August 21, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, August 21, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Hughes, Lisa Feldstein, and Sue Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:45 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner -Acting Director/Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Joan Kugler; Paul Lord; Craig Nikitas; Dan Sirois; Tom Wang; Michael Smith; Rick Crawford; 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. 2002.1268D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

527 23^RD AVENUE - west side between Anza and Balboa Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 1566 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.09.05.5649, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the single-family dwelling, a new third floor and a partial fourth floor in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal would create a second dwelling unit and a second off-street parking space.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

NOTE: On July 31, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve as modified by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent. Final action to consider modifications scheduled for August 21, 2003.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 28, 2003) September 11, 2003

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

April Ford

- She is trying to come to an agreement with the neighborhood and the project sponsor.

- She believes that the date far out in advance will help them come to an agreement.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 11, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

2. 2003.0278C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

5810 MISSION STREET - north side of the street between Lawrence and Sickles Avenues, Lots 039, 042, and 049 in Assessor's Block 7143 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 304 to allow the amendment of Motion No. 13347 to amend the Planned Unit Development authorization to allow for the conversion of three Below Market Rate (BMR) rental apartments into three (BMR) dwelling units for sale for owner occupancy. The conversion would affect units #202, #205, and #303 in the building, located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular meeting of July 24, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 4, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without Hearing, item continued to September 4, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

3. 2002.1144C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

821 LA PLAYA (AKA 800 GREAT HIGHWAY) - between Great Highway and La Playa at the intersection of Cabrillo Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1692 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 710.83, of the Planning Code to install two cellular antennas and one related equipment cabinet on the roof of a commercial structure (Wise Surf Shop), within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed antennas would be within the existing parapet and penthouse wall on the roof of the structure, and the related equipment would be located on the roof below the level of the parapet. Neither the antennas nor the equipment would be visible from below or any neighboring property. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 6 (limited preference site) as it is located in an NC-1 District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

NOTE: On July 17, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained a motion to disapprove by a vote +5 -0. Commissioners Boyd and Feldstein were absent. Final Language scheduled for August 21, 2003

(Proposed for Continuance to October 2, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 2, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

4. 2002.0639D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

604 RHODE ISLAND STREET AND 2005-2007 18^TH STREET (aka 2001 18^TH STREET; aka 602 RHODE ISLAND STREET) - corner of 18^th and Rhode Island Streets, Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor's Block 4030 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Numbers 2002.05.22.7228 and 2002.05.22.7240, which would demolish a single family home and a two-unit home, respectively. Under proposed conditions, the two adjacent properties would be re-subdivided and a new single family home would be built on the resulting corner parcel while a new two-family home would be built on the resulting 18^th Street parcel. Mandatory Discretionary Review is required under Planning Commission policy for projects proposing the demolition of housing. The properties are located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 26, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 25, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without haring, item continued to September 25, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

5. 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 July 24, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 25, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

RE: Continuance

Maria Sousa

- She supports the continuance of this legislation.

John Carney

- He believes that this item should be continued.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to September 25, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

6. (PUTRA/WILSON: (415) 558-6233)

RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDELINES - Presentation on the updated and expanded Residential Design Guidelines (Guidelines) for all residential projects in RH (Residential House) and RM (Residential Mixed-Density) zoning districts. This is a second hearing on the proposed Guidelines after receiving comments and recommendations from the public at the May 22, 2003 hearing, and meetings with interested neighborhood groups and organizations. This hearing is to provide another opportunity for the public to comment on the draft Guidelines. No action is required by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may adopt the Guidelines at a future public hearing.

(Continued from Regular meeting of July 24, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 23, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Maria Sousa

- They submitted a letter dated August 9. They are not supporting the design guidelines in its current form.

- These guidelines are not being followed at all.

April Ford

- She is also concerned about the design guidelines and how they will be applied in her community.

- She looks forward to having this legislation looked at more closely.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 23, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

7. 2003.0193D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

244 GRANADA AVENUE - East side between Ocean and Holloway Avenues. Assessor's Block 6942 Lot 039 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.1028.0113, to demolish the existing one family house, 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 two-family building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Demolition Permit.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 19, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 2, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 2, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

8a. 2002.1298CV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

624 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner at Ivy Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Request for conditional use authorization to demolish a vacant one-unit residential building and to construct a four-story, 40-foot-high senior care residential facility for up to 30 residents within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project is the subject of a concurrent Variance hearing before the Zoning Administrator.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 19, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 16, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 16, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

8b. 2002.1298CV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

624 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner at Ivy Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Parking variance sought. The proposed project is the demolition of a vacant one-unit residential building and the construction of a four-story, 40-foot-high senior care facility for up to 30 residents within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project is proposing to provide zero off-street parking spaces where three are required.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 19, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 16, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 16, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

9. 2002.0418T ( P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

SECONDARY UNITS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by repealing Section 207.2 [Second Unit] in its entirety, adding new Section 207.2 and amending Section 209.1 to authorize one additional secondary unit limited to 750 square feet of gross floor area on a lot within 1250 feet of a Primary Transit Street or Transit Center and also within 1250 feet of a Neighborhood Commercial or Commercial zoning district, and constructed for the elderly or persons with physical disabilities and to prohibit the owner from legalizing an illegal unit pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance; by amending Sections 135(d), Table 151 of Section 151 and 307(g) to establish the amount of open space; and adopting findings.

