May 15, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, May 15, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lisa Feldstein

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; John Paul Samaha; Matt Snyder; Jasper Rubin; Elaine Tope; Kate McGee; Ben Fu; Geoffrey Nelson; Glen Cabreros; Dan Sider; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2002.0723C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

491 HAIGHT STREET - southeast corner at the intersection of Fillmore Street and Haight Street; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 859 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of two antennas and related equipment on the roof of and within the basement of an existing four-story, 45-foot tall, mixed use (21 apartments over ground floor commercial) structure, as part of Cingular's wireless telecommunications network, 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 5 as it is a mixed-use building in a high-density district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 20, 2002)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 17, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to July 17, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

2. 2002.0497E (R. AHMADI: (415) 558-5966)

2026 LOMBARD STREET. Hearing on the Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project includes the construction of a four-story, 40-foot high, 97-room tourist hotel containing approximately 49,000 sq. ft. of hotel area and the demolition of the existing two-story, 30-room tourist hotel/motel of approximately 8,630 gross square feet (sq. ft.). The 13,613 square-foot lot is located on the north side of Lombard Street between Fillmore and Webster Streets (Assessor's Block 0492, Lot 25) in the Marina District of San Francisco. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the project would be from Lombard Street. The existing hotel/motel is currently operating, and is a legal non-conforming use as it was constructed in 1955, prior to neighborhood commercial zoning controls. The project site is in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would be required to get Conditional Use Authorization for the hotel use from the Planning Commission under Section 790.46 of the Planning Code.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 12, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 12, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

3. 2003.0339C (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

625 LARKIN STREET - southwest corner at Willow Street (between Eddy and Ellis Streets); Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0740 -- Request for conditional use authorization to modify the conditions of approval of Case No. 85.22EC as set forth in Motion No. 10328, which authorized the construction of a new 5-story building containing up to 8 dwelling units, approximately 6,000 square feet of commercial space and 11 parking spaces. The proposal is to convert a portion of the 2nd floor of the building, which currently contains office space, to three dwelling units. The building would subsequently contain a total of 11 dwelling units. Approximately 2000 square feet of office space would remain on the 2nd floor. The subject property is located in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined: High Density) Zoning District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District #1 and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to June 5, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 5, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

4. 2002.0430C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

378 10^TH AVENUE, A.K.A. 389 9^TH AVENUE AND A.K.A. 4500 GEARY BOULEVARD - northwest corner of 9^th Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 1441 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of six antennas and related equipment for AT&T Wireless Services, on the roof of an existing three-story, 53-foot tall, industrial structure within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 1 as it is both a co-location site and an industrial building in an NC-3 District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Feldstein

5. 2003.0315D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2474 41^ST AVENUE - east side of the street between Ulloa and Taraval Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 2385 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.11.19.1738, proposing to construct a two-story rear horizontal addition on an existing single-family dwelling, located in a 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.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

6. Commission Comments/Questions

None

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

None

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

BOS:

- On May 13, 2003, the full Board of Supervisors heard the following appeals:

1) 2690 Harrison Street

- This is a 54-unit residential project.

- The Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition filed an appeal.

- After a 4-hour hearing on the matter, public comment was closed and the item was continued until this morning

2) 1017 Ocean Avenue

- Verizon Wireless antennas.

- This item was continued to June 10, 2003.

3) Other appeals

- Wharf J-10: fish processing tenants of this pier have filed an appeal of the statutory exemption from CEQA review for the emergency demolition that was issued on April 15. The Board at its June 10, 2003 hearing will hear the appeal.

- O'Shaugnessy Dam Negative Declaration: the appeal for this project will be heard on June 10, 2003.

- Secondary Unit Legislation: an appeal was filed for this legislation. The appeal was filed for environmental review exemption by a group called Coalition to Protect our Neighborhoods.

- State law grants a Statutory Exemption from environmental review for secondary unit legislation that affects single family dwellings, but not for multiple family dwellings. The Planning Department issued a General Rule Exclusion Exemption from CEQA review for that portion of the legislation that affects multiple dwelling units, and it is that determination that has been appealed. No date has been set for the appeal hearing, but it is expected that this will be heard by the full Board prior to the issue returning to this commission for your recommendation on the legislation.

