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

June 10, 2004

June 10, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, June 10, 2004

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:32 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon - Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland -Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Diane Lim; Kate McGee; Mary Woods; Jim Miller; Paul Lord; 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. 2003.1110T (C. NIKITAS:(415) 558-6306)

        REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS - Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Planning Code to Allow a Required Second Means of Egress Adoption of an ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding a new section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow certain stairways that are a required second means of egress under the Building Code, as permitted obstructions in the rear yard. The California Building Code no longer allows fire escapes as a second means of egress in most cases. This proposed text amendment provides an exemption to meet the requirements of the Building Code. This ordinance also includes changes to Section 311 and 312 to require neighbor notification for the addition of these stairways.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to June 24, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 24, 2004

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

        2. 2004.0365DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        850 - 45TH AVENUE - east side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 1687 -- Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.22.2792 proposing to add a second dwelling unit, add two floors and a horizontal addition to the rear of the existing single-family residence resulting in a four-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

        (Proposed for Continuance to July 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 22, 2004

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

        3. 2003.1177C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

              2301 FILLMORE STREET - northwest corner at Clay Street, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0611 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 718.48 and 790.38, to allow amplified music and to extend the hours during which entertainment is allowed in a nonconforming bar and full-service restaurant (to be occupied by Leticia's Restaurant) in the Upper Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Planning Commission Motion No. 13781, adopted on November 17, 1994, limit entertainment at this location to non-amplified music and restrict the hours during which entertainment is allowed.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

              (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to July 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 22, 2004

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

        4. 2004.0151D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        2250 JACKSON STREET - north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0589 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.07.8857S, proposing to merge five dwellings units to a single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 8, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to September 2, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 2, 2004

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

        5. 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.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

        BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: None. Building Permit Application Withdrawn

        6. 2004.0058D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

        1430 43RD AVENUE - east side between Kirkham and Judah; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1811 - Request for Discretionary Review of building permit application No. 2003.09.04.3873 seeking to construct a vertical addition and lateral addition on an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve permit with modifications.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

        BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: None. Building Permit Application Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      7. Consideration of Adoption of Draft Minutes of May 20 and May 27, 2004

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

      8. Commission Comments/Questions

        None

        9. ALTERNATING CASE TYPES - On February 19, 2004, the Commission adopted the recommendation of Acting Director, Larry Badiner to mix each calendar by alternating case types. (i.e. Discretionary Review type cases would be first one week on the calendar and Conditional Uses and other type cases would be first the next week). The Commission also instructed that this be brought back to them for review in three months.

              At this time, the Commission will review the effectiveness of the current alternating case type on the Commission calendars. They will consider maintaining it, modifying it, or abolishing it.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Commission directed that cases continue to be alternated on calendar as they currently are.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      10. Director's Announcements

        - Report on the Certificate of Appropriateness for 212 Union Street.

              - Cottage proposed for substantial alternations.

            - proposal is to raise the cottage; excavate to provide a living area; put open space on top of living areas; then construct a cottage.

            - This project had an earlier Certificate of Appropriateness, it was heard by the Landmarks Board who concurred that the existing building has an entrance on the Union Street steps. They determined that it was important to maintain those steps.

            - The project sponsor is concerned that a real stairway to a false entry does not make sense.

              - It would be useful to hear from project sponsor.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Janet Crane

        - She displayed a drawing of the courtyard showing the old building as well as the new one.

        - The owners feel that they would really like to relocate the front door to the courtyard.

        - They did have a complete permit and Certificate of Appropriateness.

        Mr. Freebairn-Smith

        - He just wants to assure the Commission that this project, even though it is very old, that nothing casual is happening here.

        - The courtyard entry is the most logical way to enter the building.

        Jeremy Paul

        - He did extensive research on this property a few years ago.

        - After putting in lots of research, the owner decided that he was not interested in the challenge of the task so he decided to sell the property.

        - He is glad that the new owner is taking really good care of the property.

        ACTION: Director Badiner has taken the matter under advisement and will report back to the Commission at a future hearing.

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

        BOS -

        Re: Transbay EIR Appeal

        - It came to the attention of staff that a number of Supervisors believed that they did not have the actual EIR. There was some discussion as to whether to continue this item or not. Ultimately it was continued.

        Re: 690 Market Street

        - This is a major renovation to the building.

        - The project sponsor wanted the Mills Act to have relieve from taxes.

        - The discussion with the Assessor has taken place over the last year with the project sponsor.

        - The Board granted a continuance of this item.

        BOA -

        Re: 572 San Jose Avenue

        - This was to modify a two unit building. The Commission denied the Discretionary Review. The item was continued again because both sides have new attorneys.

