June 24, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Thursday, June 24, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT: Bradford Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD-BELL AT 1:40 PM

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon- Acting Zoning Administrator; Jean Paul Samaha; Joan Kugler; Mathew Snyder; Michael Smith; Tina Tam; Rick Crawford; Glenn Cabreros; Patricia Gerber - Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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



1. 2003.0106D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1910-12 STEINER STREET - east side between Wilmot and Bush Streets; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 0659 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.16.7169, proposing to merge two dwelling units to a single-family residence in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed dwelling unit merger.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION HAS BEEN CANCELLED

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: None

2. 2004.0388D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

58 COLLINGWOOD STREET - west side between Market and 18th Streets, Lot 9 in Assessor's Block 2648 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.08.1771S, proposing to alter the existing one-story-over-basement, single-family dwelling. The project will include raising the existing dwelling to allow for a new garage level for up to 2 new on-site parking spaces, construction of two new floors on top of the existing dwelling, as well as a rear horizontal extension. The project will also change the number of dwellings from one to three units on the property. The property is located in the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: None

3. 2002.1129E (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION - Lot 003 of Assessor's Block 900 in the Marina District on the northern waterfront between Laguna and Lyon Streets north of Marina Boulevard - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina Yacht Harbor. Water-side improvements would include installation of three new breakwater structures and the removal of two existing breakwater structures; reconstruction of portions of the degraded rip-rap slopes; maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation of one oily water and sewage pump out facility and refurbishment of two existing sewage pump out facilities; and upgrade of utility services and lighting at the new floating docks. Land-side improvements would include renovation of existing marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of a vacant building into office space; construction of a new maintenance building; re-stripping of existing parking lots and public paths; and construction of a new children's play area. The site is within a P (Public) District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004)

PRELIMINARY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WILL BE PREPARED

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: None

4. 2003.1110T (C. NIKITAS:(415) 558-6306)

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

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

(Continued from Regular Meetings of April 22, 2004 and June 10, 2004)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 15, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee

5. 2004.0088C (M. SNYDER: (415) 558-6891)

1042 MINNA STREET - north side between Layfayette and 11th Street, Lot 76 in Assessor's Block 3511 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 253 to construct three dwelling units that would be over 40-feet tall within an RH-3 District and 140-X Height and Bulk District. Conditional Use authorization is required for construction of any structure over 40-feet tall in a residential district. The subject site is within an RH-3 (House, Three-family) District and a 130-L Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to August 5, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee

6. 2003.1164D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

6725 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between 29^th and 30^th Avenues, Lot 47 in Assessor's Block 1404 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.13.9612 proposing to alter the existing two-story, single-family dwelling by raising the building approximately eight feet in order to create a new ground floor to contain a two-car garage, with a new dwelling unit behind, and expanding the building to the front, rear and sides. The subject property is located in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 3, 2004)

NOTE: On January 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing. The Commission expressed concerns that statements about preserving this structure or the essence of it are not reflected in the plans submitted. Item continued to March 25, 2004. Public hearing will remain open on any new information presented.

NOTE: On March 25, 2004, without a hearing, the Commission continued the matter to June 3, 2004. Public hearing remained open on any new information.

NOTE: On June 3, 2004, without a hearing, the Commission continued the matter to June 24, 2004. Public hearing continue to remain open on any new information.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 5, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee

7. 2004.0399DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2121-2123 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0094 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.28.3345, proposing to construct a new fifth floor and a five-story horizontal addition to the southern side of the existing four-story, two-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to September 9, 2004 September 23, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

John Henry Copa

- Opposed the continuance of 2121 Leavenworth Street to September 9, 2004.

- Requested this item be continued to September 23, 2004.

ACTION: Continued to September 23, 2004.