(Proposed for Continuance to October 16, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Marilyn Amini

- She agrees with this continuance because there are a lot of people who are still "in the dark" about this legislation.

- The public comment on this issue has been fragmented.

- She held up about 100 letters addressed to the Board of Supervisors who are opposed to the secondary units. She will make a copy and send it to the Planning Commission for the public record.

- The public record should be consolidated into one file to make it easier for Commissioners to review.

- It was discussed at previous meetings that notice of this legislation be sent to all residents of San Francisco.

Dorcas Maureen Bender - Preserve Our Neighbors

- It would be a shame for San Francisco to allow Secondary Units and turn the City into a Manhattan.

- She was born and brought up here and believes that the City should remain a lovely place to live.

- The changes in the secondary units, housing element, etc will destroy San Francisco.

- She agrees with the continuance.

Maria Sousa

- She supports the continuance of this legislation but suggests it be continued further than the date stated.

- She does not believe that it is appropriate to have the hearing on the proposed date because the housing element hearing will be held on October 9, 2003.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 16, 2003

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

10. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner William Lee:

Re: Residential Design Guidelines

When the Commission has a hearing on the Residential Design Guidelines, he would like a representative from the San Francisco AIA to provide comments on the document.

Re: Housing Element

- He wants to know what are the impacts if there is a delay in certifying the Housing Element? Will we be loosing the opportunity to compete or receive money from the State?

- He recommends that the Planning Department send a letter to the Mayor's Office of Housing to receive their comments on impacts.

Re: Self Certification

- It was his understanding that State legislation has been proposed that would allow the Commission to self-certify as a City. He would like a briefing on August 28, 2003 from the City Attorney.

Re: Budget

- The budget was signed recently. But some of the budget items, like fee increases, were not increased. He would like a status report on that. Some of the funding for the Department of Planning has been placed on reserve. The overall budget, with identifying line items, should be provided to the Commission whether it be during the work plan deliberation, etc. He would like this within a two month period.

Re: Land Use Committee

- He requested that the Acting Planning Director meet with the Chair of the Land Use Committee - Supervisor Jake McGoldrick -- on an ongoing basis because there are a lot of Planning Commission cases that are being challenged at the Land Use Committee and then to the full Board. His suggestion would be to have meetings with Supervisor McGoldrick in order to educate him and give him the background on cases that are being challenged so he has the information that he needs when it gets to his Committee.

Re: Demolition Conditions Reports

- He would like to revisit the demolition conditions reports that goes from 50% to 75%.

- He requested the status/affect on projects that started in the Planning Department years ago relative to demolition requests before the Commission instituted the 75%.

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Request to the City Attorney

- He has questions on jurisdiction and procedures regarding Secondary Units, Demolition and Residential Design Guidelines. He would like an opinion from the City Attorney on why these legislations are going on at the same time when the Housing Element contains many of these legislations.

Re: Demolitions

- He agrees with Commissioner William Lee regarding demolitions because it seems like the Commission is changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Commissioner Boyd:

Re: Housing Element

- He requested that staff produce an outline of how they see protracted series of events that need to take place toward the approval of the Housing Element, and then toward the General Plan. It should spell out within that time frame the basic hurdles that need to be crossed so that the Commission could be more responsible. Also, incorporate the concerns that have been raised in the various public testimonies.

Commission Bradford Bell:

Re: Land Use Committee

- She agrees that the Acting Planning Director should be involved in meeting with Supervisor Jake McGoldrick on cases that are being challenged as Commission William Lee stated. That is a practice that she and Director Green have been involved in, and she would like to continue to be involved.

Re: Planning Commission Hearings:

September 25, 2003

- At this hearing the issue of Director Green's leave will be address because the Deputy City Attorney will be present.

After November 14, 2003

- Review of the Planning Commission Secretary's performance evaluation will be scheduled [in closed session].

October 9, 2003

- The Housing Element will be scheduled.

Re: Acting Planning Director

- She welcomed Larry Badiner as the Acting Planning Director and is looking forward to working with him.

- She knows that Director Green will be available to discuss matters with Commissioners and Mr. Badiner.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

11. Director's Announcements

Re: His acceptance as Acting Director:

- He explained to the Commission that he took on this responsibility because Mr. Green had a wonderful opportunity to be at Harvard and he wanted to support him on that as well as support the Commission.

- Mr. Green has been on vacation since about August 11. He has been in and out of the office and he has been working closely with him.

- They are in constant communication. Mr. Green will be officially on leave from the beginning of September, when he heads off to Harvard.

- He has been broadening his experience in other divisions of the department and has been meeting extensively with Dr. Ghosh and his staff, Mr. Maltzer and the Environmental Review staff and picking up issues and carrying them forward. He has been learning a lot and getting a handle on the issues that are before him and the Department.

Re: Budget

- The budget implications are just starting to shake out.

- He received on Monday, the final budget. Staff is studying it to examine what all of the implications are in response to Commissioner Lee's request.

