To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

September 23, 2004

September 23, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, September 23, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee, Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director of Planning and Acting Zoning Administrator; Susan Cleveland-Knowles - Deputy City Attorney; Paul Lord; Glenn Cabreros; Matt Snyder; Rick Crawford; Geoffrey Nelson; Dan DiBartolo; Craig Nikitas; Winslow Hastie; Sara Vellve; Dan Sirois; 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.

      1a. 2004.0234CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          2917-2919 24TH STREET - south side between Florida and Alabama Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 426 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j) to add three dwelling units to a commercial building without providing off-street parking. The dwelling units would be provided through a vertical addition, adding one new floor plus mezzanine above the existing two-story building with a six- and ten-foot setback from the existing front building wall. A Rear Yard Modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space within front and rear setbacks. The site is within the 24th Street-Mission Neighborhood Commercial Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

          (Proposed for Continuance to November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to November 4, 2004.

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

      1b. 2004.0234CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          2917-2919 24TH STREET - south side between Florida and Alabama Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 426 - Request for Rear Yard Modification under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space for three dwelling units within front and rear setbacks. The Zoning Administrator will hear the Rear Yard Modification immediately following the Planning Commission's hearing on the Conditional Use. The site is within the 24th Street-Mission Neighborhood Commercial Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      (Proposed for Continuance to November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, Zoning Administrator continued item to November 4, 2004.

      2. 2003.0262E (A. AGUILAR: (415) 558-5973)

          TENTH/MARKET/MISSION STREETS MIXED-USE PROJECT (AKA 1401-1435 MARKET STREET) - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The project site is at Assessor's Block 3507, Lot 39, and is located in the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and in the 150-S, 200-S, and 320-S Height and Bulk Districts. The project site is approximately 95,000 square feet on the west side of Tenth Street between Market and Mission Streets. The project site is within the proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Project Area. The project sponsor proposes to construct a 24-story, 320-foot-tall office building fronting Market Street which would provide municipal offices uses; a 21-story, 200-foot-tall market-rate housing tower fronting Tenth Street which would provide up to 250 units; and a 15-story, 150-foot-tall affordable senior housing tower would provide up to 200 units. The project would include approximately 313 off-street parking spaces and the total gross square footage for the proposed project would be approximately 1,024,119. The proposed project would require demolition of seven structures, which contain approximately 166,700 gross-square-feet of vacant office space and removal of 108 surface parking spaces.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Please note that the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, June 28, 2004.

      (Proposed for Continuance to November 4, 2004)October 14, 2004

          SPEAKER(S):

          William Fleishhacker - Steefel, Levitt & Weiss

          - They agree with the continuance date of October 14, 2004.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 14, 2004.

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

      3. 2003.0262E!KXCVMRTZ (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        TENTH/MARKET/MISSION STREETS MIXED-USE PROJECT (AKA 1401-1435 MARKET STREET) - southwest corner at 10th Street, Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 3507 - The proposed project is (1) the creation of the 10th & Market Special Use District, (2) the construction of a 320-foot-high office building at the corner of 10th & Market that will be owned and occupied by the City and County of San Francisco, (3) the construction of a 200-foot-high building along 10th Street containing up to 250 market-rate dwelling units with a garage containing up to 230 parking spaces, and (4) the construction of a 150-foot-high building at the corner of 10th & Mission containing up to 200 affordable dwelling units for senior citizens. The project requires a Planning Code text amendment, a zoning map amendment, a General Plan amendment, associated General Plan referrals, approval pursuant to Section 309 of the Planning Code, conditional use authorization, and a variance. The Planning Code text amendment consists of adding the 10th & Market Special Use District to Article 2 of the Planning Code, which would exempt residential uses from the calculation of floor area ratio. The zoning map amendment consists of adding the 10th & Market Special Use District to Map 7 of the Zoning Maps of the City and County of San Francisco. The General Plan amendment consists of adding the proposed 10th & Market Special Use District to Map 1 ("Downtown Land Use and Density Plan") of the Downtown Area Plan and adding a new policy to Objective 6 of the Downtown Area Plan.

      (Proposed for Continuance to November 4, 2004)October 14, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 14, 2004.

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

          4a. 2004.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

                1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in an the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ("NCD") and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization for use size in excess of 3,000 square feet for a music training facility ("Music City"), with a Full-Service Restaurant and Bar with live entertainment, open after hours (between 2:00 and 6:00 A.M.) also requiring a Variance for off-street parking and usable open space for an upper-floor group-housing use.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

          NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 23, 2004 instructing the project sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remains open.