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; Boyd; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

8. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Long Range Planning regarding our calendar discussion of Eastern Neighborhoods: One request involves the interview of firms that have left San Francisco in the last few years. Correspondence on this will be forthcoming, but has not yet received it. Also, he has asked on numerous occasions for the names of PDR firms that recently have relocated to San Francisco and as yet, has not received them. There has only been a broad characterization of these firms by type, but not by individual names.

Commissioner Boyd:

- We do not often take an opportunity to express our appreciation for our leadership, especially for this Department and this Commission.

- I would like to take this moment to say to the Department and its staff and with the leadership -- what a wonderful job you are doing utilizing your time and your resources with the things made available to you to complete your tasks, and to continue [developing] land use policy and taking the leadership role for the City.

- For the staff that works hard, and supporting what this Commission does on a regular basics, for those who serve as secretaries, and those who serve as staff person for a particular project, your labor is quite beneficial to this Commission and certainly beneficial to the City as a whole.

- To the Commission, for the fine job that it does, and for the time each of us expends, offers and contributes to help the work and the job of the Planning Commission. And more particularly to our President, Shelley Bradford-Bell. For the time that this Commission has been a panel, and the items that have come before us, all of them, they have not been easy, and there might have been different sentiments voiced, expressed or harbored by individuals on the Commission, but yet there has always been a balance, a level approach to decision making. So I offer a word of commendation to Shelley Bradford-Bell as the president of this Commission--for what she does and for what she continues to do. I have seen many of the Commissions in the City, and have seen Planning Commissions of the City and County of San Francisco prior to the empanelment of this group that serves on this Commission now where that [level approach to decision making] is not always the case. This is a big job, and capable, quality leadership has been demonstrated by the president of this Commission.

- The City of San Francisco is one of the finest cities in the world. A world-class city. It is a city whose destination is on the calendar and focus of travel plans from people across the globe. Not just to tourist. But they come to learn. They come to study. They come to grow. They come to contribute. They come to [experience] this great City and this ecumenical setting in one sense. And then there is this great ethnic complexion of the entire circle of humanity -- they come to compliment it. And I think they do a great job in doing that.

- Many businesses have come, as Commissioner Antonini, stated this afternoon, and many have gone. Some of them have gone because the pressure has become to hard for them economically, or otherwise, for them to continue to do business and to transact the labors of distribution of goods or services in the City and County of San Francisco. But yet, San Francisco still remains a great City.

- Wanted to make a couple of observations because part of the beauty and part of the attractiveness of this City has been under siege. We have seen that on too many occasions. Small businesses found the city attractive and favorable and friendly. Many of the small companies who come to do business, and many who have been doing business in the City for a long time no longer find it a palatable place for them to do business. Yet in the mist of all of that, it becomes this Commission's responsibility to set land use policy and set other kinds of parameters in place so the person who wishes to do business, and continue to do business, can do so. Not only to their growth and profit, but also to the growth and profit of this City, and then to the betterment of people. I do not think we are making a good job in engaging the work force of the City. In areas where it can be engaged, I think the administration has been a little less than supportive. A far bit less than supportive of this. We find out that those that are economically challenged and those residents from several communities--more specifically from African American communities--it often becomes more difficult without the support, the enhancement, and without the encouragement that comes from the civic administrative involvement for that community to continue to flourish, and continue to grow and be sustained. Anything less than that, I think, is against it. And I think this administration's policy needs to be a little bit more fine-tuned so they can begin to express themselves and direct themselves to meeting those needs.

- Looking at what has happened in the last 5 months plus a few days, a week or so, since the engagement of this administration and its leadership. We have not seen the same kind of vibrancy and the engagement of the totality of ethnic participation and availability in the City. I do not think we have seen that done overtly as a goal or an aim at all. It has been done pretty much to the contrary. We have seen an exodus of African Americans from the civic engagements. Certainly from Department Heads [positions]. And now, contrary to the City's Charter, we have learned and understand, even beyond what this Commission is supposed to do, that there has already been an announcement made that the Director for the Planning Department has been chosen. And that decision has arrived without the engagement and without the direction of this Commission. And I certainly believe personally, that the Charter calls for that [Commission's involvement], and provides for that. If that is done here, I supposed it is done in many other places at the same time. We are seeing African American Department Heads leave from several departments. We have seen members who have been employed in the City government leave from many places. We find out they're leaving is the cause of the diminishment of our presence here. That it is unfriendly. That is very unfavorable for such economically challenged communities.