- He believes there is about $120,000 on reserve for South of Market environmental review.

- Part of the Department's budget, a good portion of it, was related to a fee ordinance which included changes, modifications and increases in fees.

- This issue went before the Land Use Committee and since then, some issues were raised. Staff is working with the City Attorney, the Mayor's Office, and the Controller to make sure that the fees are fully legal.

- This is one of the highest priorities of the Department. In order to meet the budget, the Department needs to get these issues resolved and the fees passed.

Re: Restructuring of the Department

- He has been meeting with members of the Senior Management staff in order to respond to a variety of different issues including the budget, number of vacancies, reorganization or shifts that have been made with him becoming Acting Director and Mr. Nixon becoming Zoning Administrator.

- He is trying to figure out what the implications are, how the Planning Information Counter is being managed, how computers are being managed and how neighborhood planning is being managed. There may have to be some incremental adjustments on how the quadrants are divided, who the supervisors are, etc.

Re: Miscellaneous

Hearing of September 4, 2003:

- Major issues over the next two months that will be before the Commission include on September 4, a records retention policy presentation. As mandated by law, the Commission must review and, [subject to modifications,] adopt it.

Hearing of September 11, 2003:

- On September 11, there will be a presentation on the Discretionary Review (DR) process which was requested by the Commission.

- Many members of the public are concerned that the existing DR process doesn't seem to address either the neighborhood's needs or project sponsor's needs. They also don't seem to address staff needs in terms of resources or the Commission's needs.

- Staff has thoughts and proposals.

- This would be an informational hearing just to open up the discussion.

Hearing of September 18, 2003:

- On the September 18 there will be a joint hearing with the Redevelopment Agency on the Mid-Market EIR and Exterior Alterations.

Alternating Hearings:

- In September the Commission calendar will alternate Discretionary Reviews and Conditional Use cases.

Hearing of October 2, 2003:

- On October 2 there will be another joint hearing with Treasure Island on the draft Environmental Impact Report.

Hearing of October 9, 2003:

- On October 9 is the Housing Element.

Hearing of October 16, 2003:

- On October 16, staff is proposing the Eastern Neighborhoods,

Hearing of October 23, 2003:

- On October 23, staff is proposing a review of the Residential Design Guidelines.

- So the Commission, as well as staff, has a full calendar for the next couple of months.

- Director Green and I will be working very closely to make sure those are in proper order for the Commission and the public.

Housing Element:

- This issue is on a very tight schedule to get the information to the Commission for October 9.

- As Commission President Shelley Bradford Bell said, comments are due this Friday, but staff will certainly accept them by Monday.

- Then staff really needs to turn them around and get them out to the Commission three weeks in advance--that would be September 17.

- He will be working with Dr. Ghosh and his staff to get that out on the 18^th of September as well as update the web site.

- There will be extensive outreach -- like newspaper advertisements in the Chronicle, the Examiner, and a list of the neighborhood newspapers. It will be placed on Commission calendar notices; there will be public service announcements on radio, television, City Watch, and community newspapers; announcements to the Board of Supervisors, on the Planning Department's web site, at the public libraries, and a general mailing to advocates and community groups.

- There was a comment made under Public Comment that staff is not implementing the Residential Design Guidelines, that is not accurate.

- Staff is implementing these guidelines.

- Staff is also proposing to revise them as there are concerns about the 12-year-old Guidelines and various discussion about how well they address all of the neighborhood concerns and all the Planning concerns.

Re: Department of Building Inspection

- Recently, DBI has issued a new process for critical needed additions because apparently there have been complaints of illegal demolitions, alterations, etc. But they've been violating a lot of the planning laws.

- Projects come to Planning, get approval then go to DBI, get approved and do illegal units with illegal additions.

- Perhaps two applications should be filed, one for the alteration, and the other for the substantial demolition of the building.

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

BOS - None

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.

John Carney

Re: 450 Rhone Island

- There are a number of items inaccurate in the EIR.

- There are issues of asbestos, and additional tests should be done. If there is asbestos material present, then many people will be sued.

- He actually stopped the progress of this project before because of the issue of asbestos.

- This project is being built on a hazardous site.

- As long as the subsoil is not touched then there will not be any problems.

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

13. 2003.0207C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1509 TARAVAL STREET - between 25th and 26th Avenues, Assessor's Block 2400 Lot 043 - Request under Planning Code Section 161.(j) for Conditional Use Approval for a reduction of three off-street parking spaces required for dwellings for a Project with ground floor commercial and three dwelling units. This project lies within an NC-2 Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

NOTE: On July 10, 2003, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove by a vote of +5-2 (Commissioners Bradford Bell and Feldstein voted No). Final Language scheduled for July 24, 2003. On July 24, 2003, this item was continued to 8/21/03

SPEAKER(S): None

MOTION: Motion to Disapprove

AYES: Antonini and W. Lee

NAYES: Bradford Bell and Boyd

RESULT: Motion Failed

ACTION: Continued to September 4, 2003.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

14. 1999. 410E & 2003.0038E (J. KUGLER: (415) 558-5983)