      (Proposed for Continuance to October 14, 2004)October 28, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

          4b. 2002.0130CV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

                1353-1355 BUSH STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets, with additional frontage on Fern Street, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 669, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District ("NCD") and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Off-Street Parking and Usable Open Space Variances sought in conjunction with the conversion of existing tourist hotel rooms to group housing (residential hotel rooms) and for a Full-service Restaurant and Bar and music training facility ("Music City") with no off-street parking and no outdoor open area.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

          NOTE: The Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to September 23, 2004. Public comment remains open.

      (Proposed for Continuance to October 14, 2004)October 28, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, Zoning Administrator continued item to October 28, 2004.

          4c. 2002.0129C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

                835 HYDE STREET - west side between Bush and Sutter Streets, Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 279, in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District - Request for authorization of a Conditional Use for a Tourist Hotel (conversion of 31 "residential" hotel rooms, being consolidated at another location, to "tourist" rooms) with no off-street parking.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          NOTE: On July 22, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 23, 2004 instructing the project sponsor to continue discussing issues with neighbors. Public comment remains open.

          (Proposed for continuance to October 14 2004)October 28, 2004

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004.

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

      5. 2003.1164D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

                6725 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between 29th and 30th 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 deny the application.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 5, 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, June 3, and June 24, 2004, without a hearing, the Commission continued this matter. Public hearing remains open on any new information submitted/presented.

          NOTE: The Discretionary Review has been withdrawn by the neighbor. Based on revised plans, dated September 2, 2004, submitted to the Department, the plans indicate that the existing building character would be preserved and would not be considered a de facto demolition of the existing building.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      6. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of August 5, 2004.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

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

          EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

        7. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: 170 St. German

          - He commented on a document he received that makes what he believes is a very serious assertion.

          - He is not sure if this can be scheduled.

            Director Green Responded:

            - The Commissioners have the right to make comments on any matter important to them.

            - The matter cannot go into a dialogue by Commissioners unless it is scheduled.

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He is frustrated about reading a newspaper article regarding the Director of Planning as well as a letter sent from Commissioner Bradford Bell directed to Mayor Newsom. It is also disturbing reading about a project that was done in 2004 where funding was approved for open space and it was not used for open space.

          - He feels very strongly that the Commission needs to get moving on this issue.

          - He sees three options: 1) terminate the current director; 2) retain him in the position; 3) place his name in the pool of applicants.

          - "I have never seen such a dysfunctional department."

          - An action item should be placed on the agenda of the next meeting to discuss this issue.

          - He requested that Commissioners vote today to determine if this issue should be placed on the agenda as an action item at the next hearing.

          - "If Commissioners feel that I am out of line, I am willing to resign from the position of Planning Commissioner."

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He questioned if there was going to be a meeting next week (September 30, 2004)?

            Commission Secretary responded:

            - The 5th meeting of the month has always been cancelled.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He remembers a conversation about a month ago to add it back in.

            Commission Secretary responded:

            - There was a discussion of having a joint meeting with the Redevelopment Agency Commission, but a quorum was not achieved.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - Will the special meeting to discuss the director include discussion on the three options Commissioner Lee mentioned?

          - Would it be a public hearing or a closed session meeting?

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He feels that it would be a two-part meeting; one to discuss the present Director's position and the second part could be to look at other applicants.

          - His main concern right now is that the longer this is delayed, the more dysfunctional the Planning Department is as well as their relationship with the Department of Building Inspection.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He would be supportive of a discussion.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - She wants to be clear on this issue since there is already scheduled a closed session meeting on October 7 to discuss resumes.

          - There is a need for a consensus among the Commission to discuss the position of the current Director.

          Commissioner S. Lee:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - She feels that the discussion of the current Director is important but next week does not work for her.

          - The Commission has not taken the step to advertise for the position of Director.

          Commissioner Olague:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - She would be interested in seeing a search that would be initiated by the Commission.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He feels that an executive session is appropriate.

          - The only question is when should that happen in order to have a quorum.

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He feels the frustration that the public and staff are feeling. The longer the Commission waits, the less manageable staff will be.

          - In the next two weeks a decision needs to be made. That is what he wants to see happen.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - What she is understanding is just to add an item for discussion and not an item for a vote on the current Director at the October 7, 2004 closed session hearing.

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - If the City Attorney states that a vote can be made than he would like to vote.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - His thought is to have a discussion and if possible a vote.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He agrees with Commissioner Hughes.

          - Allowing a discussion with a possible vote on the options that Commissioner Lee mentioned would allow the public to get some sort of direction.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - She hears consensus that this item should be scheduled for October 7 during closed session: discussion and possible action on the current director and a discussion on the resumes they have received.

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He thanked everyone for their support and understanding the importance of this issue.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - The start time for the closed session will be 12:00 noon?

            Commissioner Secretary responded:

            Yes, although the start time for the regular hearing will possibly be changed - perhaps 2:00 or 2:30 p.m., etc.