- Access to the leadership of this administration has been less than favorable. I see it personally as less than favorable when access is not available. There is no communication. [We need the kind of communication that leads to] compromise and the kind of unified building, the engagement of resources of personal as well, for ideas to come in for the entire City. It didn't start yesterday. I think it started 5 months ago, and it is beginning to snow ball as it moves forward faster and faster.

- My time with the Commission has been for a period of two years. That period ends on June 30, 2004. I would have assumed that I would receive a phone call to discuss what that all means. Whether or not that would be an invitation to continue--and certainly that would be a matter to entertain--I may or may not consider to do so. But I think that benefit should be offered to a person who serves in a capacity such as this. Others have not been given the same kind of opportunity to express themselves. And, while we make policy and set policies that governs the land use of this community, we need to realize, that there are those in this community who are from certain economic and ethnic groups who do not have the capability, nor the strength of power nor resources available to them, to be as aggressive as those who have that. There is no one to speak on their behalf. No one to actually promote and forward their needs. Those who got, get more. And those who have not, get even less.

- I am less than impressed by the leadership of the City and this current administration. Based on that, I cannot in good consciousness, nor from moral feelings that are good, continue to serve. And therefore, at the end of this Commission Comment period today I offer my resignation. I am asking you to deliver my resignation to the administration, and that resignation is effective at the close of this Commission's Comment period.

- If by chance any comments that I made, or reflections, are unwanted, wrong, inconsistent or less than true, I both challenge and encourage the Mayor of this City to demonstrate actions to the contrary.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements

None

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

BoA: None

BoS:

- Last Tuesday, June 22, 2004, the Finance Committee heard the fee adjustment legislation that was before this Commission the previous Thursday. The Board heard it with the Planning Commission recommendations. They adopted the ordinance with the following change: You had approved a $300.00 Discretionary Review fee, and a surcharge of $72.00 on permits over $10,000. Because any increases in fees, would require additional notice, the Finance Committee could not adopt that increase in fees. Similarly, to conform hourly fees to the $100.00 fee that you requested.

- Supervisor Peskin recommended dropping the $300.00 Discretionary Review fee to $190.00 with the surcharge increased to $183.00. [We] supported the idea [because] if we dropped the DR fee we have to increase the DR surcharge, and we already requested an increase in the DR surcharge to cover the smaller projects.

- The full Board adopted most of the Commission's suggestions and, [he] believes, adopted the minor fee changes that have been advertised.

- Wednesday, June 23, 2004, at the Budget Committee, we received Budget Analysts recommendations on the weekend, and had a serious of discussion with him. We are largely in agreement with the changes. However, we still need to work some things out. The recommendations are: to delete 6 vacant FTE that would save us $411,000. We believe there is a miscommunication on what the vacant positions are.

- The Budget Analyst wanted to delete one Planner IV -- we agreed with that, and the Budget Committee did make that motion to delete. The Budget Analyst recommended that we modified our [salary] savings to reflect the fact that the new hires won't be until October.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

11. 2004.0504T (J.P. SAMAHA: (415) 558-6602)

COST RECOVERY FEES - Consideration of an Ordinance to amend the Planning Code by adding Section 358 to impose a fee surcharge for projects in certain areas to recover the City's actual costs in developing an area plan, specific plan, or rezoning study or preparing a programmatic environmental document for that area; amending the San Francisco Administrative Code by adding Section 10.100-370 to establish a special fund to receive the cost recovery fees and other moneys and to fund the development of future area plans, rezoning studies and programmatic environmental documents; and adopting Planning Code Section 302 findings; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER (S)

Steve Vettel

- Very much in support for this ordinance.

