She urged the Commission to endorse this plan.

        - The traffic calming ideas and the multimodal ideas are very good.

        - She is in support also of the design guidelines.

        - She asked the Commission to continue their decision in order to implement the design guidelines.

        Bruce Helmberger

        - He lives in the neighborhood and has participated in the process and workshops.

        - He encouraged the Commission to implement this process across the City.

        - These types of workshops and the attention to detail create the foundation to provide healing to neighborhoods.

        - He thanked the focused attention of Dr. Amit Ghosh and Ms. Ann Marie Rodgers.

        - The neighborhood resource are extremely under utilized.

        Andrea O'Leary

        - There has been an attitude regarding this from where she lives. They feel they are being ignored. She lives on Miraloma Street.

        - She went to the community process on the very last day.

        - It is very important that someone reaches out to them. They mostly drive their cars. The MUNI line that goes through there is not very reliable. Because of the location of where they live, it is hard for people to walk up and down the hill with children.

        - There seems to be very little coordination with the Planning Department and Park and Rec regarding parks and open spaces.

        Sherry LaPorte

        - She requests that the Commission postpone the endorsement of this item. Although, she endorses it, she cannot understand how some specifics are missing from the document.

        - Where are the details of this?

        - Her question is regarding the process of the development of this document.

        Mathew Bittleston

        - He lives in Glen Park.

        - He is very happy to see this plan and thanked everyone who has worked on it.

        - His only concerns are about what the emphasis are on the traffic studies. Pedestrian safety and reduced automobile speeds need to be emphasized in these studies.

        - This is a very central public transportation area so reducing parking is good.

        - Putting bike lanes on San Jose Avenue is a good idea.

        - He seconds the concerns about how comments are being incorporated into this draft plan.

        Elise Ravel

        - A tremendous amount of work was put into this plan.

        - She lives in Glen Park.

        - A lot of thought went into it, but she does agree with the previous speakers about how some comments have not been incorporated into the draft plan.

        - She uses public transportation and encourages people to do so as well.

        - A little bit more information would be good before approving the plan.

      ACTION: Endorsed

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

      ABSENT: Feldstein and Hughes

      RESOLUTION: 16769

        16. (D. ALUMBAUGH/J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6601/558-6310)

            CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - Informational presentation on the draft Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan, a part of the Better Neighborhoods Program. The purpose is to present staff's suggested amendments to the draft plan and to clarify the plan's proposals for housing. No action is requested. Informational Presentation Only.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 18, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

        Toby Levine - Pier 70 Citizen's Advisory Group

        - They are trying to preserve the buildings at the Waterfront.

        - For the past four years, they have had great support form the Planning Department.

        - She is hoping that the next round for Pier 70 will have the same support from the Department.

        - She is concerned that they will [not] be able to get the funds to complete the EIR.

        - She will urge the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to support the Plan and ensure funding for the EIR.

        Corinne Woods - Chair Bioscience Task Force

        - She is a member of the Pier 70 CAC.

        - She is here as the Chair of the Bioscience Task Force. They are to set a framework for the bioscience industry to come to San Francisco.

        - They are looking outside of Mission Bay because it appears to some that this area is very expensive.

        - Dr. Ghosh has been attending all of their meetings and she is very thankful to him for that.

        - They would like to be considered in the next round of zoning changes.

        Diane Oshima - Port Planning and Development Staff

        - There is confluence of things in the central waterfront area.

        - There are an incredible amount of historic resources that are deteriorating. Ones that they would like to preserve and improve.

        - They are starting a master plan for the area of Pier 70.

        - They are concerned with the Illinois Street corridor and how the industrial traffic will flow.

        Joe Ross

        - He submitted a letter from the Dog Patch Neighborhood Association who is in support of this plan.

        - There are groups in the City who are working very hard to finance an EIR and put this on the ballot, before the Board of Supervisors, etc.