          Commissioner S. Lee:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - If there is a possible action on the director then there should be an action on the resumes.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - The resumes can be talked about but if there is a discussion about the process then that needs to be talked about at a public session.

          Commissioner Olague:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - In the future when there is a discussion on the [current] Planning Director, the decision should be apparent before resumes are collected because the process has been excruciating for everyone.

          Re: Various Issues before the Board of Supervisors

          - It would be helpful if Jean Paul Samaha would provide weekly reports to the Commission.

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

          - She feels that this item came before the Commission very late at last week's hearing.

          - She looked again at the report. She felt that there were certain aspects of the project that she read later that probably could have influenced her vote. The late hour made it difficult to make a fair decision.

          - She is not aware if this could be revisited.

          Commissioner Sue Lee:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

          - She asked Commissioner Olague if she is requesting to bring this item back.

          Commissioner Olague:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

          - She is requesting to bring this item back and has spoken to the City Attorney on this.

          Commissioner Sue Lee:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

          - Just to clarify, when a decision has been made by the Commission, there is no mechanism to revisit or rescind their vote.

            Commission Secretary responded:

            Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

            - There is a mechanism for the Commission to rescind their action. But once the action has been taken and more than a meeting has passed, there is no mechanism the Commission could use to rescind their action.

            Deputy City Attorney, Susan Cleveland-Knowles responded:

            Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

            - Similar to 170 St. Germain, if the building permit has not been sent back to the Department of Building Inspection, then the Planning Department or the Planning Commission would still have jurisdiction on the project.

            - For 170 St. Germain, there were extreme circumstances.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

          - He agrees that an item like this was heard too late in the evening.

          - Can the people involved in this case go to the permit appeals?

            Zoning Administrator Responded:

            Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

            - The building permit can be appealed by either party or any party.

          Commissioner Olague:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue (Discretionary Review)

          - She finds sometimes that in the staff report there is a lack of reference to the Residential Design Guidelines. She finds herself going back and checking the guidelines herself.

          Commissioner Bradford Bell:

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - She did write the letter to Mayor Newsom.

          - Her point on this matter is "crystal clear."

          - She agrees with moving forward and having a session on October 7.

          - She is reluctant to allow this Commission to be held "hostage" by an old process. This is an independent body elected half and half by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor. When one has the ability to bear pressure on this Commission to force their particular agenda is extremely unhealthy.

          - On October 7, there will be some resolution.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

          Re: Items Previously Requested by the Commission

          - September 2, Commissioner William Lee requested dates of projects in the Mayor's long-term environmental reports. The Director submitted in Commissioner's packets a chart of all the major long-range projects and the expected benchmarks for these projects.

          Re: Three priorities over the next few weeks

          - Housing Element - This is a very important document to the Commission and to the residents of San Francisco. There are major steps ahead to be taken. All Commissioners have received a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development of the State of California where they raise some comments about the element. He, the City Attorney and Mayor's Office will be working very hard to deal with the issues raised.

          - Eastern Neighborhoods - One October 28, the Commission will be conducting a hearing specifically on the Mission District. He will be sitting down with community groups within the Mission to discuss issues and work up to a larger meeting. There will be other meetings with Showplace Square and SOMA.

          - Department's Functionality - There is a priority to discuss the re-structurization of the department. There are operating implications that have occurred because of the budget. There are extreme back logs that need to be addressed. He will be focusing on this as well.

          Re: Jean-Paul Samaha's presence

          - He is usually here to discuss items related to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He is not here today because of other responsibilities.

          - The Commissioners should ask him whenever they have concerns or if there are any questions related to issues or policies.

          Re: Status of Planning Director Search

          - He asked that the Commission be professional and fair when discussing this issue.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He has a question on the Housing Element being in compliance with the State. Is staff taking steps to do that?

            Director Green Responded:

            - The State reviews every housing element, sets goals and implements the State's provisions in regards to what goals and what forecasts should be in the document.

            - The goal is to demonstrate that the document that the Commission adopted is in substantial compliance with State requirements.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - Is there another deadline for the Housing Element and when should this process begin?

            Director Green Responded:

            - Staff has not begun the new housing element that has a deadline of 2007 for final adoption and final opinions from the State.

            - The focus right now is on getting this document completed.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - He would like to be informed on any compromises or meetings with relation to the Eastern Neighborhoods.

            Director Green Responded:

            - The plan is to have a large meeting in the Mission District.

            - It is important to obtain everyone's comments and for staff to provide this information to the Commission.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - The restructuring of the department will be planned soon. He would like to know when this will be presented.

            Director Green Responded:

            - He would prefer to present this information when there is a full Commission.