Re: 2690 Harrison Street

Erick Quezada

- The Board of Supervisors was able to hear from a diverse group of people regarding this item.

- There were a lot of racist comments at the hearing.

- Family housing and affordable housing are priorities in the Eastern Neighborhoods.

James L. Collins

- He felt insulted by the comments made at the Board of Supervisors regarding this project.

Richard Marquez

- The project sponsor made very racist comments that were inappropriate.

- Procedurally, he imagines that the Commission cannot do anything about this.

- There is a high level of frustration regarding this project.

Cristina Logie

- She just wanted to clarify that the project sponsor for this project did not make racial statements directed to the Asian or African-American communities.

Ada Chan

- The Commission needs to be able to say no to projects that are not good for the community.

Joe O'Donaghue

- He read the full text of the remarks made by Mr. Milton Gaines.

- There were sentences in it that he would have disagreed with, but he takes the position of defending the right of Mr. Gaines to say what he said.

- He read it in a different context than with the emotionalism by which those remarks were made.

- He believes that Mr. Gaines is sending many people the full text of his remarks with a letter of explanation.

- Mr. Gaines empathizes with the problems in the Mission. [For instance], there were statements that identified in particular where poverty was coming from, etc.

- Could Mr. Gaines have said the same thing in a different way? Yes, he could have.

- This is a healthy dialogue and it's a good one.

David Lupo - Carpenter's Union

- He was also shocked at the comments that the project sponsor made.

- There are no Latino workers at the job site of this project.

Joel Yodowitz

- The project is consistent with the long range planning for the Mission District.

- The project sponsor did make some inappropriate language.

- He wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors apologizing for this comments.

BOA - None

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

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

Re: 1725 Kearny Street

David Bryant - President of the Coop

- The members of the coop have unanimously approved the merger.

- He submitted a letter to the Commission from members of the coop stating this approval.

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

9. 2003.0139D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

1835 19^TH AVENUE - west side between Noriega and Ortega Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 2056 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.10.25.9921, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new two-family dwelling, containing three stories above the street and one basement below the street) 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 Demolition Permit Application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

NOTE: On February 27, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to March 13, 2003 by a vote of +6 -0 (Commissioner William Lee was absent). Staff was instructed to review and correct inconsistencies in the reports. Without further hearing or instructions this item was subsequently continued from 3/13 to 4/3; from 4/3 to 4/24; from 4/24 to 5/15/03.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition with instructions to staff regarding the replacement building.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein

10. 2003.0084D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

23 WOOD STREET - west side between Euclid Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1069 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.07.25.2322 proposing the demolition of a two-story single-family dwelling, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to construct a new, four-story two-family dwelling with two off-street parking spaces.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

NOTE: On April 3, 2003, following public comment, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) to not take Discretionary Review and approve the Project. The motion failed to carry by a vote of +3-3. Commissioners Feldstein, Hughes, and S. Lee voted No. Commissioner Boyd was absent. 2) to continue the item to April 24, 2003, to allow absent Commissioner to participate in final action, passed by a vote of +4-2. Commissioners Feldstein and Hughes voted No. Commissioner Boyd was absent. On April 24, 2003, the case was continued to May 15, 2003.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition.

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

NAYES: Hughes and S. Lee

ABSENT: Feldstein

11. 2003.0182D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1725 KEARNY STREET - west side between Lombard and Chestnut Streets; Lot 029 in Assessor's Block 061 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.01.23.5809S, proposing to merge one unit on the first floor with one unit on the second floor, converting the six-unit building to a five-unit building. The project also proposes twenty-five square foot lateral additions on both the first and second stories. The site is in an RM-2 (Residential Mixed, Moderate-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

NOTE: On May 1, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) To not take Discretionary Review and approve the project. The motion failed to carry by a vote of +1 - 6. Commissioner Antonini voted yes; 2) to continued the matter to May 15, 2003. The motion passed by a vote +7 -0.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved merger.