        Re: 899 North Pont

        - This was a demolition of a gas station. The demolition report indicated that they would be able to do additional soils testing. There will be a Negative Declaration following.

        SPEAKER(S): None

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

      12. (D. LIM: (415) 558-6547)

        ETHICS COMMISSION REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES STATEMENT - Commission consideration of adoption of the draft Department Incompatible Activities Statement for submission to the Ethics Commission.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

        SPEAKER(S): None

              ACTION:

              Adopt with modifications to the Statement of Incompatible Activities Planning Department/Commission document:

              1) Page 1, Section 1, second bullet point: No officer or employee shall participate in any activity or enterprise where income, profit or other gain is or may be accrued, which could adversely reflect on the honor or efficiency of the City service, or be contrary to the best interest of the City service in any respect.

              2) Page 2, Section I, fourth bullet point: Planning Department officers and employees may not work on plans, policies, applications or vases for review within 500 feet of where they reside or have a financial interest where the affected staff has no different interests than a member of the general public.

              3) Page 3, Section III, third bullet point: No officer or employee shall solicit or accept any gratuity in money or other valuable thing, either directly or indirectly, from any subordinate or employee or from any candidate or applicant for a position as employee or subordinate under him or her except where those gifts would be customary under certain occasions such as holidays, birthdays and other like events.

              4) Page 4, Section V, first bullet point: Employees of the Planning Department may not engage in outside activity that requires absence from the office during the regular work day on more than an occasional basis. Other than explicitly written permission by the Director of Planning that benefit the employee or the department.

              5) add a fourth bullet point: Any outside employment shall be subject to the explicitly written approval of the director of Planning as set forth in Civil Service Section.

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

        MOTION: 16810

      13a. 2004.0213CV (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        52-60 6TH STREET - northwestern corner at Jessie Street; Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 3703 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the intensification of a nonconforming nighttime entertainment use, pursuant to Planning Code Section 181. The existing facility ("Club Six"), located on the ground and basement levels, is a nightclub, bar, and lounge, and proposes to expand by adding 2,450 square feet at the ground floor and 2,042 square feet at the basement level, resulting in a total of 8,647 square feet for the establishment. The subject property is in an RSD (Residential / Service) Mixed-Use District with an 85-X Height and Bulk district.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Mark Rene - Representing the Project Sponsor

        - It is noted on the materials that 6th and Market had been the premier district for theater use after World War II, then there was a decline. Since 1990 the area started a late night revival.

        - 6th Street after 11:00 p.m. is one of the premier districts now for late night entertainment.

        - These types of businesses create a safer area.

        - Staff has recommended approval with conditions. However, he would recommend that the hours change from 5 p.m. to 4 a.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and nights before National Holidays.

        (+) John Peterson - Project Architect

        - He displayed a photograph of the street where the bar has been located since the 1950s.

        - He displayed a floor plan from 1947.

        - They are working with the redevelopment agency to undergo façade improvements.

        - He displayed a photograph of the interior of the bar.

        - Plans include acoustic abatement.

        - There will be a venue for video artists both locally and nationally.

        - There will be several video screens.

        (+) Tony Ineem

        - He is the owner of the hotel adjacent to the bar.

        - He does not have any complaints about the bar.

        - He has a good relationship with the owner.

        (+) Angel Cruz

        - The bar will include art and live music.

        - There are interesting challengers on 6th Street but they have managed to overcome these.

        - Many people nationally have come to the bar.

        (+) Doc Nially

        - He owns a business across the street from the bar.

        - It has not been easy to have a successful business on 6th Street.

        - He has worked with Mr. Cruz to fight crime and prostitution and make the area safe.

        - He believes that approval of the bar would have a positive impact on that street.

        (+) Roger Gordon - Executive Director of Urban Solutions from the Redevelopment Agency

        - Mr. Cruz is a member of the Board of Directors.

        - He has been working with the Redevelopment Agency on a project called Six on Sixth.

        - Our goal is to help them turn the corner from Market Street and replace the empty store fronts on 6th street.

        - Many businesses on 6th Street have been doing very well.

        - This project is a diversification of use.

        (+) John Boyan - Late night Coalition

        - They are trying to promote businesses that coexist with their neighbors.

        - Club Six was a pioneer.

        - The club has existed with this new owner for five years now without any problems.

        - Limiting the entertainment for certain days of the week would hurt the business.

        - Many entertainment venues exist with resident units above.

        (+) Gerald Sampson

        - He is a resident of 6th Street.

        - He knows the owner and there have not been any problems with the club.

        - Sixth Street has been very bad for many years, but the club has helped out a lot.

