April 10, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, April 10, 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 1:30 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney; Carol Roos; Adam Light; Jonas Ionin; Matt Snyder; Kay Simonson; Geoffrey Nelson; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

1. 2003.0162C (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

1624 CALIFORNIA STREET - north side between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0643 -- Request for conditional use authorization for the addition of "Other Entertainment," including DJs and live bands, to the existing bar d.b.a. "Bohemia." The entertainment use would only be permitted on the ground floor of the two-story building. The subject property is located in the Polk Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2003

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

2. 2003.0028XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

150 POWELL STREET - southeast corner of Powell Street and O'Farrell Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 0327 - The applicant has requested approvals for two alternate, mutually exclusive uses, both of which would demolish three unrated buildings located on the project site, construct a new building connected to the east side of the existing 150 Powell Street building, and renovate that existing building, rated as Category IV under the Planning Code. The new construction and renovated 150 Powell Street building would have four stories, approximately 65 feet tall, and would include retail space, and a 3,600 gross square foot landscaped courtyard and lobby on the first floor. Both alternatives require a determination of compliance with the Planning Code pursuant to Section 309, with an exception to loading requirements. No parking would be provided as part of the Project. Alternative (1) would provide ground floor and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for 45 units of time share condominiums, categorized as a "hotel" use under the Planning Code and requiring a Conditional Use authorization. The basement would be used as accessory spa and gymnasium space for fractional ownership residents. This alternative has no parking requirements. Alternative (2) would provide ground floor, basement, and mezzanine retail, with the upper three stories used for 45 dwelling units, all uses permitted as of right. This alternative requires an additional exception under Section 309 (rear yard), and also must obtain variances from residential parking (eleven spaces), dwelling unit exposure, and open space requirements, at a concurrent hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The subject site is within a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2003

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

3. 2002.1065DD (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

1469 18TH STREET - corner of 18th and Connecticut, Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 4036. Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.05.5714 proposing to change the use to include "Other Entertainment" with a Police "Place of Entertainment" permit, doing business as the "Lingba Lounge," located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2003

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

4. 2002.0277C (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

150 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets, in Assessor's Block 344, Lot 4. Request for a Conditional Use authorization to construct a building exceeding 40 feet in height in an R (Residential) District, to determine an appropriate setback at the top portion of the front of the façade of the proposed building, and to allow an Institutional Use in an RC (Residential Commercial Combined) District. The subject property is zoned RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, Combined, High Density) District, is in the North of Market Special Use District, and is in an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to demolish an existing four-story, approximately 88-foot high vacant building originally used as a lodge building for the Knights of Columbus, and most recently as office space. The existing building would be replaced with a new five-story, approximately 78'-0" high building that would house administrative and some on-site service functions of the St. Anthony Foundation which provides a variety of services to homeless and other disadvantaged individuals. The proposed facility at 150 Golden Gate would function as part of a larger campus of St. Anthony's and would specifically provide space for administrative offices, counseling, health and job training services, and, temporarily, some dining services, until a new dining and residential structure could be constructed across the street.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 1, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 1, 2003

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

5. 2003.0042T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 311 and 312 to require expanded public notice for major exterior alteration projects; requiring the Building and Planning Departments to issue implementing regulation within 90 days and report to the Board on the effectiveness of the ordinance no later than nine months thereafter; and adopting findings.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2003

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

6. 2002.1305C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

1096 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - northwest corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 22^nd Street, Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 3615: Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a Full Service Restaurant/Bar and a "Place of Entertainment" that would be open until 2:00 am within a building that was previously used as a mortuary. Conditional Use Authorization is required for (1) hours of operation between 11:00 pm and 2:00 am pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.27 and 790.48; (2) the establishment of other entertainment including dance hall uses pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.48 and 790.38; and (3) the establishment of a full service restaurant and bar on the second floor of a building designed for a single tenant pursuant to Planning Code Section 186.1(b). No exterior alteration is proposed. The project is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Mission Alcoholic Restricted Special Use District, and the area subject to the Mission District Interim Controls (Board of Supervisor's Resolution 500-02).