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

NAYES: Hughes and S. Lee

ABSENT: Feldstein

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

12. 2002.0333C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

284 VALENCIA STREET (a.k.a. 17 BROSNAN STREET) - west side of Valencia Street between 14th 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 that had contained 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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Brian Spiers - Project Sponsor

- This project meets all the zoning requirements.

- He did met with the Mission Housing Coalition and the Mission Anti-Displacement Association.

- He made several arrangements with the Mission Housing Coalition.

- The Mission Merchants also support this project.

- He feels he has done all he can do to alleviate his neighbor's concerns.

(-) David Ortega

- He has lived in San Francisco all his life.

- The proposed building fails to include a rear yard, does not have a mid block open space, and the height of the building is out of scale with the neighborhood.

(+) John Goldman - Goldman Architects - Project Architect

- He displayed photographs of the surroundings buildings and the project site.

(+) Richard Marquez - Mission Agenda

- This project is compelling and attractive to MAC.

- This project is fitting for the community and he would like to move this project forward.

(+) Eric Quezada - MAC

- MAC has decided to support this project because it will be 100% affordable.

- There is a benefit to the City with this project.

- This project is going in the right direction.

(+) David Lupo - Carpenter's Union

- The project sponsor is not affiliated with the carpenters union but he is supports the project because it will be affordable and [the sponsor] has worked with the community.

(+) Dennis Carlin

- He owns a building on 14^th Street and Valencia Street.

- His building is the same height as the proposed project.

- This project is an asset to the City and to the neighborhood.

(+) Phillip Lesser - Mission Merchants Association

- The project is close to two tourist attractions.

- This project should be used as a model as the Mission District gets rezoned.

(+) Urbano Ezquerro

- He supports this project.

- There are a lot of homeless people and graffiti in the area. This project will improve the neighborhood.

(+) Victor Quan

- There are a lot of tall buildings in the neighborhood.

- He supports this project.

ACTION: Approved as amended: 1) all affordable units shall be two bedrooms; 2) project sponsor shall make a good faith effort to offer the ground floor commercial space to a Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) business when it is ready for occupancy.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein

MOTION: 16579

13. (J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6310)

CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - informational presentation and update on the Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan, part of the Better Neighborhoods Program. No action is required.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Jill Simpson-Rodby - Port of San Francisco - Maritime Marketing Manager

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

- Her only concern is the designation of mixed use residential between Third and Illinois Street.

- She is concerned that if housing is allowed in that area it will be incompatible with industrial uses on port land.

- She would like to see all residential housing west of Third Street so there is a buffer between industrial zoning and housing.

(-) Mariuccia Iaconi

- She operates an educational distribution to schools and libraries.

- She is opposed to the PDR zoning of her neighborhood.

- The evolution from a raged industrial residential area to one where organizations now exist should be respected.

- Friends of Esprit Park saved Esprit park from becoming another live/work development.

(-) Drew Detsch - Friends of Esprit Park

- This was a burned out community. The residents lived in a state of siege.

- Out of the development of Esprit Park, a community was born.

- All this was able to be done due to the M-2 zoning area.

- The new PDR zoning does not allow residential even with a conditional use.

- Flexibility is definitely necessary.

(+) Ira Maybaum - San Francisco Dry-dock

- He has been in the area since the 70s.

- His company is the only ship repair in Northern California.

- When the shipyard is working on a cruise ship, they have to work around the clock and this generates noise and light.

- Having residential use east of Third Street would be a continuing problem.

(-) Michael J. Burke - Attorney for ECOR-SF Holdings, Inc. (formerly Esprit)

- He is not in agreement with designating the area to PDR.

- PDR uses would [not] support the near term capital expenditures and long term maintenance costs necessary to preserve this historic asset.

- ECOR requests that the land use designation be changed from PDR to mixed-use residential.

(-) Kate White - Housing Action Coalition

- She believes that the best course for the Planning Commission is to direct Planning staff to reconsider objectives, policies, and land use proposals and come back with a plan that better reflects a balance of the needs of the Central Waterfront and the City as a whole.