        (+) Erin Seto

        - She is a patron of Club Six.

        - She really enjoys going there.

        - She supports this project.

        (+) Liam Shy

        - He is a member of the Youth Commission representing ages 12 to 23.

        - They have not voted on this issue but have done a lot of analysis on work and entertainment around San Francisco. They have actually passed a resolution declaring San Francisco in a health crisis for the lack of venues for young people.

        - The Youth Commission is in support of expanding entertainment venues.

        (+) Minish Kaina

        - He is an artist and a producer.

        - He has held events at Club Six.

        - There have been international artists come as well.

        - Expanding the club would help San Francisco in it's artistic aspect and will place us on the map.

        (+) Jay Fonce

        - He has known Mr. Cruz since 1984.

        - He has many endeavors in the art community.

        - In the last few years, he has helped Mr. Cruz upgrade the exterior image of the club.

        - There have not been any graffiti on the murals outside of the bar.

        (+) C. Cheng

        - He has worked with Mr. Cruz on booking events.

        - A lot of people have said that they are not sure about going into this neighborhood. The ones that decide to come realize that they can keep coming back to other events.

        (+) Terrance Allen - President of the Entertainment Commission

        - With the formation of the Entertainment Commission, the Planning Commission can differ many of the responsibilities they have had related to entertainment.

        - The conditions that are before the Commission are not from the Entertainment Commission but from the Police Commission.

        - They want to standardize, across the City, the way entertainment venues relate to their neighboring businesses and residential uses.

        ACTION: Approved with Modifications to the Conditions of Approval:

              1) Item 2: This authorization permits the facility to remain open and offer amplified entertainment and dancing only between the hours of 5 p.m. and 4 a.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights (i.e. Saturday and Sunday early-mornings) and nights before nationally recognized U.S. Holidays.

              2) Delete Item 20.

              3) Wherever Police Commission is stated, add Entertainment Commission.

              4) Item 17: The establishment shall provide adequate parking for patrons free of charge or at a rate or manner that would encourage use of parking by establishment patrons. Adequate signage shall be well-lit and prominently displayed to advertise the availability and location of such parking resources for establishment patrons. The establishment should provide adequate signage which shall be well-lit and proximately displayed to advertise the availability and location of parking resources for the establishment patrons.

              4) Establishment may include the ground floor.

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

        MOTION: 16811

        13b. 2004.0213CV (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        52-60 6th STREET - northwestern corner at Jessie Street; Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 3703 - Request for Variance - Section 151 of the Planning Code requires one parking space be provided for each 200 square feet of occupied floor area, where the occupied floor area exceeds 5,000 square feet. The proposal to expand the project results in a total of 8,647 square feet for the establishment. The project expands the existing use beyond the 5,000 square foot parking threshold and would require 52 parking spaces. The project does not propose to add any parking spaces and therefore requires an off-street parking variance. The subject property is in an RSD (Residential/Service) Mixed-Use District with an 85-X Height and Bulk district.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 13a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.

        14a. 2003.1241CV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        1447-1449 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street; Lot 104, in Assessor's Block 0503 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 to waive the two-car parking requirement for the proposed conversion of office spaces to two dwelling units on the second and third floors of an existing three-story building with a full-service restaurant on the ground floor. The site is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Pat Buskovitch

        - This building has been vacant since 1998.

        - The owner of the building passed away this morning, butt his daughter would still like to go forward with the project.

        - The building cannot be rented for office.

        - Most of the buildings in the area are commercial.

        - There are a number of parking lots in the neighborhood.

        - The building is on a major transit line.

        - There is plenty of open space in the front of the building.

        - The project will add housing units to the City's housing stock.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        EXCUSED: Antonini

        MOTION: 16812

        14b. 2003.1241CV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        1447-1449 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street; Lot 104, in Assessor's Block 0503 - Request for rear yard and non-complying structure variances for the proposed conversion of office spaces to two dwelling units on the second and third floors of an existing three-story building with a full-service restaurant on the ground floor. The proposed conversion would not alter the size of the existing building. Because the existing building already encroaches into the required rear yard, it is considered a legal, non-complying structure, and the conversion of the two upper floors from commercial use to residential use triggers these variances. The site is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 14a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.

      15a. 2002.0927!EKXCV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        1340-1390 MISSION STREET - northeast corner at Tenth Street (with additional frontage on Jessie and Ninth Streets), Lots 13, 26 and 27 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Review under Planning Code Section 309 of a new building, variously eight and ten stories in height, containing approximately 231 units of affordable family housing (127 units) and senior housing (104 units) plus ground-floor space for community use, arts activities and retail use, and second-floor space for housing support services and building management, including requests for exceptions to Planning Code requirements for rear-yard area (Section 309(a)(1)) and ground-level wind currents (Section 309(a)(2)).