450 RHODE ISLAND STREET - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH RETAIL AND 17TH AND RHODE ISLAND STREETS LEGISLATION FOR A GROCERY STORE SPECIAL USE SUBDISTRICT. Certification of Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1 which is approximately the whole of the block between Rhode island, Mariposa, 17th and Kansas Streets. The proposed project consists of two elements: the first is two ordinances introduced by the Board of Supervisors amending the San Francisco Planning Code (including Zoning Maps 8 and 8SU) to change the zoning on the block bounded by Rhode Island, 17th, Kansas and Mariposa Streets from M-1 (Light Industrial) to NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial). The proposed legislation would also add Section 781.10, which would create a 17th and Rhode Island Street Grocery Store Special Use Subdistrict applicable to the block described above to permit a neighborhood grocery store with beer and wine sales on that block. The second element is a proposed development that would involve the construction of a five-story building ranging in height from 16 ½ feet to 52 ½ feet and containing about 204,800 square feet of mixed-use residential/retail space. The project would include approximately 168 residential units, approximately 4,000 square feet of retail space, and approximately 34,500 square feet of grocery store space. In addition, a parking garage would partially occupy three levels, providing a total of approximately 323 self-park off-street parking spaces. The new proposed building would step-up the north slope of the Potrero Hill project site (Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1), which is bounded by 17^th Street on the north, Rhode Island Street on the east, Mariposa Street on the south, and Kansas Street on the west. The project site is within the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district and within a 40-X height/bulk district.

NOTE: Public Hearing held on May 22, 2003. Public comment period closed May 27, 2003.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Certified

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

MOTION: 16630

Items 15-17 were called and heard together:

15. 2003.0038Z ( P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

REZONING FROM M-1 TO NC-3 AND 17TH AND RHODE ISLAND STREETS GROCERY STORE SPECIAL USE SUBDISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Section Map 8 and 8SU of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to rezone the property described as Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1, full block bound by Rhode Island Street, 17^th Street, Kansas Street and Mariposa Street, from M-1 (Light Industrial) with a 40-X height and bulk designation to NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) with a 40-X height and bulk designation and the 17th and Rhode Island Street Grocery Store Special Use Subdistrict.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Sharline Curtis - Project Sponsor

- She is very happy to be here to present this project.

- She has done a lot of work with people in Potrero Hill.

- There were many meetings organized, including meetings with the Potrero Boosters.

- The project consists of providing a mid-size full service grocery store.

- They are currently speaking with grocery store companies, trying to come to an agreement.

(+) David Johnson - Project Architect

- This mixed-use project has been the response of the community's input.

- The most important goals of this project consist of the following: 1) shift the mass of the building down the hill away from Mariposa toward 17^th Street; 2) enhance the neighborhood retail serving character of 17^th Street; 3) express the narrow lot width of the neighborhood by dividing the building into distinct residential segments; 4) emphasize the residential and pedestrian scale; 5) create approximately 30 pedestrian access points along the perimeter of the project; and 6) balance the coverage of the building on the site with generous open space.

(-) Babette Drefke

- It bothers her to hear there was "community input" when she has not been invited to participate.

- There is so much need for family housing that this project should be for that.

- The area can be rezoned to residential. Then build housing units.

- She has issues about the height.

- 52 ½ feet will make this area a windy tunnel.

(-) John Carney

- Nowhere in the environmental report does it require asbestos testing.

- Why are intersections away from the project being improved when the intersections near the project are the ones that should be improved?

- This project should be downgraded to residential.

(+) Julie Milburn - California College of Arts and Crafts

- She read a letter from the president of the Potrero Boosters who is in support of this project.

(+) Tim McDonough

- This type of project allows neighborhoods to interact.

(+) Kate White - San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

- The coalition strongly supports this project because it will make an important contribution to their goals.

- She urges the Commission to approve this project.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

RESOLUTION: 16631

16. 2003.0038T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

17TH AND RHODE ISLAND STREETS GROCERY STORE SPECIAL USE SUBDISTRICT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 781.10 to create the 17th and Rhode Island Streets Grocery Store Special Use Subdistrict for the property described as Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 1, full block bound by Rhode Island Street, 17th Street, Kansas Street and Mariposa Street. The designation of the 17th and Rhode Island Street Grocery Store Special Use Subdistrict permits one of-sale (Type 20 and Type 21) liquor store as a conditional use on the first or second story, provided that it is operated as an integral element of a grocery store of not less than 30,000 gross square feet.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

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

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

RESOLUTION: 16632

17. 2003.0018C (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

450 RHODE ISLAND STREET - full block bound by Rhode Island, 17th, Kansas and Mariposa Streets; Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3978 - Request for conditional use authorization under Sections 303, 304, 712.11, 712.21, and proposed Section 781.10 of the Planning Code to allow a Planned Unit Development for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of up to 168 dwelling units, approximately 39,400 square feet of commercial/retail space (including a grocery store of approximately 34,500 square feet with liquor, beer and wine sales) and approximately 323 independently accessible off-street parking spaces, in an M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district, a former Industrial Protection Zone and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, proposed for rezoning to the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 17th and Rhode Island Street Grocery Store Special Use Subdistrict, including exceptions to the dwelling unit exposure, usable open space, rear yard, height measurement and bay window requirements in Section 136 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

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

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

MOTION: 16633

18a. 2003.0532XV (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

239 GRANT AVENUE - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 294 -- Request under Planning Code Section 309(a)(1) (Downtown Project) for Determinations of Compliance and Request for Exceptions, including an exception from the rear yard requirements) pursuant to Building Permit Application 2003.08.08.1580. This site lies within a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) District and within an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The project would convert vacant office space on five floors to five dwelling units. Existing ground floor retail use would remain. The building envelope would be remodeled but not expanded except on the roof to provide required elevator access. The subject property is an unrated (not significant) building within the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District under Article 11.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Peter Cornell - Project Architect

- He described the design of the building and how the proposed design addresses the guidelines for the Kearny/Market/Mason/Sutter Conservation District Guidelines.