- Thinks it is the logical way to acquire funds.

- On behalf of a lot of people in the development community, I would like to thank you.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

Section 1, (b) ...area plans, specific plans, rezoning studies and associated environmental review documents, add, "Completed after the effective date of this ordinance."...

Section 1, (b), (iii) add "and Downtown Neighborhoods Initiative."

Section 1, (b), (iv): Re-write the section to read: Plans and rezoning adopted under the Department's Better Neighborhoods Program, including but not limited to the Market and Octavia, Central Waterfront, Geary Blvd. and Balboa Park Plans.

Section 1, (c), (ii) Replace "divided by the total gross square footage of development potential" by " "divided by the total gross footage of the maximum build out alternative".

Section 3, (b), Replace

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

RESOLUTION NO. 16822

12. 2003.1028E (J.A. KUGLER: 558-5983)

3150 18TH STREET - Lots 002 and 012 of Assessor's Block 3573, northwestern corner of 18th Street and Treat Avenue - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed project would involve the demolition of a set of two-story light industrial office and warehouse buildings with six off-street parking spaces and construction of a five-story building consisting of approximately 260 units of rental workshops for arts activities, light manufacturing, repair and small business services uses and a single caretaker's unit. The total floor area of the new building would be about 73,224 gsf. The second through fifth floors would be set back between approximately 12 and 16 feet over the 13-1/2 foot tall podium of the ground floor. The proposed building would be approximately 50 feet tall. Pedestrian access would be provided from Treat Avenue while vehicular access would be provided from 18th Street to a ground level garage with 50 off-street parking spaces, a single loading space and six bicycle spaces. The project site is in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, and a 50-X height and bulk district. It is also within the Eastern Neighborhoods study area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004)

SPEAKER (S):

Kelly Saranger, Appellant

- Our community is not against this project.

- What we are opposed to is the potential for negative environmental effects because of the massive scale and size of this building.

- There are 130 cubicle spaces, which are intended for various artists to use, pointed directly toward our building, which is a live-work space. We are there 24/7, and there is the potential for air and water pollution because of these non-ventilated units as the current design suggests. The only ventilation for these units is the window that is pointed toward us. So we would assume that there would be fans that could blow fumes into our community.

- Also concerned about the noise and traffic.

Bruce Cree, Appellant

- There will be negative environmental impacts.

- The area where we are living is changing. It is his opinion that if there are going to be more buildings, they should be built with the character of the existing building.

- It is a very massive building.

- We as a community are not in favor of this kind of building.

Steve Vettel, representing Project Sponsor

- There is not a need for an EIR.

- This project is located in a PDR area.

- Parking is more than adequate to meet the demand credit by this project.

- Urged the Commission to uphold the Negative Declaration.

Jillian Jerome

- I am speaking to you as the Chief gardener of the Box Factory.

- Should this project be constructed, it will cause serious damage to the garden.

- It is my opinion that the proposed project be submitted for an extensive EIR.

Michael Woo

- I am here to speak about concern for the air quality.

- Feels that they are going to build too many units.

Christina (last name unclear)

- Concerned about safety and health

- There is a huge brick wall that separates the Box Factory and the new project

- This wall provides a lot of security and makes her place safe.

- Fumes would be coming toward our place.

Ron Sland

- His main concern is the size of the building, noise, pollution, fumes, and shadowing.

ACTION: Preliminary Negative Declaration upheld

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee

MOTION NO. 16823

13. 2004.0480C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1400-1424 GRANT AVENUE - northeast corner at Green Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add live entertainment, defined as Other Entertainment pursuant to Section 790.38 of the Planning Code, to an existing small self-service restaurant (dba "Magnet") within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKER (S):

Mike Eaglesen, Project Sponsor

- Trying my best to make my business profitable. That is why I am making a request for Conditional Use.

- Everyone who patronizes our establishment would like us to have some kind of entertainment.

