March 24, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, March 24, 2005
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dwight Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kate Stacey - Deputy City Attorney; Jim Miller; Sara Vellve; Kate McGee; Matthew Snyder; Dan Sider; Mary Woods; Paul Maltzer; Sue Exline; Marshall Foster; Joy Navarrete; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2005.0198X (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

301 MISSION STREET - south side between Fremont and Beale Street, Lots 1 and 17 in Assessor's Block 3719. Request under Planning Code Section 309 (Downtown Code) for Determinations of Compliance and an exception to rear yard requirements (Section 134(d)). The subject property is located within the C-3-O Zoning District as well as the 550-S and 400-S Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project is to change the mix of uses and make minor changes to a portion of the building envelope on a previously approved mixed-use project, which was approved for 130,000 square feet of office space in a nine-story mid-rise building; 320 residential units and 120 extended stay hotel suites in a 58-story tower; 9,400 square feet of ground floor retail and 18,710 square feet of public and private open space contained within a base podium element; and four levels of below-grade parking. The previously approved project was so conditioned that if in the judgment and at the discretion of the property owner, the hotel market did not sufficiently justify the operation of the proposed hotel facility, the 120 extended stay hotel units would be authorized for conversion to an equal number of residential units. Therefore, the previously approved project was approved for a total of 440 dwelling units under specific conditions, all contained within the 58-story tower. dwelling units under specific conditions, all contained within the 58-story tower. The modified project would eliminate the office and hotel uses, and would contain a total of 420 dwelling units, placing 54 of these units in the former 130,000 square-foot office building envelope, and 366 larger dwelling units would occupy the entire tower building envelope. The ground level retail space would be reduced to 7,900 square feet, and there would be approximately 6,700 square feet of public open space. The proposed residential and retail uses would be contained in substantially the same building envelopes as were approved for the previous mixed-use project, with minor changes to the mid-rise building facade and a rear yard exception required for the dwellings within it.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 7, 2005)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 7, 2005

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

2a. 2004.0571D (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

336 MUNICH STREET - west side, between Brazil & Persia, Lot 032, Assessor's Block 6074 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2004.06.04.5613, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to April 7, 2005)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 7, 2005

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

2b. 2004.0572D (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

336 MUNICH STREET - west side, between Brazil & Persia, Lot 032, Assessor's Block 6074 - 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. 2004.06.04.5620, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family residential building with one off-street parking in an RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 7, 2005)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 7, 2005

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

3. 2005.0076T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SRO UNITS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 890.88 to define a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) unit as a unit that is affordable to very low income or extremely low income households and making findings of consistency with Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 24, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 14, 2005)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 14, 2005

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

4. 2005.0092C (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

465 WOOLSEY STREET - northwest corner of Woolsey and Goettingen Streets; Lots 15/16 in Assessor's Block 6118 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add a childcare facility for up to 45 children in an existing church, the Grace Lutheran Church, in an RH-1 (House - 1 Family) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, per Planning Code Section 209.3(f).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 28, 2005)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 28, 2005

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

5. 2003.1185C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

3537 19^TH STREET - south side of 19^th Street between San Carlos and Lexington Streets, Lot 104, Assessor's Block 3596 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) panel antennas and related equipment on an existing publicly-used structure as part of Cingular Wireless' wireless telecommunications network on a Location Preference 1 (Preferred Location - Publicly-Used Structure) within a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, Application Withdrawn.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

6. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Planning Director Subcommittee for January 20, 2005

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini and S. Lee

EXCUSED: Bradford Bell

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 10, 2005

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee

EXCUSED: Hughes and Bradford Bell

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

7. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner W. Lee:

Re: SB 1818 - Density Bonus

- He would like an update on this state bill.

Commissioner Hughes:

Re: Letter to the Board of Realtors

- A member of the public asked the Commission to request that staff write a letter to the Board of Realtors, which lays out the demolition policy.

- Next week he would like to ask staff about this. He mentions this today so that everyone can think about it.

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Rincon Hill, Transbay and Mid-Market

- He was pleased with the Mayor's press conference on these issues.

- It would be instructive to have a list of the number of units in San Francisco that are either public housing or designated below market rate units.

City Attorney Kate Stacey responded:

- Commissioner Antonini, last week, asked a question regarding: What actions the Board of Supervisors send over to the Commission.

- The Board of supervisors sends any amendments of the Planning Code to the commission for review.