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

          BOS -

          Rules Committee

          Re: Confirmation Process

          - The Rules Committee has taken up the confirmation process. The full board will consider the Rules Committee recommendations this coming Tuesday.

          Full Board:

          Re: 3150 18th Street

          - The Full Board upheld the decision of the Commission.

          BOA - None

      10. (G. GREEN/L. BADINER: (415) 558-6411)

          Report on SRO Policies

          Director Green and Dan Sider gave a presentation on this issue.

          SPEAKER(S):

          Sue Hestor

          - About 10 years ago there were issues about the history of the south of market plan revolving around live/work. There was a big box of files. These files should be found.

          - Other cities have developed a new type of SROs.

          - The rules currently usually apply to rehab.

          - The Commission needs more information on this.

          - There should be a generic understanding as well.

          Charles Bredinger

          - There have not been that many SRO projects recently even though there has been an incentive in the Planning Code.

          - There are a lot of SROs being built in San Diego, Phoenix, and Las Vegas.

          Alice Barkley

          - She feels the confusion is that the previous SRO connotation is different from residential hotel.

          - These are in high-density neighborhoods.

          - All of the new SRO buildings will have elevators, be handicap adaptable, etc.

          ACTION: None. Informational Presentation Only.

D. CONSENT CALENDAR

      All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item.

      11. 2003.0877Q (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

          1843, 1845, 1847, 1849, 1851 and 1853 FILBERT STREET - south side between Laguna and Octavia Streets, Lot 26 in Assessor's Block 0530, six unit residential condominium conversion in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to change the existing building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration, or demolition of the existing building.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of condominium conversion subdivision application.

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: Hughes and Olague

          MOTION: 16860

    E. REGULAR CALENDAR

      12. (P. LORD: (415 558-6311)

      ARTS ELEMENT - Informational staff presentation on the Arts Element of the General Plan. Staff briefing on the history and policy goals contained in the Arts Element. Richard Newirth, Director of the San Francisco Arts Commission will participate in the presentation with comments on the efficacy and implementation of this element of the General Plan since its adoption in 1990.

      Preliminary Recommendation: No Action

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Rich Neworth - Director of the Arts Commission

          - In the Charter, the President of the Planning Commission is an exoficio of the Arts Commission.

          - He gave a general description on the functions of the Art Commission, its history and future plans to work together on projects with the Planning Commission.

          (+) Catherine DyHap - Program Director for the Art House Program

          - She works between artists and real estate.

          - Their goal is to secure spaces through rental or ownership for artists.

          - Artists are a lot like real estate people since they take risks.

          - Currently, there are a lot of cutbacks. There are also a lot of spaces.

          (+) Andrew Woods - Director of the San Francisco International Arts Festival

          - It is important to get funding for the arts.

          - A task force should be created to look at various aspects of artists and their needs.

          ACTION: None. Informational Presentation Only.

          13. 2004.0602D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

                1923 WEBSTER STREET - west side between California and Pine Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0653 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.03.01.7434, proposing to raise the existing building two feet to accommodate a new garage in the ground floor and to construct a rear horizontal addition to the existing one-story-over-basement, single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Andre Barker - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He largely approves of the proposed project.

          - He displayed photographs of the roofs of the adjacent homes.

          - All he is asking for is a flat roof.

          - He has been renovating his house for many years.

          (+) Alice Barkley

          - She displayed a site plan to show the shaded area that is the addition.

          - If she takes off another four feet, there will not be the possibility for a three-bedroom house.

          - Although the DR requestor is talking about his lovely home, the home includes a unit with a short-term rental.

          - This is a very simple case.

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

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

      14. 2004.0598D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          2740-2742 FILBERT STREET - north side between Broderick and Baker Streets, Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 0942 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.08.0828, proposing to convert the existing attic into habitable space and to construct a rear horizontal addition to the existing four-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Lock Holmes - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

          - One of the concerns is that this project is too large.

          - The mid-block open space is not respected.

          - The proposed project would cut into the rear yard quite a bit.

          - There is no basis for an exception.

          (-) David Thompson - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - The owners on this street feel that the project as presented is not adequate.

          - Parking is also an issue with this project.

          - It is important to analyze the regulations.

          (-) Welton Rotz

          - The developer has been speaking for about a year.

          - They found out that it is not permissible to build a "bump out."

          - They would accept a 12-foot bump out with a 5-foot set back on each side.

          (-) Bill Higgins

          - The code only allows a 12-foot pop out and the project sponsor wants to build an 18-foot pop out.

          - He displayed diagrams to show the extent of the pop out.

          (-) Barry Bone

          - He has lived on Filbert for 30 years.

          - He has parked on the street all that time.

          - When he was shown the plans, he was concerned about the parking in the neighborhood.

          - Neighbors will be circling the block endlessly looking for parking.