- He displayed a materials sample board.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

MOTION: 16634

18b. 2003.0532XV (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

239 GRANT AVENUE - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 294 - Request under Planning Code Sections 151 and 305 for a variance from parking requirements. This site lies within a C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) District and within an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The project would convert vacant office space on five floors to five dwelling units. Existing ground floor retail use would remain. The building envelope would be remodeled but not expanded except on the roof to provide required elevator access. No parking is proposed where one space is required. This item will be heard concurrently by the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 18a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and granted the variance

19a. 2002.1301CV (M. LUELLEN (415) 558-6478)

230-242 TURK STREET - "The Salvation Army Turk Street Center", north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets; Lots 024 & 006 in Assessors Block 0338: Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303 to demolish a building with 74 residential hotel units and to construct a new mid-rise building that will contain 109 units of affordable transitional housing for adults in recovery and older foster care youth. The project includes a gymnasium, pool, chapel and multipurpose room on the ground floor, and social services offices, and youth recreational area on the second and third floors, all built over an underground parking level accessed from Turk Street and containing at least 32 off-street spaces. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and located within the North of Market Residential Special Use District No. 1, and is in an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. The existing building is a contributing structure to the National Register Eligible San Francisco Apartment and Hotel District, its demolition was found to not have a substantial adverse impact on the district. A Final Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted and issued on June 12, 2003.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

NOTE: On July 24, 2003, the Commission continued this matter indefinitely. Subsequently, this item was re-advertised to August 21, 2003.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Lieutenant Colonel Betty Love- Project Sponsor - Salvation Army

- They determined that a community center at this location would benefit a 6-block radius in the tenderloin.

- It is with a great deal of pleasure that the organization presents this project.

(+) Bob Herman - Herman and Collar Architecture

- The development will be located at the southern edge of the tenderloin and the southern edge of the historic district.

- The design of the building had to be modern but maintain the historical nature of the neighborhood.

- The composition of the building honors the past, yet has modern material.

(+) David Villa-Lobos - Community Liaison to South of Market and City Hall

- There have been many projects that he has opposed in this area, but he is in favor of this project for various reasons.

- The Salvation Army has always been responsible and is always trying to improve the quality of life in the Tenderloin.

(+) Bob Starzel - The Salvation Army Advisory Board

- He lives in San Francisco and is proud to be on the advisory board of the Salvation Army.

- This project will provide an opportunity to build lives.

- This project will bring improvement to the City.

(-) David Baker

- Various times he has complained about the appropriation of office space on the site, the conversion of shelter space to a youth hostel and the inefficiently of the organization to keep the area clean.

(+) Sam Houston

- The Salvation Army has made every attempt to find housing for the residents that were displaced.

- The organization has a rich tradition in the City.

- He has seen the teen at the summer camps and they are always joyful. This makes youth better citizens.

(+) Jennifer Aarons

- She is a youth worker for the Salvation Army.

- She is the person who takes children and youth pass sex shops and drug dealers in order to take them bowling because they do not have a sports program.

- She is very excited about this project because people have requested these types of services, especially a swimming pool.

- She urges the Commission to support this project and support children and youth.

(+) Mary Lou Harris

- She lives on Turk Street and is very much in support of this project.

- She is only concerned about the noise in the neighborhood.

ACTION: Approved as Amended: Construction hours are M-F from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

MOTION: 16635

19b. 2002.1301CV (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

230-242 TURK STREET - "The Salvation Army Turk Street Center", north side between Jones and Leavenworth Streets; Lots 024 & 006 in Assessors Block 0338: Request for a rear yard modification in accord with Section 134(f) to provide an equivalent yard area elsewhere on the lot, a Variance to provide 32 parking spaces where 88 are required, and a variance to Section 136(2)(C) regarding bay window glass area, are sought as part of a project to construct a new mid-rise building that will contain 109 units of affordable housing for adults in recovery and older foster care youth and facilities for associated services. The project includes a gymnasium, pool, chapel and multipurpose room on the ground floor, and social services offices, and youth recreational area on the second and third floors, all built over an underground parking level accessed from Turk Street and containing at least 32 off-street spaces. The subject property is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and located within the North of Market Residential Special Use District No. 1 and is in an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District. The existing building is a contributing structure to the National Register Eligible San Francisco Apartment and Hotel District, its demolition was found to not have a substantial adverse impact on the district, and a Final Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted and issued on June 12, 2003. The Zoning Administrator will consider these requests.