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Merle Malakoff - Project Sponsor

        - They are the largest producer of affordable housing in the City.

        - They are proposing 100 percent affordability for all 231 units.

        - The variances requested are very minor.

        - They are intending to provide HUD opportunity.

        - There is a strong commitment to provide support services.

        - They are working with the City's Department of Health to serve some seniors that have been homeless.

        (+) Earl Rogers

        - Chaplain of San Francisco Rescue Mission.

        - As people move up or forward on the housing ladder, starter or more affordable housing opportunities for others are provided.

        ACTION: Approved with Amendments: include CEQA findings and conditions; include standard subordination language.

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

        MOTION: 16813

      15b. 2002.0927!EKXCV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        1340-1390 MISSION STREET - northeast corner at Tenth Street (with additional frontage on Jessie and Ninth Streets), Lots 13, 26 and 27 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Request for authorization of a Conditional Use, pursuant to Planning Code Section 124(f), for additional square footage (to be devoted to affordable housing) above the 6.0 to 1 floor area ratio (approximately 6.2 to 1) established for the C-3-G zoning district subject to the limitations set forth therein in conjunction with the construction of approximately 231 units of affordable family and senior housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 15a.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        MOTION: 16814

      15c. 2002.0927!EKXCV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        1340-1390 MISSION STREET - northeast corner at Tenth Street (with additional frontage on Jessie and Ninth Streets), Lots 13, 26 and 27 in Assessor's Block 3508, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 120-X, 150-S and 200-S Height and Bulk Districts - Dwelling-unit-exposure and lot-width Variances sought in conjunction with new construction of approximately 231 units of affordable family and senior housing plus ancillary ground- and second-floor uses, for dwelling units with their exposure onto an interior courtyard with dimensions insufficient to meet the standards for dwelling-unit exposure contained in Planning Code Section 140, and to re-subdivide the subject Lot 13 to sever a portion (which is already developed with a building) with a width of less than 25 feet, the minimum width established by Planning Code Section 121(d).

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 15a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variances.

        16. 2004.0306C (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

        50 THOMAS MORE WAY - on the southwest corner of Thomas More and Brotherhood Ways; Lots 010 and 011 in Assessor's Block 7380 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3 (f) and (g) and 304 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow St. Thomas More School: (1) construction of a gymnasium and a classroom building; (2) addition of a preschool of 35 children; (3) an increase in enrollment from up to 300 students to up to 350 students; (4) seeking exceptions from rear yard requirements; (5) relocation of a portable classroom building to another location on campus; and (6) amending two previous Conditional Use authorizations related to the school in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Joe Elsbernd - Principal of St. Thomas Moore - Project Sponsor

          - There are currently kindergarten students in mobile classrooms.

          - They have done a lot of remodeling to accommodate the growth of the school.

          - They would like to have a permanent location for their kindergarten.

          - They also would like to open a pre-school.

          (+) Steve Wong - Project Sponsor

          - They are very excited about the job.

          - This project provides a much-needed gymnasium for the school.

          - They have met the parking requirements.

          ACTION: Approval

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

          MOTION: 16815

          17. 2004.0302T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          ADULT ENTERTAINMENT USES NO LESS THAN 1,000 FEET FROM SCHOOLS, CHILD CARE FACILITIES AND PLAYGROUNDS - Require that Adult Entertainment Uses are no less than 1,000 feet from schools, child care facilities and playgrounds - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 221, 790.36 and 890.36 to provide that, where permitted, adult entertainment uses must be no less than 1,000 feet from public and private schools, child care facilities and Recreation and Parks Department children's playgrounds, and making finding of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+/-) Terrence Allen - President of the Entertainment Commission

          - Why is this coming forward at this time? This legislation needs to be understood.

          - This legislation came forward as a "knee jerk" reaction to the change in programming at a club located at 220 Jones Street as opposed to a well thought out piece of legislation.

          - He does not know all of the details of what will be amended.

          - There has to be an equanimity into the law.

          - The definition of "adult entertainment" needs to be defined.

          - He has the third draft of this legislation available.

          (+) Earl Jogers - Chaplain San Francisco Rescue Mission

          - The City has almost studiously avoided regulating this industry and this needs to be done.

          (+) Bill Barnes

          - If the goal is to not have children near these adult entertainment venues, then some guidelines need to be established for both.