- We are a coffee shop/restaurant. We serve Russian food and pastries. We are not a dance club.

- It is very hard to compete with the rest of the restaurants in the North Beach area.

- If we do not add to our establishment, we will simply be driven out.

Brad Willmore, Telegraph Hill Dwellers.

- Adamantly opposed to this application.

- Their liquor license is a type 41 that is specifically for a restaurant. What we have is a bar--a techno bar. They are not open for breakfast. They are not open for lunch. They are not always open for dinner. In fact, they are not open most days of the week. They are open on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights to skim the high value dollar traffic off of the bridge, tunnel, and BART crowd that come in to the Broadway Business District as well as the Grant Avenue Business District.

- The Project Sponsor severely misrepresented his intentions when he appeared before our committee to get support/approval for a restaurant, and then shoe-horn that into a bar

Derek

- Opposed project

Alex

- Spoke in favor of the project

(Speaker's name was unclear)

- Supports the project

(Speaker's name was unclear)

- Supports the project

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

CHANGED:

Condition of Approval No. 2

The authorization granted herein shall be valid for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the adoption of Motion No. 16824 and shall become null and void after that time if the police permits or other required permits have not been obtained.

ADDED:

Non-transparent window coverings shall not be used.

The establishment shall operate as a restaurant in compliance with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control requirements for a Type 41 license.

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; S. Lee; W. Lee

NAYES: Hughes

MOTION NO. 16824

14. 2003.0375C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

274 BRANNAN STREET - north side between 1st Street and 2nd Street, Lot 73 in Assessor's Block 3774 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 818.73 and 227(h) to install seven antennas on the rooftop and related backup equipment on the property, as a part of a wireless transmission network operated by Verizon Wireless. The site is within an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and the South End Historic District. Pursuant to the WTS Facilities Guidelines, the project is a Preference 2 Location Site, a co-location site.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKER (S)

Jason Smith, Verizon Wireless

- Gave a general description of the project.

- The project will potentially provide enhanced emergency response from police, fire and paramedic services.

- This project meets all applicable Planning Code sections as they relate to necessity and desirability and well as the WTS Guidelines.

- Architecturally, the project is being designed comparable with the existing building with minimum visual impact.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; S. Lee; W. Lee

ABSENT Hughes

MOTION NO. 16825

15. 2004.0438C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

3231 MISSION STREET - east side between Fair Avenue and Virginia Avenue, Lot 44 in Assessor's Block 5615 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 781.5 to establish a small self-service restaurant (as defined by Planning Code Section 790.91) within the Mission Street Fast-Food Subdistrict. The restaurant is proposed to be name "Botana"; it would not fall under the definition of "formula retail" of Planning Code Section 703.3(b). The subject site is within the NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial - Moderate Scale) District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District and the Mission Street Fast-Food Subdistrict.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKER (S):

Harlan Cauffman

- Spoke in favor of the project

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

2. This authorization does not include any expansion of the restaurant use, or the establishment of any other use with the proposed ground floor addition approved under Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.20.4334. Any expansion into that space, or any new established use in that space other than retail (Other Retail and Service as defined by Planning Code Section 790.102) shall require separate Planning Department review and approval, including Conditional Use authorization if required by Code, and shall be subject to any notification requirements in effect at that time.

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; S. Lee; W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

MOTION NO. 16826

16. 2002.1255C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2191 MARKET STREET - south side between 15^th and Sanchez Streets, Lot 137 in Assessor's Block 3558 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 721.83 by Verizon Wireless to install (3) antennas on the rooftop and associated equipment cabinets within the basement of a mixed-use building located in the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial District and 50-X Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Limited Location Preference 6 site as it is a building within an Individual Neighborhood Commercial District (Upper Market).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKER (S):

Jason Smith - Verizon Wireless

- The project will provide reliable voice and data transmission services in the City and County of San Francisco.

- The project will potentially provide enhanced emergency response from police, fire and paramedic services.