NOTE: On July 24, 2003, the Commission continued this matter indefinitely. Subsequently this item was re-advertised to August 21, 2003.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for Item 19a.

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

20. 2003.0090C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

3953 24^TH STREET - south side of 24th Street, between Sanchez Street and Noe Street, Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 6508 - Request for conditional use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 728.39 & 161(j) to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and to construct a four-story (plus basement) mixed-use building without the required one off-street parking space. The proposal includes six senior dwelling units on the upper three floors and approximately 2,400 square of retail space in two separate commercial units. The project site is located in the 24th-Street, Noe Valley, Neighborhood Commercial District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Request for Continuance

Lynne Lombardo - Jersey Street Neighbors for Responsible Growth

Re: Continuance

- This project is an extremely bad precedent for this neighborhood.

- She would like to have all the Commissioners present to make decisions on this project.

- She received the plans for this project about one week ago and she needs more time to analyze this.

Claire Pilcher - Friends of Noe Valley

- She is also concerned about the entire 24^th Street corridor

- She has not even seen the plans.

- They really need more time to discuss the issues.

Cathy Shereet

- She attended the meetings on this project and saw the plans, pictures, etc.

- The project sponsor has made many revisions to this project.

- The building that is coming down is obsolete but the building that will replace it should match the character of the neighborhood.

- She does not agree to a continuance request because nothing can be changed if the project does not get started.

Peggy Lenartowicz - Jersey Street Neighbors for Responsible Growth

- She just received the plans less than one week ago.

- The new plans are incomplete.

- There are about 900 signatures throughout Noe Valley and the City of San Francisco who are opposed to the project.

- A continuance is desperately needed.

Lou Blazej

- Representatives of Noe Valley and other neighborhood organizations who are not here asking for a continuance.

- There are a lot of people who just do not like this project.

- He hopes that the Commission will hear this project because the project sponsor has done all they can to accommodate the issues and requests from the neighbors.

Paul Catis - East and West Castro Street Improvement Club

- There are a lot of items that need to get "ironed" out so a continuance is appropriate.

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Merits of the Case

(+) Lou Blazej - Project Sponsor

- He displayed a photograph of the current location and the proposed structure.

- He and the Project Sponsor have done their best to meet the concerns of the neighbors.

- There will be six residential units, more retail space, no new curb cuts, metered parking, etc.

(-) Paul Kantus - East and West of Castro Improvement Club

- This building is a four story building on a two story building block.

- This project will set a present for anyone who will want to tear down a home and build a huge building

- This building is too tall.

(+) John Brunn - Friends of Noe Valley

- They are unanimously opposed to this project and hopes that the Commission will listen to the desires of the neighborhood.

(-) Peggy Lenartowicz - Jersey Street Neighbors for Responsible Growth

- The design that is currently being presented to the Commission, she received only about one week ago.

- They are very adamant about having the top floor removed, set back or no set back.

- This project is going to present a negative impact on the neighborhood.

- They are asking for preservation of their neighborhood.

- A healthy neighborhood is very important.

(-) Steve March - Jersey Street Neighbors for Responsible Growth

- He lives on Jersey Street.

- This project is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

(-) Lynne Lombardo - Jersey Street Neighbors for Responsible Growth

- She is mostly concerned about the height and bulk of the building.

- She displayed photographs showing the impact the building will have on the adjacent homes and the neighborhood as a whole.

- They want a well-designed building. They are not fighting that.

(-) Yvonne Borg - Jersey Street Neighbors for Responsible Growth

- She lives on the backside of the proposed project and does not support it.

(-) Anastasia Yovanopoulos - Friends of Noe Valley

- She lives in the area.

- This project will be an eye sore.

- The project sponsor is not respecting the wishes of the neighbors.

- They want the top taken off.

(-) Ean Yovanopis

- Noe Valley has always been known as a very "wonderful community."

- This area makes it different than any other places in this country.

- Part of the beauty is the sense of community and the buildings.

- This project is just too big and out of scale.

(-) Amalia Ahruia-Hartwell - Friends of Noe Valley

- There should be restrictions on the residents of this structure.

- Many of the neighborhood associations of the area are against this project.

- The first picture that the developer presented is really what was intended. There has not been much change done to the design.

(+) Tom McDonough

- Cities are about density.

- The building will be close to a major transit corridor.

(+) Jeremy Paul

- He is a neighbor and knows that the building to be demolished is a place that needs to be addressed because it is an eyesore.

- He is strongly in favor of this project.

(+) Elise Langer

- She is concerned about how traffic will be enforced.

- What will prevent them from having one or more cars? Where will they park?

- She requested a condition requiring developers to provide parking at another location, prevent public access from the back for security, privacy and noise.

- She also requested that the Planning Commission authorize residential parking permits on three blocks of Jersey, Church, Sanchez, Noe and Castro. This would mitigate the impact on parking.

(-) Stephen Jane - Jersey Street Neighbors for Responsible Growth

- He lives on Jersey Street.

- He is opposed to the design plans because they don't show dimensions and don't show the height at all.

- The Commission cannot evaluate accurately the impact of a building until there are design drawings that accurately show the height of all the existing structures that surround the buildings and that accurately show dimensions.