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

7. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes March 6, 2003.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved as Corrected: Item 9 on page 6, the speaker by the name of Rebecca Silberberg was against the project and it states that she was in support.

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

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

8. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Feldstein:

- The case for 150 Broadway was continued to May 8, 2003 and she understands that the project sponsor will want another continuance to May 15, 2003. She will not be present for that hearing. She would like to have the case moved to another hearing date.

- She would like to have return addresses on correspondence she receives from the public regarding cases coming before the Commission. She discards any correspondence that does not have a return address.

Commissioner William Lee:

Re: PageNet

- Apparently PageNet has not met their permit requirements by submitting their program implementation report to the Health Department. What is the procedure to revoke their permit?

- Is their a way to find out which carrier has not submitted their reports? And if they have not, what the procedure is to revoke their permits?

Director responded:

- First he needs to find out if PageNet is in compliance with the conditions of whatever authorization they received. If it is a requirement that they provide a compliance report within two years and they have not done so, that could be found as a violation of the conditions of approval. What would have to happen is that a public hearing would have to be held by the Commission in order to consider whether the applicant is in compliance with the conditions of approval before any revocation is issued. The Department is not able to take any administrative action. Any time a decision is made by the Commission, it has to be undone by the Commission.

- When the Commission has issued an inquiry, then staff must schedule a hearing to consider revocation. The Commission can only revoke if they find that the applicant is not in compliance.

Commissioner Antonini:

- He has been contacted by a number of people regarding the legislation from Supervisor Peskin regarding secondary units specifically in transit corridors in the City--which is quite extensive.

- A number of people feel that they have not been noticed adequately.

- He asked staff to make sure that the public gets notified.

Commissioner Bradford Bell:

- She would like to know if there is a regular procedure for staff to report to the Commission on violations of their authorization?

Director responded:

- The answer is No. Staff will listen to the complaint, advertise a hearing for the intent to revoke. If the Commission finds out about a complaint, any member of the Commission could call the Department and initiate an investigation. It does not have to be done under Commissioner's Questions and Matters.

- Staff does not go out on a regular basis to check for compliance.

- The implementation report is done by the applicant after authorization from the Commission and then submitted to the Health Department for their consideration and their input - specifically to Richard Lee. Then the department would find out if the applicant meets the minimum requirements.

- Staff could assemble the information received from the Health Department on who has submitted their implementation reports and who has met the minimum requirements and then submit this information on a regular basis to the Commission. The Commission could take a look at it and then decide if it should be discussed during a public hearing.

- Staff will work with the Health Department to find out if this is possible and come back with an opinion.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements

None

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

BOS -

Re: 40-50 Lansing Street

- The Director of Planning attended the full Board of Supervisors meeting held April 8, 2003. The Board listened to the appeal of the Negative Declaration for 40-50 Lansing Street. The Board after considering this matter for three hours, decided that they had a concern about the transportation area. This was an issue for several of the Supervisors.

The Department used data from 1990 census material. The Supervisors found that the Department should have been used the 2000 census data.

- Staff used the 1990 census data because the 2000 census data was not available. Using the 2000 census resulted in different numbers. Staff has determined that the difference in the numbers they used compared to the numbers the Board asked staff to use would not arrive at a different conclusion.

- Staff will change the information as it relates to the use of the 1990 census material.

- A public parking lot that was referenced as part of the project setting was no longer available because it was being used for construction material. At the time that the initial study was done, the lot was available but not when the item came before the full Board.

- The final information was as it relates to loading and the impact on accessing First Avenue from the project site. Staff was asked to go back with the project sponsor's traffic engineer and develop more specific numbers regarding traffic volume. Staff will be able to do this but it will not change the conclusions. The Board gave staff two weeks to develop this information and bring it back before them.

- Once the Board has all this information, the Director of Planning believes that they will uphold the Commission's actions. This will allow the Commission to consider the Conditional Use.

Re: Finance Committee

- The Director of Planning attended the Land Use Committee on April 9, 2003.