- The project will maximize communication services while minimizing impacts on municipal services.

- This project will provide the elimination of fading, dropped calls, and poor reception in the Twin-Peaks. /Castro District.

Philip Colgan

- Opposed to the installation of antennas.

- The garage where the equipment is proposed to be has been broken into four times in the last two years.

- Security is very inadequate.

- As homeowners we would see an increase in insurance costs based on this equipment and other matters.

- I'm also concerned about health issues.

Michael Yeo

- Opposed to the antenna's installation.

Leo Medeiros

- Addressed the issue of property values.

Barry Cornelius

- He is one of the owners of the property where these antennas will be installed.

- Concerned about the health hazards.

- There will be fire code violations. The Fire Department water supply is located just outside the store that they are proposing to keep locked.

Roger Gillespie

- Concerned about safety, particularly the platform itself. It is not properly sound to contain six air conditioning units.

Dr. Rachelle Ferraro

- Concerned about health.

- This will really affect the value of her business.

Rafael Mandelman

- In favor of Verizon's application. All condo owners received notice that there will be these cell phone antennas on the top the building prior to their purchase.

William Gravitt

- In favor for the antenna application.

Jim Lauferberg

- Every purchaser was notified that these antennas were going to be installed.

- Urged Commission to approve the project.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee

MOTION NO. 16827

17. 2003.1099C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

1601-1611 NORIEGA STREET - south side between 23^rd and 24^th Avenues, Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 2060 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 711.83 by Nextel to install three (3) antennas on the rooftop and associated equipment within the basement of a mixed-use building located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and 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 site as it is a mixed-use building within a high-density (NC-2) district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

Bill Stevens, Nextel

- Gave an overall description of the project

Ilene Boken

- Opposes the project.

- There is a disconnect between the neighbors and Nextel. The neighbors feel that the services are adequate; that additional antennas are not necessary; and that they will create an additional exposure to EMS.

- Nextel, on the other hand, talks about poor coverage in their community outreach brochure.

- There is even a disconnect with Nextel itself. At their retail store at Stonestown, the neighborhood coverage maps that they gave me showed that they have good coverage in the neighborhood.

Edith Higa

- Opposes the installation of the antennas.

- Building has 30 units that are mainly occupied by non-English speaking elderly Russians.

- Notice regarding this hearing was not translated into Russian.

- Concerned about health hazards.

Connie Wong

- Opposed installation.

- We do not want too many commercial antennas built in this residential area.

- Asked the Commission to deny this application.

Ellen Cheng

- Opposed to conditional use application for the installation of these antennas.

Raymond Chin

- Please deny application

- Concerned about his health

ACTION: Public hearing closed. Commission passed a motion of intent to disapprove. Final Language July 1, 2004.

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Hughes; S. Lee; W. Lee

NAYES: Antonini

18a. 2004.0124DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

554 VALLEY STREET - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 6611 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.06.6518, proposing to demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling 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 demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

Larry McCoy, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The City has already stated that this house is a mistake.

- The project would be much larger than the other houses in the neighborhood.

- It is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

Does not meet the residential guidelines.

- This project is not supported by the neighborhood.

Father Nazarin

- Opposed the demolition.

Beth VanEman

- These houses would be out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.

- This project would destroy the open space character.

Mrs. .Anderson

- Opposed the current proposed project because it is not community comparable development.

- Concerned about heath, safety, traffic and noise.

- Urged the Commission to grant the Discretionary Review.

Mr. Anderson

- Concerned about the fire hazard. There are a lot of trees in that area.

- Asked the Commission to deny the demolition application.

Jacqueline Garry

- Opposed the demolition.

Name not stated

- Opposed the demolition.

Betty Wilkison

- There will be a strong negative impact on the neighborhood.

John Sanger, representing Project Sponsor

- The project is consistent with keeping the residential guidelines.

- The entire house has been re-designed. The entire shape and elements of the two houses have been redesigned.

- Reduced the height of the building by 6 feet.