          (+) Joe Sherer - Builder

          - He believes that they have followed the rules.

          - The project will be within the 40-foot height allowed.

          - Parking will be for two cars.

          - He would welcome the ability to widen the garage door.

          (+) Mary Grudnowski - Project Sponsor

          - This has always been a building that has two addresses even though there has always been one owner.

          - Through the course of the year, her representative has met with the neighbors to discuss thoroughly the project.

          (+) Jeremy Nelsen - Transportation for a Livable City

          - There will be two units with two independently parking spaces.

          - The project sponsor can cancel the parking for the other unit and therefore the parking would not be impacted.

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

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

          NAYES: Hughes and S. Lee

          15. 2004.0399DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

          2121-2123 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side between Greenwich and Filbert 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 side horizontal addition to 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.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 24, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) John Henry Coba

          - He would like a continuance because they are close to a settlement.

          - He would just like to pick a date that will be good for everyone.

          (-) Susan Dumont

          - She agrees to the continuance as well.

          - But unless there is really going to be some movement, she would rather go ahead today.

          (+) Alice Barkley

          - She did not receive certain information.

          - She now understands the concerns that she just found out about today.

          - She is prepared to go forward if the Commission wants to listen to the project today.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 28, 2004

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

          RECUSED: Antonini

          16. 2004.0635D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                3150 18TH STREET (aka 470 TREAT AVENUE) - northwest corner of 18th Street and Treat Avenue, Lots 2 and 12 in Assessor's Block 3573 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Policies (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727) of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.21.4487 and Demolition Permit Nos. 2004.05.21.4485 and 2004.05.21.4484 proposing to demolish existing light-industrial structures and to construct a new structure that would contain approximately 260 units of rental workshops for arts activities, light manufacturing, repair and small business service uses, approximately 54 off-street parking spaces, a care-taker's unit, and a small café, in an M-1 District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and within a Core PDR Zone as designated in the Eastern Neighborhood Interim Policies.

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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 2, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Steve Vettel - Morrison and Forrester

          - This project's Negative Declaration was before the Planning Commission in June of 2004 and the Commission unanimously upheld it.

          - The Board of Supervisors upheld the Commission's decision on this project.

          - This project does comply with the core PDR policies.

          - These are some light industrial artist's spaces.

          - They have adequate parking and amenities.

          - He recommends that the Commission do not take Discretionary Review unless it's to specify that these spaces will not be used as offices.

          (-) Jilllen Doroan

          - She is an artist.

          - She has worked for many years to promote art space.

          - She supports arts development in San Francisco.

          - The proposed project as currently designed does not contribute to the neighborhood and is not responsible development.

          - There are numerous non-cost productive ways to improve the design.

          (+/-) Kellie Seringer

          - This is a good project concept yet it does not respond to the content of the neighborhood.

          - The building resembles a penitentiary. It just looks like a box on a lot.

          (-) Heidi Sokolowsky

          - She is a designer and an architect.

          - The project does not really respond to the street.

          - They welcome the use but are concerned about the massing.

          (-) Ian Green

          - This building does not speak to the Arts Component because there are no controls on how much these spaces will rent for.

          - He has a real concern about the scale, the massing and the lack of articulation in this building.

          (-) Ron Slayen

          - His job causes him to make a lot of noise.

          - He knows that the noise the project will render will not bother him or the neighbors.

          - He is concerned about the size and massing of the project.

          - The exterior of this project should be changed.

          (+/-) Kathleen Diop

          - The units of this project are very small.

          - There are about 700 people looking for work space to rent.

          - They are moving towards an agreement to get some kind of structure that will build in some affordability program.

          (+) Jonathan Beery

          - He lives in Berkeley.

          - He has had a very good experience with Active Space.

          (+) Lisa Roberson

          - She supports this project.

          - This project will allow people to have work spaces.

          - She hopes that she will be moving back to San Francisco soon.

          (+/-) Oscar Grande - MAC

          - They have met with the developer many times.

          - They are concerned about the retention of PDR. This is not a perfect project but it's on its way to being a perfect project.

          - They are concerned that the Latino Immigrant Community will have limited access to the units.

          - What this building provides, the community can use.

          (+) Mike Sagalovitch

          - He is glad that MAC has concerns that this is not PDR.

          - He is concerned about the size and mass of the building.

          - There is also no ventilation in the building and this is very important.

          (+) Richard Stacey

          - He spoke about the architectural aspects of the project.

          (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

          - The project sponsor provided a transportation study. This should be required by all projects.

          - They like the fact that there are bike spaces.

          - The parking is upgraded and interior. There is no row of parking slots in the front.

          - There should be a stronger pedestrian realm.