- Other actions are not required to be referred to the Planning Commission unless it is environmentally related that would fall under CEQA.

- A Supervisor could request input from the Planning Commission. This would be submitted to the Planning Department and then presented to the Planning Commission.

- Regarding interim zoning controls: the Board can take those actions without referral to the Planning Commission for input. The matter is referred over to the Planning Director under CEQA review but does not require action by the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini:

- Can a Planning Commission make a request of the Board of Supervisors?

City Attorney Kate Stacey responded:

Yes.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

None

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

Amit Ghosh reported:

Re: Land Use Committee

- The Committee heard the Transbay Terminal Redevelopment Plan.

- The amendments will be before the Finance Committee.

- The Land Use Committee recommended it to the full Board.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - 15 MINUTES

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. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

Jim Salinas

- They come to the Commission regularly to talk about responsible project sponsors.

- It is important to not let irresponsible contractors abuse workers.

- They also promote apprenticeship programs.

Azalia Merrill

- She spent several hours of research on a project.

- The City is faced with many people that are in opposition to projects that benefit the working community and these people at times do not even live in San Francisco.

- There are many people that have lived here for many generations and would like to continue living here.

Jeffrey Lievobits

- He thanked the Director and staff for moving the South of Market Rezoning forward.

- They have been working quite diligently to move this forward also.

- There are going to be people that will condemn the process but the process should move on because the intent is to bring in more people and retail to liven the streets, make opportunities to have jobs, etc.

Jose Morales

- He belongs to various neighborhood organizations in the Mission District.

- There is still abuse from the landlords regarding affordable housing.

- People are moving away from San Francisco.

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

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

Re: 1886 Mission Street

Brett Gladstone

- He is comfortable with the findings.

- He is asking that there be an expedited EIR because this started 4 ½ years ago.

- There has been a lot of money spent on this already.

- It would be good to have a date for the EIR.

Richard Ventura - San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

- He is hoping that this project will move forward.

- He works at a technology center where there are many youth that walk around the area.

- This project could improve the area greatly, not only for the youth but also for everyone that lives in the area.

Judy Zorro - Mission Hiring Hall

- She works in the area.

- She is always looking for people to benefit from the apprenticeship program that she works for.

- This project would help the area greatly.

Phillip Lesser - Mission Merchant's Association

- This is a very high priority project in the Mission District.

- The project would create a safer area.

- He hopes the Commission will expedite the process.

Jose Moreno - Housing Action Coalition

- The coalition is determined to help this project move along.

- There will not be an environmental review if the historical rating is dropped.

Arthur Webb- Carpenter's Union

- He is concerned with affordable housing.

- There is a lot of construction work needed in the city and this project will help.

Brian Schmeltz - Carpenter's Union

- He is in favor of the affordable housing.

- This property needs to be upgraded because of it's historical importance.

- He is surprised that this process has gone on so long.

Giorgio Tejada - Carpenter's Union

- He was raised in the Mission District.

- Some areas in the Mission are not safe.

- This project would help improve the area.

Luis Santana

- He owns a business in the Mission District.

- If this project is approve he can employ a lot of construction workers.

- This area needs to be beautified, which will help create more jobs.

(Name unclear) - Mission Hiring Hall

- She works with many construction workers.

- If this project goes through there will be more jobs for the community. But the most important thing is that these workers will benefit from apprenticeship programs.

Toby Levine

- She lives in the Mission District.

- She agrees that the category (rating) for this project should be reduced.

- She would like to see the area improved and this project would help with that.

Azalia Merrill

- She searched miles and miles of microfilm regarding this project.

- She supports expediting the EIR.

- She hopes that the Commission will look over the material that she submitted regarding her research.

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

10. 2005.0128U (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)

1886 MISSION STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 3547 - Appeal of Inner Mission North survey findings - Following the Landmarks Boards' Public Review Process for Cultural Resource Survey findings, the Planning Commission must review written objections to the Inner Mission North Cultural Resource Survey Phase II (California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Forms - DPR 523A and 523B) survey findings as presented by property owner. The Commission is requested to evaluate the owner's objection to the proposed California Historic Resources Status Code (CHRSC) assigned to the property at 1886 Mission Street. It should consider and adopt a resolution to either: 1) endorse the evaluation and the CHRSC rating that found the property to be individually eligible for the California Register (3CS), or 2) determine, based on historical evidence and evaluation criteria, an alternate CHRSC status code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution upholding the evaluation and Status Code of 3CS as recommended by the Landmark's Board.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 3, 2005)

NOTE: On February 17, 2005, following testimony, the Commission closed the Public Hearing and passed a motion of intent to not endorse the CHRSC rating of 3CS and determined an alternate rating of 6L by a vote +4-2. Commissioners Alexander and Sue Lee voted no. Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent.