- Reduction in the occupiable square footage from about 3,700 sq. ft. to 3,200 sq. ft. There is an additional 300 or 400 sq. ft. of non-occupyable space in the garage.

- FAR IS 1.17, because these are very large lots. That is a low FAR compared with any other development in the City.

Elizabeth Moore

- Deny the Discretionary Review application.

Mike Murray

- Approve this project as proposed.

Charles Breittinger

- Encouraged this demolition to go forward.

Richy Hart

- Urged the Commission to approve this demolition.

Dave O'keffe

- In favor of the demolition.

Raymond Lyons

- Asked the Commission to approve the demolition

Tamara Galanter

- This project does follow all residential guidelines.

- If the Commission does decide to approve this project, as a condition of approval it could be required that the applicant address the concerns of the neighbors--not just the hours of construction, but also the access to the street. Valley is a very narrow street.

Alice Barkley

- When you start to remodel an existing building, you find that it will cost more per square foot by time you buy it and renovate it. It cost more simply because our housing in the City is very old.

- Labor costs for renovation does not make sense when trying to make a home affordable in the City.

Santos, Structural Engineer

- Gave a general explanation of the soundness report.

Elsie McGee

- Asked the Commission to approve this project.

Joe O'Donoghue

- Spoke in favor of the demolition.

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

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; S. Lee; W. Lee

NAYES: Hughes

18b. 2004.0125DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

556 VALLEY STREET (aka 554 VALLEY STREET) - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 6611 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.06.6520, proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a three-story over garage single-family dwelling on the proposed east lot, in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

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

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved per staff recommendation:

- Construction Management hours: Monday to Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Saturdays with prior notice.

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; S. Lee; W. Lee

NAYES: Hughes

18c. 2004.0126DD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

558 VALLEY STREET (aka 554 VALLEY STREET) - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 6611 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.06.6522, proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a three-story over garage single-family dwelling on the proposed west lot, in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 27, 2004)

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

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved per staff recommendation:

- Construction Management hours: Monday to Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Saturdays with prior notice.

AYES: Bradford-Bell; Antonini; S. Lee; W. Lee

NAYES: Hughes

ITEM #19 WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND HEARD AFTER ITEM # 17

19. 2003.0741D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

580 OAK PARK DRIVE - end of Oak Park Drive, a cul-de-sac, 450 feet from the corner of Devonshire Way and Oak Park Drive, located in the Forest Knolls Neighborhood, in a residential enclave between Mount Sutro and the Laguna Honda Reservoir, Lot 30 in Assessor's Block 2676 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.04.2261, proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) 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 April 22, 2004)

Note: On March 11, 2004, the Commission heard a staff report and received public testimony. Following the Commission's deliberation, they continued this matter to April 1, 2004, instructing the project sponsor to meet with neighbors and directed the Director of Planning to report back to them on the soil conditions. Public Comment Remains Open. On April 1, 2004, this item was continued to April 22, 2004.

Note: On April 22, 2004, the Commission continued the matter to June 24, 2004.

SPEAKER(S):

Larry Paul, Architect representing the DR requestor -

- We agree to the four-story project. It should have a setback of 15 feet in accordance with the Residential Design Guidelines.

- The third story should be setback a little bit.

- The adjacent property is only 2 stories.

- The stucco base should be limited to just the first story, and the upper story should have wood siding rather than what is proposed. It would help to meld this project into the character of the neighborhood.

- The rear deck--this is a big issue of privacy

- It does not meet the residential guidelines

- There is definitely a need for a construction management plan to be put into place that would restrict construction just to the weekdays, maybe 8 am to 4 pm.

- There should also be a provision for the parking. This is a very tiny cul-de-sac and there is very little parking on the street.

Christine Hansen

- Does not object to the building of this house.

- The issue is the project sponsor's non-response. We have constantly been ignored.

- The property is on a cul-de-sac and we have concerns about the tightness of the area.