- She would be happy to work with the Planning Department in making this a stronger plan.

(-) Oz Erickson - Emerald Fund

- His organization does not have any property interests in the Central Waterfront.

- This is a terrible plan.

- He would recommend that the Commission instruct Planning staff to start over.

(-) John M. Sanger - Counsel to RAM Development

- His clients have worked very successfully with Potrero Boosters and the Dogpatch Neighborhood Association. They have received approval for their projects from both organizations.

- This plan has one fatal flaw. It is perceived from a biased point of view that there must be a very [heavy] handed effort to provide an expansion of PDR uses and to protect PDR uses from new residential/commercial development.

(-) Marina Secchitano - ILWU

- She is very concerned about the potential impact for Maritime Industrial in the Port of San Francisco.

- The designation of mixed-use residential between Third and Illinois and Mariposa and 25^th Streets need to be thought out and that there be a buffer zone.

- The shipyard works 24 hours [a day] and this could cause problems with residential use. There is a lot of activity that does not need to be shared with residential use.

(+/-) Joe Boss

- He lives in the Dogpatch area.

- The planning staff should be praised for their work but the plan has failed.

- The Planning staff needs to go back and start all over.

(-) Steve Vettel

- He did not participate in the Central Waterfront Plan, but he did participate in the Neighborhood planning.

- The notion that there should not be people living around Esprit Park is not a good idea. People need to be around the area.

- It is time to look at this from scratch and reexamine the goals.

ACTION: Meeting held for discussion only. No action required.

14. 2003.0042T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION NOTIFICATION - 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 of Supervisors on the effectiveness of the ordinance no later than nine months thereafter; and adopting findings.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 17, 2003.

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

ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

15. 2002.1169T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

CONDITIONAL USE EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OVER 40 FEET IN HEIGHT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 253 that currently requires conditional use approval for residential construction over 40 feet in residential districts with height limits over 40 feet to add an exception for housing projects that include at least 12 percent affordable units and meet other requirements of the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program; and making a determination of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 17, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein

16. 2003.0057C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

11 CLARENDON AVENUE, A.K.A.: 19 CLARENDON AVENUE - south side of Clarendon Avenue (near Twin Peaks Boulevard); Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 2706 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to amend a Planned Unit Development and modify the conditions of approval of Case No. 89.233ECU as set forth in Motion No. 11959, which authorized the construction of a PUD for six single-family dwellings. The proposal is to allow the addition of a total of 448 square feet of living space to the existing single-family dwelling. Additionally, a 52 square foot elevated deck, a 10' high windscreen, and patio improvements are proposed. The subject property is located in a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-foot Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Raul Hernandez

- He is making these alterations to his home because he needs to expand it and he wants it to survive the elements in the Twin Peaks area.

- His architect is also available to answer any questions.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein

MOTION: 16580

17a. 2003.0226CV (K. McGEE: (415) 558.6367)

1038 HOWARD STREET - west side, between 6th and 7th streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 3726 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish group housing for 15 youth in an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) Zoning District and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District, per Planning Code Section 816.15 and 890.88(b). The proposal is to convert the existing office space to group housing. The establishment aims to provide services to a maximum of 15 residents between the ages of 18-23 years of age, focusing on members of the lesbian, gay, and transgender community. The group housing will consist of three bedrooms, one kitchen, and a dining, office and reception area. The Ark of Refuge Inc., a Christian non-profit organization, sponsors the project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Eric Politzer - Ark of Refuge, Inc.

- This has been a very smooth program.

- They have paid special attention to keep the grounds clean.

(+) did not state name

- This program at the Ark of Refuge can be duplicated on Howard Street.

- The area where the Ark of Refuge is currently has improved the neighborhood.

(+) Margot Antonetty - Department of Public Health

- The Department supports this program.

- The success of the clients at the Ark of Refuge has been beyond expectations.

(+) Brad Hume

- Everything that has been said about this program is true.

- He is here to show his support.