- There was legislation offered by Supervisor Peskin related to fee collections (this has not come before the Commission).

- The Development Impact Fees that are required of projects are collected by the Planning Department. The Department is in charge of setting the fee or calculating the fee. However, in other situations the fee is set by the Mayor's Office of Housing.

- The Transportation Impact Development Fee is not calculated by the Planning Department. It is calculated by the Building Department and MUNI. There are some very inconsistent and/or inefficient means by which all these fees are collected. There was some controversy about whether these fees were collected or not.

- This legislation was drafted to achieve the goal of standardization and that the Treasurer's Office will be in charge of collecting the fees. The Department will still be responsible for the process but not be allowed to approve and the Building Department will not be allowed to issue.

- So basically, the responsibility is being transferred to the Treasurer.

- This will allow staff from the Planning Department to concentrate on the Planning efforts.

- It is appropriate to try to standardize this as well.

- The budget analyst report to the Finance Committee included eliminating a position that was responsible for tracking this. There was an audit back in 2002, and it recommended that the Department provide a position at the Senior Administrative Analyst level that would be responsible for collecting these fees. The Director of Planning recommended to the Finance Committee that this position is important because there is still a need to interface with the Treasurer's office and that it not be the responsibility of a planner to do all these calculations.

- The Treasurer and the controller agreed and recommend to the Board that this legislation be drafted but that the position be left in tact. The Budget Analyst recommended that this position be kept until attrition.

- This will go before the Full Board in the near future.

BOA -

Re: 725 Carolina Street - Discretionary Review

- This project was heard by the previous Commission in June 2001.

- The project sponsor was sent away to work with the two Discretionary Review (DR) requestors. The DR applicants were concerned about intrusion into the rear yard at the second and third level. The building got a little taller to make up for the space that was lost in the rear yard. The DR applicants went away relatively happy.

- The building permit was appealed by residents who were not involved during the original Discretionary Review but were concerned about the increased height.

- Then the original Discretionary Review requestors got involved and felt that they were not aware of a roof deck at the fourth level.

- The Board upheld the Commission's decision.

11. PLANNING CODE FEE AMENDMENT ARTICLE 3.5, ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 31.21. Consideration of Resolution of Intent to initiate an amendment to Article 3.5 of the Planning Code and Section 31.21 of the Administrative Code. The purpose of this hearing is to set a future hearing date to initiate an adjustment and increase in various application fees consistent with the Department's 2003/2004 Fiscal Year Work Program.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Initiation approved. Item will be calendared for hearing on May 8, 2003.

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

RESOLUTION: 16565

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.

None

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

12. 2002.1120C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

678 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 (publicly-used structures) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, 1996.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 27, 2003)

NOTE: On March 27, 2003, after public testimony the Commission closed public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) Approval -- the motion failed to carry by a vote of +3 -3. Commissioners Feldstein, S. Lee and Bradford-Bell voted no. Commissioner Boyd was absent. 2) Continuance to April 10, 2003 -- passed by a vote +6 -0. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without further hearing, item continued to April 24, 2003 in order to provide Commission with a map that includes street names and coverage.

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

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

13. 2001.0862E (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)

50 OAK STREET, SAN FRANCISCO CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) - The proposed project is the seismic upgrade and major alteration of the existing four- to five- story Category II, Significant Building at 50 Oak Street, and demolition of the adjacent three- to four- story building and new construction of a six-story structure at 70 Oak Street, for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. The two structures would be combined into one, structurally integrated facility. The two existing buildings total about 91,000 gsf. The Conservatory of Music would contain about 125,000 gsf, including about 19,200 gsf of performance space; 17,000 gsf of performing support space; 26,500 gsf of educational studios and spaces; 7,500 gsf of administrative office pace; 7,000 gsf of library space; 21,600 gsf of corridor and circulation space; and 26,200 gsf of service and storage space. Of the total area, about 98,500 gsf are applicable to the FAR under the Planning Code. No parking spaces or loading spaces are proposed. The site occupies the north side of Oak Street, between the 25 Van Ness Avenue building and a parking lot at Hickory and Franklin Street, encompassing most of the half block bounded by Oak, Hickory, and Franklin Streets and Van Ness Avenue. The site includes Lots 5 and 7, in Assessor's Block 834. While the project would function as one building, it would appear as two buildings from Oak Street. The project requires a lot line adjustment to merge the existing lots; a Permit to Alter for 50 Oak Street, a Category II, Significant Building, under Planning Code, Article 11; review of substantial alterations to existing buildings in the C-3 Districts under Section 309, including a request for exceptions to bulk limits (for maximum building length and maximum diagonal dimension), and a revocable encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works, to occupy sub sidewalk vaults.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the EIR. Please note that the public review period for the Draft EIR ended at 5 pm, January 23, 2003.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Environmental Impact Report Certified