NOTE: On March 3, 2005, the item was continued to March 24, 2005.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved a Rating of 6L

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16966

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

11. 2005.0096C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1160 MISSION STREET - northwest side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, with additional frontage on Stevenson Street, Lots 37, 38 and 56 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to permit additional building square footage above the base floor area ratio of 6.0 to 1 for space devoted to affordable housing units (Planning Code Section 124(f)), in conjunction with construction of a previously approved new, 23-story residential building, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and in 150-S and 240-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 17, 2005)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 7, 2005

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

ABSENT: Alexander

12. (no case number) (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

2428 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD AND 1635 CALIFORNIA STREET - Consideration of and provision of advice to the Zoning Administrator regarding a proposal to provide six units of off-site Below Market Rate housing to meet conditions of approval for a new building at 1635 California Street. The off-site units for that project are proposed for provision in a new, all-affordable residential structure at 2428 Bayshore Boulevard, and would be comparable or larger in size and of similar quality to those in the California Street project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of the proposal

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 17, 2005)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Matthew Brennan

- The project will provide all the benefits required.

- Both projects will be marketed at the same time.

- Both projects will be constructed by the same sponsor and with quality material.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue - Residential Builders

- The developer has a choice and has chosen to provide BMR housing offsite.

- What is important here is that if the offsite housing is equal to what is done on site.

- It seems that there are more benefits to have offsite housing.

- The developer has exceeded the standards.

(+/-) Sue Hestor

- The developer originally was here proposing his offsite units on Van Ness Street.

- Polk and California is a very intense transit area and is a middle-income neighborhood.

- She reviewed the packet and did not see that the MOH had made a determination on Bayshore Boulevard.

- Housing units at Van Ness and California have really good services.

ACTION: Endorsed Staff's Proposal

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

ABSENT: Alexander

13. 2004.0905C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

3011 STEINER STREET - west side between Union and Filbert Streets; Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 0535 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 145.2, 161(j), 186.1(b), 303, and 725.24 of the Planning Code to expand a nonconforming full-service restaurant (formerly Pane E Vino, proposed to be Terzo), eliminate one residential off-street parking space, and permit an outdoor activity area (dining in the rear yard area) within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District, 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of restaurant expansion and elimination of residential parking with Conditions, and disapproval of outdoor activity area.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Amad Mohazed - Project Architect

- The tenant had a difficult time leasing the commercial space.

- They decided to convert the garage for the restaurant to use.

- He has found proof that previously the garage was part of the restaurant.

- The neighbors have raised issues based on the past owners of the restaurant. The current owners have drafted a list of good neighbor gestures.

- He submitted letters of approval from the neighbors as well as various other entities.

(+) Laurie Thomas

- She will be the general partner of the restaurant.

- She has been involved in various businesses in San Francisco.

- There are a lot of people who are in support of this project.

- The location needs a lot of work and she will be investing in improving the space.

(-) Isaac Amato

- He has been living in the area for the more than 30 years.

- The area was one of the most dense restaurant uses.

- He is opposed to this expansion because it is next to a residential apartment complex.

(-) Lea Margulies

- She is opposed to the project. She is concerned with the noise the restaurant will make.

(-/+) Isabel Selby

- She is in support of the restaurant except for the outdoor seating area.

- Even with all the noise mitigation measures proposed, she is concerned with the noise.

(-) Norma Worth

- She is a resident of the area.

- She objects to the outdoor area.

- There will be other issues with the approval of this restaurant.

(-) Karl Kaussen - Property Owner

- His daughter is a tenant of the building and will be having a baby soon.

- It is his and his daughter's interest to keep the noise level down with this restaurant.

ACTION: Approved Staff Recommendation that consists of approval of restaurant expansion and elimination of residential parking with Conditions and disapproval of outdoor activity area.