- Concerned about the parking, garage access, construction time, etc.

- Asked for no construction on the weekends.

David Pelavin

- Concerned about his privacy.

- Project sponsor should retain the services of an arborist.

- Concerned about the construction management.

-Jackie Pelavin

- Concerned about the preservation of the trees,

- Also concerned about privacy.

- Building scale form design guidelines states specifically that the design and scale of building be comparable with the heights and depth of surrounding buildings.

Charles Cunnigham

- Opposed to the construction of this project.

- Concerned about preservation of the trees.

John Gray

- This project is going to affect a lot of properties in the area.

- Concerned about safety.

- This building will be out of proportion.

Alice Barley, Representing Project Sponsor

- Gave a description of the project.

Joe O'Donoghue

- This project will be a great asset to this neighborhood.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

1) To present a better visual transition between the two building types: two-story, single-family detached dwellings, on down-sloping lots on the west side of Oak Park Drive and three- and four-story, single-family detached dwellings on up-sloping lots on the east side of Oak Park Drive, provide a 15-foot setback on the third floor (top level) at the front of the building;

2) To be consistent with the neighborhood character, install stucco work only at the base of the building (garage level) and horizontal wood siding at the first, second, and third floors (top three levels);

3) To ensure maximum privacy to the neighboring houses at 590 Oak Park Drive, provide screening and privacy mechanism for the deck above grade (first floor);

4) To ensure quite time for existing residents and safety of children playing in the cul-de-sac, limit the hours of construction from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Fridays only; and

5) To add more visual and architectural interest, provide 3 inch reveals for all windows visible from the public street.

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

20. 2004.0299DDD (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

2011 9^TH AVENUE - west side between Pacheco St. and Mendoza Ave., Lot 001P in Assessor's Block 2129 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2003.07.31.0919, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition to the existing one-story over ground/garage, single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

SPEAKER(S):

Eleanor Roman, Representing Project Sponsor

- Asked the Commission to have this item continued to July 22, 2004.

ACTION: Without a hearing, continued to July 22, 2004.

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

21. 2004.0360DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1422 45^TH AVENUE - East side between Judah and Kirkham Streets. Assessor's Block 1807 Lot 026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.04.5540, to construct horizontal and vertical additions to the existing one family dwelling including new second and third floors 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)

Recina Wong - Discretionary Review Requestor

- The subject project is too tall.

- Such tall buildings do not fit within the neighborhood.

- Also concerned about her privacy, noise and pollution.

Angel Hong - Discretionary Review Requestor

- The proposed project scale is not comparable with the rest of the neighborhood.

- Concerned about her privacy.

- Parking has always been a major issue.

Joseph Corderio

- Supports Discretionary Review.

Dennis Budd, Project Sponsor

- Majority of the homes in our neighborhood are two-stories, averaging 22' to 25' in height at the street façade.

- There are 4 large trees in the area of the backyard where Planning had recommended we do a horizontal addition.

- A horizontal addition would require twenty-five lineal feet of 6' high retaining wall on both property lines.

- A horizontal addition would eliminate the light, air and rear-yard views from our current kitchen and family room.

- We have signatures of support from 24 neighbors

- We have reviewed the published Residential Design Guidelines and find that our project conforms in the following ways:

o Providing mixed visual character and architectural style

o Providing setback height

o Minimizing impacts on light and privacy

o Preserving the lot and block pattern

o Maintaining mid-block open space

ACTION: The Commission stated that the top story was unacceptable and directed the sponsor to explore options that would eliminate the top floor and find another location for the displaced floor area. The matter was continued to September 23, 2004 by a vote +5 -0.

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

22. 2004.0460DDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1158 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1235 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.26.1230, proposing to construct a new fourth floor and rear egress stairs to an existing three-story, four-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

ALL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATIONS WERE WITHDRAWN

SPEAKER (S): None

ACTION: None

E. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

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

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

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

None

Adjournment: 9:34 P.M.

THESE MINUTS ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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