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

MOTION: 16566

14a. 2001.0862EKIHX (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

50-70 OAK STREET - north side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. Assessor's Block 834, Lots 5 and 7 - Request for a Permit to Alter under Article 11 for a major alteration and addition to a Category II downtown building to provide a new facility for the relocated San Francisco Conservatory of Music. The subject property is zoned C-3-G (Downtown, General) District and is in an 80-E Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is the seismic upgrade and major alteration of the existing four- to five- story Category II, Significant Building at 50 Oak Street, and demolition of the adjacent three- to four- story building and new construction of a six-story structure at 70 Oak Street, for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. The two structures would be combined into one, structurally integrated facility. The two existing buildings total about 91,000 gsf. The Conservatory of Music would contain about 125,000 gsf, including about 19,200 gsf of performance space; 17,000 gsf of performing support space; 26,500 gsf of educational studios and spaces; 7,500 gsf of administrative office pace; 7,000 gsf of library space; 21,600 gsf of corridor and circulation space; and 26,200 gsf of service and storage space. Of the total area, about 98,500 gsf are applicable to the FAR under the Planning Code. No parking spaces or loading spaces are proposed. The site occupies the north side of Oak Street, between the 25 Van Ness Avenue building and a parking lot at Hickory and Franklin Street, encompassing most of the half block bounded by Oak, Hickory, and Franklin Streets and Van Ness Avenue. The site includes Lots 5 and 7, in Assessor's Block 834. While the project would function as one building, it would appear as two buildings from Oak Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Bruce Hart - Project Sponsor - Trustee of the SF Conservatory of Music

- The conservatory has advanced from a piano school to one of the best music institutions.

- In order to attract top faculty and students, the conservatory must have a top location.

- The location of the new conservatory is key since it is at the heart of the San Francisco fine arts center.

- This project received unanimous approval from the Landmarks Advisory Board.

(+) Cathy Simon -

- This is one of the greatest projects going on in the City presently.

- There are about 500 students who attend the conservatory.

- This location will provide the students with more space for the programs.

- The present conservatory outgrew their space many years ago.

- The conservatory looked everywhere until the proposed location was found.

- This location also provides excellent public transportation choices for staff, students and patrons.

- Gave a description of the interior and exterior of the proposed buildings.

(+) Jim Haas - Chairmen of the Civic Center Improvement Club

- San Francisco is the only city left that values the combination of a center for the art as well as schools for the arts.

- The design of the building is extraordinarily wonderful.

- This is a unique facility and he urges the Commission to approve this project.

ACTION No.1: Adopted CEQA Findings.

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

MOTION: 16567

ACTION No. 2: Approved Permit to Alter.

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

MOTION: 16568

14b. 2001.0862EKIHX (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

50-70 OAK STREET - north side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street. Assessor's Block 834, Lots 5 and 7 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code, with Exceptions, for a substantial alteration and addition to a Category II downtown building. An exception to the bulk requirements of Section 270 is requested pursuant to Sections 272 and 309(a)(9). The subject property is zoned C-3-G (Downtown, General) District and is in an 80-E Height and Bulk District.