      ACTION: Informational Presentation Only. No action.

        17. 2003.1305C (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        2238-2250 GEARY BOULEVARD - northeast corner at Broderick Street; Lot 025 (previously lots 005 through 0012) in Assessor's Block 1079: - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility for Cingular Wireless within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and an 105-X Height and Bulk district, upon the roof of the approximately 98-foot tall Kaiser Medical Building. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 1, as it is a publicly-used structure.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Tony Kim - Cingular Wireless

      - In 2001, they identified a lack of coverage in this area.

        - They installed an antenna at the subject property facing west. This antenna has provided improved coverage in the area.

        - They have recently discovered once again a demand for coverage in the Western Addition.

        - This modification proposal will ensure immediate resolution to their coverage needs.

        - The installation will be visually unobtrusive.

        - Mr. Richard Lee from the Department of Public health has reviewed the proposal.

        - Trilingual notices were sent to the neighborhood.

        - An informational community meeting was held and no one attended the meeting.

        - The subject site is considered the most preferred location.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Feldstein and Hughes

      MOTION: 16767

    18. 2003.1208C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

        2601 MISSION STREET - southeast corner at 22nd Street, Lot 69 in Assessor's Block 3637 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.83 and 790.80 to replace nine antennas that are now on the southern and western walls at the roofline with nine antennas that would be located on the middle portions of western, southern, and eastern walls approximately 77-feet above grade. These antennas are part of an existing Wireless Telecommunications Services facility operated by AT&T Wireless. The site is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and a 50-X / 65-B Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 2 Location Site, an existing site on which a legal wireless telecommunications facility is currently located.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Dan Figueroa - AT&T Wireless

      - AT&T has been on top of this roof for quite some time.

      - This proposal will improve the footprint of coverage for the area.

      - This is more of a maintenance item for the company.

      - The RF Shielding material will be matched to the building.

        ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Item Continued to June 3, 2004 in order for Project Sponsor to provide better coverage maps.

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

        ABSENT: Feldstein and Hughes

        19. 2004.0140C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

            496 14th STREET - The Hush Hush Lounge, east side between Guerrero Street and Valencia Street, Block 26 in Assessor's Block 3533. Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 710.48 to allow "other entertainment" (as defined by Planning Code Section 790.38), which includes live amplified music entertainment and DJs, in an existing bar. No change to the exterior of the building is proposed. The subject property is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Kimberly Jordan - Owner of the Hush Hush Lounge

        - She has done extensive sound proofing that has passed abatement tests.

        - She has been able to hear and adjust to the concerns of her neighbors.

        - She hopes that she will be allowed to have the entertainment hours until 1:30 a.m. from Tuesday thru Saturday.

        (+) Philip Lesser - Mission Merchant's Association

        - This project is located in an entertainment zone.

        - He supports this project.

        - The project sponsor has done well with working with her neighbors and helping her business thrive.

      (+) Isaac (last name unclear)

      - Since the Hush Hush Lounge has been there he has not had any problems.

      - This bar has cleaned up the area and there has not been any problems.

      - The bar has also provided a venue for artists to come and meet there.

        ACTION: Approved with the following additional condition as stated by staff: Department staff cannot approve the use either through a building permit or from a referral from another department until all noise regulations have been met and proven through the Police Department Noise Abatement Team.

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

      ABSENT: Feldstein and Hughes

      MOTION: 16768

E. 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))

      Marilyn Amini

      Re: Notices

      - She had hoped to be able to speak before the Commission earlier.

      - She rose to speak earlier and wasn't allowed to speak at that time.

      - She is the person who saw the notice in the newspaper about a meeting on April 29, 2004.

      - She went to a neighborhood organization and no one there had seen the notice.

      - This raises issues about notices in general. The notice was not located in the regular Planning Commission notices.

      - Notice has not been adequate on anything related to the Housing Element.

      Adjournment: 7:46 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 13, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:14 PM