          (+) Gary Romain - Project Sponsor

          - This project provides an opportunity to accommodate different uses over different times.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project with the following recommendations: adopt design changes for the Treat Avenue facade that were presented by staff. Require a Notice of Special Restriction be recorded against the property indicating that office and residential uses (except for a care taker's unit) not be permitted as part of the project.

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

          17. 2004.0360DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          1422 45TH 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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of June 24, 2004)

          NOTE: On June 24, 2004, 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.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Dennis Bud

          - He is available for questions.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications submitted to the Department on drawings dated September 17, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Hughes and Olague

      18. 2004.0285D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

          646 30TH AVENUE - east side between Anza and Balboa Streets; lot 016E in Assessor's Block 1572 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.09.3124, proposing to alter a single-family dwelling by adding an approximately 30 foot deep, two-story addition to the rear of a three-story, single-family dwelling, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Madeline E. Otsea - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She and her husband purchased their property in 1959.

          - The extension is out of scale, will be a visual barrier, changes the character of the neighborhood and is a clear violation of the Residential Design Guidelines.

          - She recommends that the Commission direct staff to continue to work with the Project Sponsor and neighbors to come up with a design that is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines.

          (-) Peter Winklestein - PAR

          - The Richmond has wonderful mid-block open spaces. These projects intrude in a way that changes the character.

          (-) Claire Alexander

          - One of the things that drew them to live in the Richmond was the wonderful open space.

          - The addition has the potential to impact future buildings.

          - The open space should be preserved.

          - A compromise plan should reduce the floors from two to one.

          (-) Jim Alexander

          - He just saw the plans that were dated June of this year.

          - It appears that the owner is willing to change design and he would like to continue working with him to come up with a better plan.

          - He opposes the plan as currently submitted.

          (+) Richard Ngo - Project Sponsor

          - They applied for this project in 2002.

          - None of the neighbors came to him to discuss the project.

          - He has complied completely with all the requests from the Planning Department.

          - He asked that the Commission not take Discretionary Review.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Disapprove Project for the following reasons:

            • The Commission found that the existing pattern of mid-block open space on this block was unique within the Richmond District and merited preservation under the Residential Design guidelines. The Commission further found that the proposed addition would cause a significant negative impact to the mid-block open space.

            • The Commission found that the proposed addition was inefficient in its layout by creating a large (550 square foot) unprogrammed and unoccupied `storage' space on the ground floor and only a 240 square foot `family room' on the second floor.

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

          ABSENT: Antonini

      19. 2004.0387D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

                266 MAGELLAN AVENUE- east side between Sola and Pacheco Avenues, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 2863 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.09.4302, proposing to construct a full floor one-story vertical addition on a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1(D) [Residential, House, One-Family (Detached)] District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the Project

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) James Finnegan - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He lives adjacent to the subject property.

          - If the vertical addition is allowed he will loose sunlight in various rooms of his house.

          - It will cast morning shadows on his gardens and shadows to the east side yard.

          - The deck will affect his privacy.

          - He would like a setback of six feet.

          - Forest Hill is a historic area. A lot more can be done to bring the proposal more in conforming with neighborhood character.

          (-) Joseph Barbaccia

          - He has lived behind the subject property for about 35 years.

          - He loves living in the Forest Hill area.

          - There are still issues that need to be dealt with.

          - Because 266 Magellan was built low, decreasing the available light on the east side, the house would loose intrinsic value and cast shadows.

          - The Commission should take this into consideration when they come to a decision.

          (-) Jacqueline Apple

          - She lives on Magellan, almost directly in front of subject property.

          - The Pacheco steps are known to be one of the most beautiful architectural steps in San Francisco.

          - There are two homes on the block that are from the 1950s.

          - The subject property is a two-story home and once it goes to three floors it will become an exceptional presence.

          - It is sad that they have to come here and not be able to work things out on our own.

          - Her biggest concern is that the proposed project will not be in character with the neighborhood.

          (-) Timothy Murphy

          - He and his wife have been living in the neighborhood for about 29 years.

          - The architectural issue is the main issue for him as well.

          - The project is out of conformity and out of character.

          - A two-car garage is not an acceptable style for this neighborhood.

          (-) Harold Wright - Chairman of the Architectural Review of Forrest Hill

          - He recalls that the first set of plans were designed by an engineer and they were awful.

          - He suggested that the project sponsor hire an architect.

          - He had to make some suggestions even though he is not an architect but an engineer.

          - One of his suggestions was to take the suggestions from the neighborhood.

          - The new plans show some improvements but he knows that there could be more.

          (+) Linda Wong - Project Sponsor

          - Her home is a single story. She wants to build another story because her family is getting larger.

          - She was told that she could not build another story because the adjacent homes would loose value.

          - After the extra floor is built, it will still be lower than the neighbors.