The proposed project is the seismic upgrade and major alteration of the existing four- to five- story Category II, Significant Building at 50 Oak Street, and demolition of the adjacent three- to four- story building and new construction of a six-story structure at 70 Oak Street, for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. The two structures would be combined into one, structurally integrated facility. The two existing buildings total about 91,000 gsf. The Conservatory of Music would contain about 125,000 gsf, including about 19,200 gsf of performance space; 17,000 gsf of performing support space; 26,500 gsf of educational studios and spaces; 7,500 gsf of administrative office pace; 7,000 gsf of library space; 21,600 gsf of corridor and circulation space; and 26,200 gsf of service and storage space. Of the total area, about 98,500 gsf are applicable to the FAR under the Planning Code. No parking spaces or loading spaces are proposed. The site occupies the north side of Oak Street, between the 25 Van Ness Avenue building and a parking lot at Hickory and Franklin Street, encompassing most of the half block bounded by Oak, Hickory, and Franklin Streets and Van Ness Avenue. The site includes Lots 5 and 7, in Assessor's Block 834. While the project would function as one building, it would appear as two buildings from Oak Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

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

ACTION: Approved Determination of Compliance Under Section 309 as amended: language should be included that requires, where possible, the salvage and re-use of materials in existing building.

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

MOTION: 16569

15a. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) - a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the construction of a building within a Residential District that would be taller than 40-feet pursuant to Planning Code Section 253(a); and (2) for the construction of a building that would have full lot coverage within the Rincon Hill Special Use District pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B). The building would be 84-feet tall and contain up to 82 dwelling units. The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 27, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 24, 2003

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

15b. 2002.0446CEKV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

40-50 LANSING STREET (A.K.A. 35 GUY PLACE) - a through lot that faces Lansing Street on its south side and Guy Place on its north side, within the block surrounded by First Street, Harrison Street, Essex Street, and Folsom Street, Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3749 - A request for variances from (1) the exposure standard required under Planning Code Section 140; (2) the loading space standard required under Planning Code Section 152; (3) the setback standard for building mass above 50-feet as required under Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(3); (4) the frontage standard that requires at least 50-percent of all frontages be comprised of building entrances and display windows as mandated by Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(1)(C); and (5) the requirement that restricts parking on the first and second levels being any closer than 25-feet horizontal distance from any street grade as mandated from Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C) . The subject property is within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Mixed, High Density) District, an 84-R Height and Bulk District, and the Rincon Hill Special Use District / Residential Subdistrict.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 27, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 24, 2003

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

16. 2002.0333C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

270-284 VALENCIA STREET (a.k.a. 17 BROSNAN STREET) - west side of Valencia Street between 14^th Street and Brosnan Street and south side of Brosnan Street between Guerrero Street and Valencia Street, Lot 9 in Assessor's Block 3533 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to demolish the existing single story building containing an auto repair shop and a photography studio and to construct a new building that would be 50-feet in height and would contain 28 dwelling units, 28 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 3,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space that would face Valencia Street. The project requires Conditional Use authorization for: (1) the construction of dwelling units within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District pursuant to Planning Code Section 215, (2) the demolition of a building containing an existing PDR (Production Distribution and Repair) business pursuant to Board of Supervisor's Resolution 02-500 (the Mission District Interim Controls), and (3) for the construction of a residential project that would contain fewer than 25-percent Below Market Rate units within a C-M District pursuant to Board of Supervisor's Resolution 02-500. The project site is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, a Mixed-use Housing Zone as designated in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and the NEMIZ (Northeast Mission Industrial Zone) as designated in Board of Supervisor's Resolution 02-500.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 24, 2003

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

17. 2002.0657C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

3725 BUCHANAN STREET - west side between Beach Street and North Point Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0445A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of eight antennas and related equipment for Verizon Wireless, on the roof of an existing four-story, 45-foot tall, commercial structure within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a commercial building in an NC-2 District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Erika Tarantino

- She spoke last time and would like to emphasize that this is the sixth continuance.

- She cannot understand why Verizon cannot get their documents together.

- She feels that this is just a tactic.

- All the surrounding neighbors are against this installation.

- The neighbors are against the antennas, the panels, and the 12 equipment cabinets that will be 8 feet tall. And finally, they are against the fans that will make a lot of noise.