- He asked the developer to provide a diagram showing the relationship between the proposed building and the buildings on Jersey Street and they did not provide this to them. The information on the story pole showing the height was not provided to them either.

(+) Brandon Mere - Painting Contractor

- The project will have a Victorian facade with pleasant color schemes and top quality materials inside and outside.

- The construction will fit the surrounding neighborhood.

- The buildings are 40 feet tall.

- He thinks that the Project Sponsor should be commended for providing senior housing in such a desirable neighborhood.

(+) Terry McJagger

- He has worked for the construction developers for the last six years.

- He knows that the contractor does first class projects.

(+) Cathy Sherette

- She is a realtor but she does not stand to profit from her statements.

- It is important to build better communities.

- This is an opportunity for senior housing.

- Change will be the future of 24^th Street.

(+) Jason Lie

- He comes to 24^th Street about three times a week.

- He is an owner of a hardwood floor company.

- He is speaking on behalf of he and his staff who are in support of this project.

- He has been working with the Developer for a number of years

(+) Mike Cassidy

- He has worked on a lot of projects in the area.

- He realizes that the area has heavy traffic.

- Because of the elevation of the home, and if one is standing on the roof of the project, the roof tops of the homes appear as if they were all the same elevation.

(-) Clara Filter

- She has belonged to Friends of Noe Valley since 1971 after she lost a Planning battle by one vote and was told it was because they were not organized.

- She is worried about the precedent this project will create in the area.

- If everyone involved had been at the three meetings with the Friends of Noe Valley, seen what is being presented today, there would be a lot less to talk about tonight.

- They were never shown these new facades or modifications.

(+) Carol Deny - President of Noe Valley Merchants Association

- When this project started they were unhappy with a number of Issues, they were unhappy with the design specifically.

- They just want to make sure that designs in Noe Valley follow the Residential Design Guidelines.

- They are very happy with the Victorian design.

- The other issue that the Merchants have is that they actually wanted the parking and they were convinced by Friends of Noe Valley that it would be much better for the neighborhood, for walking on 24th street, if they gave in on the issue of parking.

- As far as he is concerned, the design that they saw this week met with satisfaction of the Merchant Association, and they are very happy with the response they got from the builder.

(+) Phil Smith

- He lives on the Peninsula.

- He thinks this is a good project for the area because about 30% of his annual work is in Noe Valley.

- The contractor working on this project gives a lot of attention to detail.

(+) Eileen Long

- She lives a few blocks East of Noe Valley and she shops on 24^th Street most days of the week.

- Bell market has been her Supermarket for over 15 years.

- She is concerned for the 24th street project because there has been a lot of work done.

- Many other buildings are over 30 feet.

- She urged the Commission to vote favorably.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue - Residential Builders

- People seem to think that what is big is ugly.

- This project sponsor in this instance is putting as much incredible attention to detail In the rear of the building as he is on the front of the building.

- When one looks out the window, one will mostly see a beautifully designed building from the rear. As well as obviously what would appear from the front.

(+) Rodrigo Santos - Structural Engineer

- His firm was asked to do a structural investigation of the [existing] building.

- He made the investigation on observations and testing.

- He found it is not only a blight but structurally unsound building.

- It is made out of all bricks with practically no mortar.

- The framing is 2 by 8 framing.

- There is no structural element in that building according to code.

- He is suggesting a complete demolition of the building and replacement with an architecturally well thought out structure. And that is what has been presented by the project sponsor.

(+) Drake Gardner - Principal Designer

- When he initially designed this project, he went full envelope allowed by the Planning Code, including parking.

- He went with a modern design. He always tries to integrate in the community if he can.

- Although we're modernists, we are quite able to do traditional buildings.

- He presented this project to the community and got a lot of feedback.

- It became apparent that the height and bulk were going to be an issue, the style was going to be an issue. So they had to rethink the project.

(+) Lou Pine

- He has worked in the lighting industry in San Francisco for 19 years.

- He deals with all sorts of builders.

- His comments are related to the commitment that the Project Sponsors has on this project.

- They are serious about what they do and they take pride in having building structures that embellish the neighborhood.

ACTION: Approved as Amended: 1) Restrict occupants to age 62 minimum; and
2) allow only two storefronts.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

21. 2002.1121C (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

344 TARAVAL STREET - north side between Funston and 14^th Avenues; Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 2342 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Section 711.38 of the Planning Code for the conversion from a second floor residential use to non-residential uses. The proposal is to (1) construct a two-story rear addition and a third story vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling; (2) establish a dental office on the ground floor; (3) convert the second floor from residential use to two offices in the rear, accessory to the dental office and an insurance office at the front; and (4) relocate the second floor dwelling unit to the new third story in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor

- This building was properly permitted in its expansion, installation of the dental office, in the creation of a fully accessible elevator, etc.

- The impacts of this conditional use will be minimal.

- The impact of having commercial occupancy on the second floor will not be substantial to the neighborhood.

- He displayed a photograph of the façade of the buildings on the street.

- The expansion of the building is very much in character with the neighborhood.

(+) Zelco Zimony

- He lives in the neighborhood.