          - She has various signatures of neighbors who are in support of her project.

          (+) Andy Forrest - Project Designer

          - He was brought into the project in mid May.

          - He has lived in Forrest Hill for about 10 years and is aware of all the different styles of homes in the neighborhood.

          - He is an engineer but has an architect in his office.

          - He has been designing homes for about 25 years.

          - There are 16 people who have looked at the plans and do not oppose it.

          (+) Grace Shanahan

          - The square footage of the house is not that big compared to the rest of the homes in the neighborhood.

          - She does not understand how the Discretionary Review requestor has a problem with the sunlight since it will not impact him.

          - She encouraged the Commission to approve the project and create a home for the project sponsor.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following modifications:

                1. Reduce full bath at the ground floor to a half bath.

                2. Windows must be wood with a minimum three-inch reveal.

                3. Incorporate a three-foot side setback from the west side property line for the addition where feasible (not to include the interior stairs or rear bedroom).

                4. Reduce the size of the second floor rear deck to the minimum required for a landing.

                5. Set the addition back five feet from the front building wall creating a roof deck with a loggia or trellis overhand.

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

          NAYES: Olague

          EXCUSED: S. Lee

          20. 2004.0569D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

                73-75 LUPINE AVENUE - east side between Euclid Avenue and Wood Street: Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1057 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.22.8304, proposing to construct a vertical addition and add one residential unit at the existing one-story over garage two-unit structure. The project adds two partial floors, increasing the overall building height from 20 feet to 40 feet and converts the building from two to three units within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take D R and approve the project.

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Eleanor Achuck - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - She and her husband purchased the property in 1978.

          - They are not developers; just regular people who wanted to have something for their retirement.

          - They have five units and the rent has decreased.

          - It takes them five months to re-rent units that become vacant.

          - They agree that the project sponsor can build the third floor. But is the mezzanine above the third floor necessary? This would be a luxury addition and could be deleted.

          - She just asks the Commission to consider their hardship.

          (-) Edward Achuck

          - He is the son of the Discretionary Review requestor.

          - There are several buildings that are tall. But everything is two stories above a garage.

          - The small mezzanine is totally out of character. He is fearful that if approved, it will set a precedent.

          (-) Timothy Chuck

          - He and his wife purchased a building in the neighborhood about 23 years ago.

          - Value decreases because of the decrease in sunlight and view blockages.

          - This project will decrease the value of properties in the area.

          - This will affect their retirement plan and their livelihood.

          - He is mostly opposed to the top mezzanine.

          (+) Greg Kirkland - Project Sponsor

          - He and his wife purchased this property a few years ago. They felt they were the luckiest people in San Francisco. They love their home and love their neighborhood.

          - Their family is growing now so they want to expand their property.

          - Before he did anything, he spoke to his neighbors so they could discuss issues on the project.

          - He then went to the neighborhood design organization to discuss issues as well.

          - He believes that the non-conformity issue is without merit.

          (+) Kenneth Rua

          - He is not opposed to the project.

          - There is no merit to the Discretionary Review.

          - If there were any issues to take Discretionary Review over it should come from the neighbor to the north because it would create shadows that would impact them.

          - The project sponsor is an owner occupied tenant.

          (+) Kay Chang

          - She is Mr. Kirkland's neighbor to the left and to the right.

          - She asks the Commission to approve the plans. The project sponsor has gone beyond the call of duty to discuss the project with all the neighbors and is concerned with the entire neighborhood.

          - This project will enhance the neighborhood.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

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

      21. 2004.0198C (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          527 BALBOA STREET - south side between 6th and 7th Avenues; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 1638 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j) to add one dwelling unit to a commercial building without providing an off-street parking space. The proposal is to convert a vacant commercial space to a residential unit at the second floor of the existing two-story commercial structure, without providing one off-street parking space as required under Section 151 of the Planning Code, in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Van Lee - Project Architect

          - She is available for questions.

          (+) Jeremy Nelson

          - A similar project was approved before.

          - The Geary corridor will be improving.

          - There is very good transit in the area.

          ACTION: Approved

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

          ABSENT: W. Lee

          MOTION: 16861

      22. 2003.1110T (C. NIKITAS:(415) 558-6306)

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

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 15, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: without hearing, item continued to November 4, 2004.

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

      23. 2004.0231EZ (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

          SECOND STREET AND SOUTH PARK - Consideration of a Board of Supervisors Ordinance amending Zoning Map Section 1H of the City and County of San Francisco to increase the Height from 40-X to 65-X for two parcels described as Assessor's Block 3775, Lots 007 & 008, between South Park and Brannan Street along Second Street.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Jerod Igerman - Representing Project Sponsor

      - He is available for questions.