(+) Bianka Stevens

- She is a former graduate of the Ark of Refuge.

- She used to be homeless and was a prostitute.

- She has now received the opportunity to work there and now has her own apartment.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein

MOTION: 16581

17b. 2003.0226CV (K. MCGEE: (415) 558.6367)

1038 HOWARD STREET - west side, between 6th and 7th streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 3726 - Rear Yard and Off-Street Parking Variance sought. Section 151 of the Planning Code requires one parking space be provided for each six beds, with a minimum of two spaces required. The proposed project includes one parking space and a variance is requested to provide only one off-street parking space. Section 134 of the Planning Code requires a minimum rear yard of 25% of the total depth of the lot. The existing rear yard is 10% and does not therefore meet this requirement. The proposal is to establish group housing for 15 youth in an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) Zoning District and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S): Same as those speakers listed for item 17a.

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

G. 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.

18a. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

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

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

NOTE: On March 20, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this item to April 3, 2003 by a vote of +4-1 (Commissioner Feldstein voted No; Commissioners Boyd and Hughes were absent). Both Discretionary Review requestor and Project Sponsor were asked to explore possible alternatives to the plans. Public Hearing remains open to any new material presented.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 12, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein

18b. 2002.0933DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

891 CAROLINA STREET - east side, between 20th Street and 22nd Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Request for a front setback Variance for the construction of a new second story in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family House) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project proposes an increase from one to two dwelling units.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

NOTE: On March 20, 2003, the Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to April 3, 2003. On April 3, 2003, the Zoning Administrator continued this item to April 24, 2003. On April 24, 2003, the matter was continued to May 15, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without further hearing, the Zoning Administrator continued this item to June 12, 2003

19. 2002.1184DD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

620 CAROLINA STREET west side between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 4071 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.07.23.2136 proposing to construct a third story addition, rear extension, and a new building facade to the existing two-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 proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Sue Hestor - Discretionary Review Requestor

- She displayed an aerial photograph of the properties that will be impacted by the proposed addition.

- The adjacent neighbor will see a solid wall and will loose sunlight to their property.

- She is asking to not have the third story built and to set back the other proposed addition to allow light to come through the windows.

(-) Gustavo Leo - Speaking on Behalf of the Discretionary Review Requestor

- There are already to large buildings eliminating a yard.

- This discretionary review request is not about views, it is about density.

- The project sponsor will be making an addition to a nonconforming lot.

- He asked to have the building lowered by 2 feet, 2 inches but the project sponsor completely disregarded it.

(-) Bruce Bonacker

- He displayed diagrams of the project explaining the configuration of the addition in relation to the current building.

(-) Paul Judge

- He is adjacent to the proposed project.

- The changes he has asked be made are minimal.

- It is not his intention to ask the project sponsor to stop his project.

(-) Victor DeRossi

- He is a contractor and was involved in the construction and design the building he lives in. He tried to design the building so as not to have any negative impacts on the adjacent neighbors.

- He is disappointed to see this project have a solid wall next to his building.

- He is just asking that the project sponsor revise the project so as to protect their light and air.

(-) Richard Berkowitz

- He filed for a Discretionary Review because the project is not in conformance with the Residential Design Guidelines.

- Allowing the proposed construction will make the building too large and bulky.

- He is just asking to have the proposed project reduced 2 feet, 2 inches.

- He requested that the Commission modify this project by either eliminating the top floor or reducing it by 2 feet, 2 inches.

(-) Ralf Mennem

- He opposes the addition of the top floor because it will make the building gigantic.

- This top floor would have a negative impact on his view as well as block the amount of sunlight he receives to his home.

- He requests that the Commission eliminate the top floor.

(-) Marilyn Judge

- She and her husband do not want to have the project sponsor evict anyone.

- Her sunlight will be greatly decreased.

(-) Alan Caplan

- He lives on Carolina Street.

- He and his wife are opposed to the proposed project.

- He found out that there was a letter submitted to the Commission where his wife stated she was in favor of the project. He would like to explain that when the project first came about it was a lot smaller. the project has changed and his wife is now against the largeness of the addition.