(-) Barbara Janeff

- She feels that there is no need for these antennas since there are five other carriers in the area.

- There is also no desire for these antennas either. She has many signatures of people who are against the installation.

- Regarding compatibility, the equipment will be over built and over bulky.

(-) Kenneth Thompson - Beach/Buchanan Home Owners Association

- He lives on Beach Street. He is also president of the Homeowners Association of the building he lives in.

- Everyone in the building is opposed to this installation.

- Regarding coverage and need: He and his wife have Verizon cell phones and they work perfectly well in the area.

- All of the neighbors are concerned about the noise the fans will make.

(-) Robert Wales

- He lives on Beach Street.

- He displayed a map of where he lives and where the antennas are proposed to be installed.

- The maps that they received from Verizon are not supported by data.

- He has two Verizon phones and he has never had dropped calls so he really questions coverage.

- There is a question of integrity and corporate irresponsibility.

(-) Christine Varon

- She lives on Beach Street.

- Her daughter has been diagnosed with a devastating neurological condition that is very rare.

- She has read through packages of possible health concerns.

- She understand that this is not submittable but her daughter lives within 200 feet of where these towers are supposed to be. She knows of other children who live near by.

- She knows that children are very susceptible to health concerns because of their developing nervous system.

- She has a Verizon phone and it works perfectly.

(-) Jacqueline K. Clemens

- She and her husband are part of the Beach Street Homeowners Association.

- Everyone in the apartment building they live in is opposed to this installation.

- She hopes that the Commission will hear everyone that is here today and not grant this approval.

- The neighbors are concerned with the protrusion of these antennas and equipment and the noise they will make.

(-) Sandra Schaefer - Pacific Union Real Estate

- She has about 20 real estate agents and they all have cell phones that work just fine.

- All their clients feel that she owns the building.

- She is concerned about the noise because her office is on the fourth floor and right next to the antennas.

(+) Eric Guarisco

- He lives on Northpoint Street.

- He feels that there is an issue of capacity.

- The capacity/coverage could be better.

- He cannot understand how in a City like San Francisco we do not have better cell phone service.

(-) Doug Loranger - SNAFU

- He read a statement from Bill Sanders, Deputy City Attorney which stated that in the Planning Code, necessity and desirability speak to the neighborhood and community's desire, and not Verizon's.

- Verizon needs to answer all of the questions stated here.

- He read Section 707 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it states that local government should not prohibit or have the affect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. No Federal Appeals court has made any determination on the two issues put before the Commission: capacity and next generation of wireless services.

- There is no data that shows that any of the neighbors of this area want or need these antennas.

- He would like to have this application denied today and not continued.

(-) Mark Longwood

- Two years ago, the Planning Department put together an inventory of antennas in San Francisco. Even incomplete, these antennas numbered 2,400 then. That is one antenna for about 333 people in this City.

- It is not uncommon for an antenna to have a coverage area of up to 20 square blocks. How many people occupy 20 square blocks?

- Each application ranges from about 5 antennas each.

- At each meeting, most of the people against the installation are greater than those who are in support.

(+) Bill Hammet - Hammet and Edison

- He stated that he is speaking now because he will not be able to come back in two weeks.

- He spoke about data in reports submitted to the Health Department.

- He presented data which is in exact agreement with his report and that of the Health Department.

(+) Bill Wilson

- He read a letter from John Williams who is opposed to this application.

ACTION: Item continued to April 24, 2003. Public comment remains open.

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

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

Approximately 6:00 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

18. 2002.1067D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

87 MADDUX STREET - east side between Topeka Avenue and Quint Street, Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 5384c - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.04.15.3935 proposing to demolish the existing fire-damaged house and reconstruct it as it was with an addition at the rear. The property is within the RH-1 (House, One-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition.