- The project sponsor occupies the entire first and second floor.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue

- He does not understand why Mr. Zimony is protesting this project since the project sponsor is only trying to expand and house his family.

- This is another frivolous protest.

ACTION: Approved as Amended: delete the conditions that talks about continuing use and abandonment.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

MOTION: 16637

G. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At approximately 6:30 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

22. 2003.0368D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

646 LAKEVIEW AVENUE - north side of the street between Miramar and Granada Avenues, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 7016 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.06.25.9960, proposing to construct a one-story over garage and basement single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Raymond Hill - Discretionary Review Requestor

- He moved into this area in 1981.

- He is concerned that the new construction will pass the back part of his house and he will open his window and there will be a wall there.

- He is also concerned that the project will make his house lose value.

- The new construction is just huge.

(-) Tom Bura

- He welcomes construction in the neighborhood because they want to be good neighbors, but the project sponsor should abide by the fact that this is a Single-Family home area.

- If this project is built as proposed it will increase the parking problems in the neighborhood because the house has a garage for one car only.

(-) Brian Trahian

- The concerns that most of the neighbors have is that most of the homes in the neighborhood are made up of single-family, modest homes that are mostly owner occupied, but this construction is begging to be converted into a multifamily type of dwelling.

- This project is three times the size of the homes in this neighborhood.

- It just really needs to be scaled down.

(-) Chris Vera

- He is concerned with the size of the new construction.

- He believes it is just too large for the neighborhood.

(-) Anderson (did not state last name)

- He is opposed to this project because it is too large.

- He feels that it is twice the size of the homes in the neighborhood and it only has a one car garage.

- It just does not fit into this neighborhood.

(+) James Lee - Engineer and Designer

- He displayed diagrams showing the interior and exterior design of the house.

- The house needs to be that size because the Project Sponsor plans to have his entire family live there.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications: Reduce the depth of the building by 18-feet at all levels and record a Notice of Special Restrictions on the property to limit its use to a single-family dwelling.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

23. 2003.0585D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

465 DAY STREET - south side between Noe and Castro Streets. Assessor's Block 6640 Lot 008. Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002 1218 3820, to construct a two story rear addition to the existing two story one family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Deborah Delambert - Discretionary Review Requestor

- She has a correction; it is not true that her building is taller than the proposed plan. It is somewhere above her second story.

- She is not opposing to the square footage that this project is proposing.

- She is just asking that the second story of the building not protrude so far into the backyard, this would be in keeping with the neighborhood character and pattern of development.

- She displayed photographs comparing the Project Sponsor's plan with her plan.

(-) Scott McFurdy

- He lives on Day Street, one lot east and downhill from the proposed project.

- He did not agree to the modifications as proposed.

- He wants to reiterate what was said in that he is not opposed to the development of this property or to the square footage that the project sponsor wants.

- He is actually in favor of that.

- What he is opposed to is the distribution of the square footage because it will have a negative impact on him as immediate neighbors and to the neighborhood as a whole.

- He feels that 461 Day will bury his home.

- The project will dump him between an existing 17 foot high wall to the east and a proposed even bigger 24 foot wall plus a peaked wall to the west.

(-) Chandler Visher

- He and his wife own property on Day Street.

- He would like to hire an architect to develop a plan that would be architecturally consistent with the present plan.

- One of the concerns the project sponsors had was that they don't like the idea that their present plan has a different slope than the existing slope.

- The existing slope is steeper. He feels that a plan that is more consistent with the neighborhood would be better.

(+) Jane Phillips - Project Sponsor

- She has lived on Day Street for nearly 23 years.

- What she is proposed is a modest expansion for only the amount of space that she really needed.

- She has had several meetings with the neighbors.

- She believes that the compromises they have made are significant and reasonable.

- She is willing to make changes to satisfy the neighbor's request.

- She does not understand how this project impacts her neighbors.

(+) Ronald P. St. Clair

- Since the filing of their permit application in December of last year, they have met with the neighbors on various occasions.

- He thought he had resolved the issues.

- He looks forward to continuing his neighborly communication regarding this matter.

- He has made every effort to avoid having to come here today.

- He has tried to accommodate his neighbor's concerns without sacrificing the architecture of his home and the modest space that they have.

(+) Sarah St. Clair

- She lives with her parents and often wonders why she is living in a closet.

- She really wants a second story.

- She believes that sometimes her life and the live of her parents would be much easier if - Her parents are very hard-working people and they need more space to work.

(+) William Pashelinksy - Project Architect.

- The design of the new building will clearly change the appearance of the current cottage.

- One of the points brought up was the nature of tearing down these types of houses and having the impact upon San Francisco Streets.

- The project sponsor feels strongly in terms of preserving the feeling of a cottage.

- The rooms are so modest in size that Sarah's bedroom cannot have a closet.

ACTION: Take Discretionary Review with the following modifications of the subject building permit application: Revision R-1 of the Building Permit Application for the project shall be approved as submitted on July 31, 2003 provided that the closet and window on the west wall of the second floor bedroom shall be flipped on the plan such that the projecting close is moved forward on the building.

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

ABSENT: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

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 ite8 is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the

posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

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

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

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

NONE

Adjournment: 7:40 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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