(+) Debra Stein

- The proposed alternatives are: 1) evict tenant from 618 Carolina and merge units, demolish/rebuild 2 units, evict from ½ unit and expand at rear; 2) eliminate major component such as 3^rd floor, elevator, find alterative access, accessible open space/relocate elevator to rear; 3) require additional setback along 624 Carolina secondary windows.

- This project will not affect light and air because it will not have major impacts.

(+) Jonathan Pearlman - Project Architect

- The project sponsor requires an elevator because of his health.

- He displayed a diagram of the interior of the project.

- He proposed a frosted glass screen so as to maintain privacy.

(+) Anita Schwaber

- She is a tenant at the proposed project. She gets along well with her landlord, which is the project sponsor.

- She would hate to be evicted.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications: reduce the width of the proposed project, measured from the south side property line on the second floor, by 3'-6" and a length of 15'-0".

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

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Feldstein

20a. 2002.1056DV (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

1235 3^RD AVENUE - west side between Hugo Street and Lincoln Way; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 1747. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.28.7531, proposing to add a three-story horizontal addition to the rear of an existing three-story single-family dwelling, and to add a partial fourth floor. The proposal is also to add one additional off-street parking space within the ground floor, and widen the existing garage door opening, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Larry White - Discretionary Review Requestor

- He is asking the project sponsor for a 3-foot setback and a 45 degree cut so that when the project sponsor builds the addition there would be a cut and the light would not be blocked to his home.

(-) Leslie Holt

- With the proposed construction, about 1/3 of the windows to the Discretionary Review requestor's home will be affected by blocked sunlight.

(+) Stephen White - Project Sponsor

- This building has been vacant for over one year.

- He and his wife would like to renovate it so they can live there with their family.

- The purpose for expanding the garage is to fit at least three vehicles and relieve the congestion on the street.

- He has posted the project for a long time and has invited neighbors to review the plans.

- He has revised his plans a few times to accommodate the DR requestor's issues and concerns.

(+) Luis Robles - Project Architect

- He explained the general architectural aspects of the proposed building.

- He displayed an aerial photograph of the project and adjacent homes.

- Another unit will be created with this project.

(+) John Brum

- He supports the project.

- The project sponsor has created a light well in order for the adjacent neighbor to have light.

(+) Joe Hurley

- This plan is not unusual and has minimal effect on the adjacent neighbors.

- This project will provide badly needed housing in the City.

(+) Elizabeth White

- Her parents are the project sponsors.

- She will be going to high school and the area has great public transportation.

- She is looking forward to the space they will be able to have with this project.

(+) Mary White

- Her brother is the project sponsor.

- She questions the issue of light because she recently took out a large tree that was blocking most of the light.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review (DR) and approved as amended: a reduction in the apparent depth of the three-story addition at the rear of the property by chamfering (cutting at 45^o) the southwest corner of the addition. This chamfer shall measure three feet in depth by three feet in width, and occur at the second and third floor levels.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein

20b. 2002.1056DV (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

1235 3^RD AVENUE- west side between Hugo Street and Lincoln Way; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 1747. Request for Variance to the rear yard requirements of the Planning Code to allow the addition of a three-story horizontal addition to the rear of an existing three-story single-family dwelling, and to add a partial fourth floor, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Portions of the proposed addition would encroach into the required rear yard at every floor level above the ground floor by up to approximately 12'-6".

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 20a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance based on the Planning Commission's conditions of approval on the DR.

21. 2002.1110DDD (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

323 26^TH AVENUE - west side, between California and Clement Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1407 - Staff-initiated Discretionary Review and requests for Discretionary Review by members of the public of Building Permit Application No. 2002.03.11.1078, proposing to substantially alter a three-story single-family house by extending the building to the front, rear, and side, adding a full fourth floor, and adding two additional dwelling units in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The altered building will contain three dwelling units and three off-street parking spaces.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Raymond Wong - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

- The side of the proposed project has many windows to the north.