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

ABSENT: Antonini and Boyd

19. 2003.0052D (K. SIMONSON: 415-558-6321)

346 28th AVENUE - east side between California and Clement Streets, Lot 33 in Assessor's Block 1406 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001.12.26.5890, proposing to add a second unit to the existing single-family dwelling, construct a 3-story addition at the rear, and raise the building 6 feet to construct a garage. The subject property is 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 modified.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Rose Hillson - Discretionary Review Requestor

- She is concerned with the negative affects from the blockage of light and air to her lot, the lack of good neighbor gestures, and parking issues.

- It is not fair for the children in the nearby school; for toddlers to have most of the day be in shadows.

(-) Sam Patel

- He supports the Discretionary Review requestor because he is also concerned with illegally parked vehicles.

- The proposed project will have a one car garage and take away one street parking space.

- He would like to have more parking in the proposed structure.

- He is also concerned with the decrease in light and air because his parents are quite ill. His parents cannot walk all over to get fresh air.

- The adjacent school will also have shadows most of the day and this is not healthy for children.

(-) Larry Jang

- He lives on 27^th Avenue. His property is right behind the proposed project.

- He is concerned with the airflow. One of his sons has asthma and has to receive fresh air every day.

- There are always people parked illegally in the neighborhood. There is a problem of density.

- He feels that the addition could be used as an in-law apartment.

- He is also concerned with privacy.

(-) Steven Hillson

- This proposed construction violates the neighborhood design guidelines because it does not respect the other homes.

- He would like to reduce the height of the building keeping it in line with the adjacent building.

(-) Anthony Earlock

- He was not notified of this project until the Discretionary Review requestor mentioned it to him.

- When he first saw the project it had a gabled roof. The roof is now flat. This will cause a lot of shadows.

- He is concerned with the shadows that would be cast on the children's playground.

- He is also concerned with privacy issues.

(+) Daniel Ewald - Representing Project Sponsor

- The primary purpose of this project is to create a home for the project sponsor.

- This home will abide by all relevant provisions of the building and planning code.

- These provisions include: mid-block open space and access of other properties to light and air.

- The project is in keeping with the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood. It is neither exceptional nor extraordinary.

- He prepared a shadow test and basically the results are that all of the images show that there is no shadow impact on adjacent properties.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved project.

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

ABSENT: Antonini and Boyd

20. 2003.0033DD (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

293 DOWNEY STREET - west side, between Ashbury and Frederick Streets, Lot 046 in Assessor's Block 1269 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2001.11.21.3668R3, proposing to add an 11'-6"X25'-0" addition to all four floors of the existing single family dwelling, located entirely within the buildable area of the lot, in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height/Bulk District. The proposal is also to create a second dwelling unit at the ground floor level and one additional off-street parking space within the existing garage. Alterations are proposed to the front and rear façades. This project has been revised since it was originally submitted, to comply with the Planning Commission's ruling on Discretionary Review Case No. 2002.0114DD on April 11, 2002. The submitted revisions have changed the scope of work, and new requests for DR have been filed.

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

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Cris Zak - 1^st Discretionary Review Requestor

- His concern is a legal north facing window that is in his prime living space.

- He is also concerned about privacy to his home.

- He displayed a model of both homes and how the proposed construction would cause privacy issues related to the window in his main living space.

(-) Helga Maaser - 2^nd Discretionary Review requestor

- She displayed a map showing the location of her house and the adjacent home.

- She displayed a model of a window and showed how the proposed addition will block this window.

(+) Kirk Scott - Project Sponsor

- He has been through the Discretionary Review process twice.

- He has modified the project to staff's satisfaction and has taken in consideration any reasonable request that the neighbors have had.

- He believes that what he is proposing is good for the neighborhood and for San Francisco.

- He has done as much as he can to try to minimize the impact on views for the Discretionary Review requestors.

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

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

ABSENT: Antonini and Boyd

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))

Kirk Scott

Re: Improving the Discretionary Review process

- There are various things that the Commission can do to improve the Discretionary Review process.

- For example: simple changes in language on some Discretionary Review forms, etc.

- There is a lot of information that is not stated on these forms.

- It would help steer away some of the projects that come before the Commission week by week.

Adjournment: 7:18 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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