      (+) Jeffrey Liebovitz

      - He lives on South Park.

      - He supports this project. It will enhance 2nd Street and preserve it's history.

      - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

      (+/-) Jeremy Nelson

      - This project is allowed by right.

      - It is close to public transportation.

      - The demographics that the project is in are great.

      - He hopes that the Commission will consider the 1 to 1 parking.

      (+) Scott Polechoff

      - He has been a resident of South Park for about 12 years.

      - The area has gone through two economic cycles.

          - The area where this project will be located is a dark corner. This will enhance the neighborhood.

      AYES: Approved

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16862

      24a. 2003.1086CV (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

          1 SOUTH PARK - south corner of 2nd Street and South Park; Assessor's Block 3775, Lot 7 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to convert an historic industrial building into 35 dwelling units, per Section 818.14 of the Planning Code. The property is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk limit, and is a contributory building within the South End Historic District. The Zoning Administrator will hear a related rear yard modification request.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

      SPEAKEAR(S): Same as those listed for item 23.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16863

      24b. 2003.1086CV (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

          1 SOUTH PARK - south corner of 2nd Street and South Park; Assessor's Block 3775, Lot 7 - Request for Rear Yard Modification, pursuant to Code Sections 134(e) and 307(g), for an exception to the rear yard requirement for the proposed dwelling units because the existing building has full lot coverage. The proposed project is the subject of a Conditional Use hearing as described above. The property is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk limit, and is a contributory building within the South End Historic District.

      SPEAKEAR(S): Same as those listed for item 23.

          ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and granted the rear yard modification.

          25. 2004.0370C (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

          3640 BALBOA STREET - north side between 37th and 38th Avenues; Lot 005F in Assessor's Block 1580 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 161(j) of the Planning Code to allow the construction of two dwelling units without off-street parking. The proposal is to enlarge a mezzanine story within an existing 20-foot tall commercial structure and to add two additional floors to the building, resulting in an approximately 40-foot tall, four-story building. The two top floors will each contain a dwelling unit. The reconfigured second floor will contain residential space ancillary to a dwelling unit above, and commercial/storage space associated with the restaurant below (considered a Business or Professional Service use per Section 711.53 of the Code). The subject property is within an NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 15, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to October 7, 2004.

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

          ABSENT: Olague

          26. 2004.0251C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

                2298 MARKET STREET - north side between Noe and Sanchez Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3560 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section(s) 721.41 to establish a Bar; Section 721.48 to provide Other Entertainment; and Section 721.27 for Extended Hours at Cafe Flore. The project is within the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 22, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Mark Renne

          - He submitted a letter from Castro Area Planning Action who approved the project.

          - The project sponsor has met with various neighbors and various neighborhood groups.

          - He would have preferred longer hours of operation but is willing to accept the requirement so long as there is a review period.

          (+) Dennis Richards - Beaver Street Neighbors

          - They were very concerned with the request but after various conversations they agree with all the changes made to the project.

          (+) Greg Taylor

          - The cafe is a very incredible place to hang out.

          - There will not be any wild parties at the cafe.

          - This place will be a great place for people to have a conversation.

          (+) Michelle (last name unclear)

          - She hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

          - This cafe is a great place to have a comfortable conversation.

          - Tourism is a high priority in San Francisco.

          - She hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

          (+) did not state name

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          - He feels that the project sponsor rushed to accept the requests from the neighbors.

          - The cafe is a great place to have a place to hang out late at night.

          - He would rather have the Commission approve an extra hour to serve liquor.

          - Maybe sometime in the future the Commission will review this project and add extra hours.

          (+) Joseph (last name unclear)

          - He lives across the street from the cafe.

          - He is a property consultant and a realtor.

          - The cafe should be given the hours that they request to be open and serve liquor.

          - The Castro has been a tourist and commercial area for 30 years.

          - Businesses like the cafe should be supported.

          (+) Ron Libby

          - He has been going to the cafe for many years.

          - He agrees with extending the hours of the cafe.

          - This place is not a place to go and get wild.

          ACTION: Approved with amendment to the findings: include a good neighbor policy and allow to come back to review hours to sell liquor.

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16864

      27. 2004.0550C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

          562 ARLINGTON STREET - north side between Roanoke & Natick, Lot 023, in Assessor's Block 6726 - Request for conditional use authorization under Planning Code Section 209.2(d) to establish an inn (bed and breakfast) use in an existing single-family house that would be owned, operated and occupied by the property owners. Three existing bedrooms in the property would be available for compensation to guests for short-term accommodation. No alteration to the building is proposed under this application. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Francisco Cameco

      - He is available for questions.

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: W. Lee

      MOTION: 16865

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

None

Adjournment: 9:20 p.m.

THESE MINUTES 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

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:15 PM