          ACTION: Adopt with Modifications: 1) Define what adult definition is; 2) a school (K-12, private or public) cannot locate within 1000 of an existing adult entertainment facility; 3) shall not be considered a non conforming use under Section 180 of the Planning Code and may therefore be intensified or expanded; 4) childcare facilities shall make themselves known regardless of size; 5) notification shall be given to residents of the neighborhood and 6) re-examination of fees.

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

          MOTION: 16816

        18. 2003.1254D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          170 ST. GERMAIN AVENUE - north side at Glenbrook Avenue; Lot 009 in Block 2708 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.31.0905, proposing to construct a one story horizontal and a one story vertical addition to an existing two story over basement single family dwelling in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the permit with modifications.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Walter Kapland - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

          - There is a substantial number of neighbors that would like to have a continuance since they were only able to meet with the project sponsor just a few evenings ago.

          - The Planning process works well when things are resolved outside of Planning Commission hearings.

          - Sutro Tower agreed to do a seismic retrofit, which will be finished this weekend. This project is not good for the neighborhood.

          - He asked the Commission to request another meeting with the neighbors and the project sponsor to talk about height, bulk, etc.

          Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

          - This item has been continued several times.

          - It is time to get this project resolved.

          (The above comments were taken under the ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE category. It was decided to address that question at the call of the item.)

          Re: The question of Continuance was again heard at the call of the item.

          Walter Kapland

          - He submitted a copy of a letter from Paul Negalscue who is withdrawing his support of the project.

          - All the people who had supported the project have withdrawn their support.

          - He believes that this project can and should be approved in a modified way in the future.

          - To have a hearing now would open scabs and put "salt on wounds." This project will not allow for neighbors to talk and find solutions.

          Jeremy Paul - Project Sponsor

          - During the brief discussion that was held before the hearing, there was mention that the Commission had recently received information therefore justifying a continuance.

          - There is no new information. The comments from the neighbors were filed on April 20. A lot of staff time has been spent on this. There is no time to get involved any more.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 22, 2004

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

          19. 2004.0071D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

          406 MISSISSIPPI STREET - west side, between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 001A in Assessor's Block 4065 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.11.1725 proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition to the existing one-story over garage building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Gayle Keck - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - They are in complete agreement that if the project sponsor agrees to install a skylight in their home, they would agree with the project.

          - They have not received a response regarding the request to install the skylight.

          - She purchased the house about 20 years ago.

          - The window in the bathroom is the only window on that side of the house.

          - She and her husband had to move away from San Francisco but rented the house.

          - The renters are really concerned about the light that will be lost from that window.

          - If they were forced to pay for the skylight themselves, they would have to raise the rent and this is something they do not want to do.

          (-) Paul Herman

          - He read a letter from the tenant that is currently renting the property who requested that a skylight be installed because otherwise the proposed project would block light and air to the bathroom.

          (+) Claire Pitcher - Representing Project Sponsor

          - The Discretionary Review requestor submitted a bid and the cost for the skylight would be $16,500 - this is not reasonable.

          - She requested that the Planning Commission take Discretionary Review and approve the project as presented by the project sponsor.

          ACTION: Take Discretionary Review and required the project sponsor to pay up to $3,000 for the installation of a skylight. Payment shall be upon proof of installation.

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

          NAYES: S. Lee

          20. 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.

              (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 20, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Susan Taggart

          - This Discretionary Review is just about preserving the open space.

          - Land for gardens is at a premium.

          - They want to keep development into the open space at a minimum.

          - Her aunt purchased the house recently so she is very interested in what is built.

          - There are no buildings that match the project sponsor's project.

          - Because there is a flat roof, the height of the extension would be extremely high.

          - Bring the extension back 4 feet or remove about 54 feet of living space form the proposed project. Require that all roofs be fire rated and metal railings to be kept as parapets.

          - They are not asking to change much.

          - We are proposing these very small changes.

          (-) Jean Taggart

          - She is Susan's aunt and is 85 years old.

          - The project would block sunlight to her property and eliminate her privacy.

          - Being next to her niece and nephew-in-law makes her very happy.

          (-) Lol Hansen

          - He lives on the same block where the proposed project will be located.

          - The block that they live on has very modest houses.

          - Most of the lots there have gardens, trees, shrubs.

          - The addition is inappropriate for what is on their block.

          - To him, the project was shocking.

          - There are also concerns of privacy.

          (+) Steven Step - Project Architect

          - He displayed a diagram of the proposed project.

          - The units are not very large.

          - The biggest issue is how they work with the neighborhood and how to appeal to their concerns.

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

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

    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))

None

Adjournment: 6:46 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 2004.

      SPEAKERS: None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      EXCUSED: Olague

      ABSENT: Bradford Bell

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