- He objected to the height when he looked at the plans for the proposed project.

- Blocking the sunlight will increase utility bills.

- He would just like to have the proposed project be reduced in scale.

- He also asks for a 12 foot offset to the front.

(-) Janet Cole - Representing Ms. Thomas, Discretionary Review Requestor

- She has not been able to meet with the project sponsor.

- Her client will be facing a solid wall of this project is constructed.

(-) Dorothy Scholl

- She is here on behalf of Mr. Wong, her landlord.

- The north part of the building she lives in has most of the light and that is where the proposed project will be built.

- This project will impact all the tenants in the building she lives in.

- Many of the tenants cannot pay more on their utility bills.

- She would like to have more consideration given to the people who live in the neighborhood.

(+) David Silverman - Reuben and Alter, representing project sponsor

- The project sponsor has reduced the size of the proposed building by creating a front setback that is 12 feet and a rear setback at the top floor of 10 feet.

- There is an additional setback of almost three feet from the property line and the roof penthouse has been removed as well.

- They examined a fourth floor setback on the North lot line but that was not possible.

(+) Jason Cheng - Project Architect

- He displayed photographs and diagrams of the architectural aspects of the project.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications: 1) a reduction in the apparent height and bulk of the proposed fourth floor by setting back the front face of this floor twelve (12) feet from the face of the floors below, as proposed by the project sponsor; 2) the removal of the bathroom (both lavatory and toilet) proposed at the ground floor; 3) the partitioning off of the proposed ground floor "storage" area into three roughly equal storage rooms for the use of the individual units above; 4) the reduction in size of the 4^th floor bedroom close to a maximum interior depth of three (3) feet, to reduce the bulk of the exterior envelope of the proposed partial fourth floor at the north side.

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

NAYES: S. Lee

ABSENT: Feldstein

22. 2003.0225D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2051-2057 GREEN STREET - south side between Webster and Buchanan Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0556 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.08.01.2863, proposing to merge one unit on the fourth floor with one unit on the third floor, converting the three-unit building to a two-unit building. The project site is located 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 merger.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Emmanuel Pun - Project Sponsor

- He is available for questions.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger

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

ABSENT: Feldstein

23. 2003.0270D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

2701 16^TH STREET (aka 300 TREAT AVENUE) - southwest corner of 16^th Street, Harrison Street, and Treat Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3572 - A Discretionary Review Request of Building Permit Application Number 2002.12.18.3737, which would change the use of the subject property from business service, as defined by Planning Code Section 222, to self-storage, as defined by Code Section 225(a). The permit application seeks a change in use and occupancy only; no physical alterations are proposed at this time. The property is located in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, the IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16202, the NEMIZ (Northeast Mission Industrial Zone) subarea of the Mission District Interim Controls as set forth in Board of Supervisors Resolution Number 02-500, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Sue Hestor - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

- The data is misleading when people say this is business services.

- This property used to be a garment factory.

- A particular tenant would create a non-office use.

- There has not been a determination from an attorney to say what creates a use.

- She is concerned that a precedent is being set where the department states that a business services is being determined even if the building was never occupied.

(-) Gene Layman

- She is the manager of a self storage near the site.

- Within the last few years there have been at least five new facilities built.

- She believes that this would be an inappropriate use for the area.

(+) Steve Atkinson - Steffel, Levit and Weiss - Representing Project Sponsor

- This project will be a self-storage use and not a business service use.

- A building permit was issued that states that the project is a conversion from industrial to business service.

- The department properly has determined that this is a business service but it does not make any difference to this Discretionary Review.

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

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

NAYES: S. Lee

ABSENT: Feldstein

H. 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))

Sue Hestor

- A lot of demolition cases are coming up and she is concerned that these are being heard without having an analyzed demolition policy.

- District 2 is all about mergers, District 1 is all about demolitions, District 8 is all about demolitions and mergers.

- She is concerned about the approval of mergers.

- She is concerned about mis-statements being made and staff listening to this.

- Staff should "pipe up" when these statements are being made.

Adjournment: 9:37 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Hughes