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

NAYES: Antonini and S. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16967

14. 2005.0055C (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

59 30^TH STREET (A.K.A. 801-807 SAN JOSE AVENUE) - southeast corner of 30th Street and San Jose Avenue; Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 6660 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a small self-service restaurant, San Jose Cafe, in an RH-2 Zoning District and a 40- foot Height and Bulk District on a property that has a Limited Commercial Use (LCU). LCU restrictions are proscribed by Planning Code Section 186 which limits the commercial space to those uses outlined in the NC-1 Districts or within ¼ mile of a restricted use sub-district, in this case, the Mission Street Fast-Food Sub-district, Planning Code Section 781.5. In both cases, a small self-service restaurant (Planning Code Section 790.91) is limited to no more than 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and requires Conditional Use Authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKEAR(S):

(+) Gus Cano - Project Sponsor

- He just wants to open an Italian restaurant and he is available for questions.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16968

15. 2004.0909D (M. SNYDER:(415) 575-6891)

153 PRENTISS STREET - east side between Powhattan Avenue and 22^nd Street, lot 032 in Assessor's Block 5654 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.21.4489 proposing to construct a rear and north side vertical and horizontal addition. The property is within an RH-1 (House,One-family) District, the Bernal Heights Special Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District .

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

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Joshua Burbank - Discretionary Review Requestor

- His concerns are not about views but about loss of light.

- There were no community meetings and there has been no attempt to try to involve the neighbors in this project.

- He talked to the Community Board and they recommended that he file for Discretionary Review.

- If the proper steps had been followed, they probably would not have to be here.

(-) Natasha Juelicher

- The project sponsor began construction, to their surprise, without a permit.

- She and her husband tried many times to come to an agreement with the project sponsor, to try to get an explanation of the advancement of the construction.

- After many failed attempts, they were not able to come to an agreement.

(-) Julie Young

- She has lived in the area for seven years.

- She is concerned that the project will diminish the amount of light coming in to her home.

(-) Adrian Ordiana

- He lives in the neighborhood.

- He is willing to work with the project sponsor but would suggest making the extension at the front of the house instead.

- He is not opposed to any kind of construction but would like to work out a way to have the least amount of light diminished.

(+) Reuben Wahili

- He apologized for starting the construction without the permits.

- He did speak with the Discretionary Review requestors regarding his project.

- It would be a financial burden for him to build in the front.

- He and his wife purchased this house but have not been able to move in yet. This is also a financial burden on them.

ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to May 26, 2005 in order to revise drawings and to continue working with the neighbors.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

16. 2005.0171D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

130 TOWNSEND STREET - west corner of Stanford Street, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3788 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Miscellaneous Permit Application Number MB0500372, a Zoning Referral from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The proposal would change the use of a vacant approximately 6,000 square foot ground floor space to a full-service restaurant and bar (DBA "Tres Agaves") which would sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site. The balance of the structure (approximately 3,500 square feet) would be used as an art gallery. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed. Planning Commission Resolution Number 14844 requires a Discretionary Review hearing for all projects which involve a new or relocated liquor license or bar within the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District (BVSUD). The property is located in an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, the proposed BVSUD, the South End Historic District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 14, 2005.

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

17. 2004.0956D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2258 JACKSON STREET - north side between Webster and Buchanan Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 0589 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.24.4651S, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from three dwelling units to two dwelling units, 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 Building Permit Application as Proposed.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Andy Scott

- He and his wife grew up in San Francisco.

- He purchased his mom's house.

- They are trying to expand their living space for their growing family.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved the Merger

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

NAYES: Hughes

ABSENT: Alexander

18. 2004.1043E (P. MALTZER: (415) 558-6977)

SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CEQA FINDINGS - All, or portions of Assessor's Blocks 3703, 3725, 3726, 3731, 3732, 3753, and 3754; being generally the area bounded by Fifth Street to the East, Seventh Street to the west, Harrison Street to the South; and Mission Street, Natoma Street and Stevenson Street to the north. The Commission will consider a resolution to Adopt CEQA Findings regarding General Plan Referral for the Amendments to the South of Market Redevelopment Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Resolution Adopting CEQA Findings

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: CEQA Findings Adopted

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16969

19. 2004.1043R (S. EXLINE: (415) 558-6332)

SOUTH OF MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN - A Finding Of General Consistency With The General Plan - All, or portions of Assessor's Blocks 3703, 3725, 3726, 3731, 3732, 3753, and 3754; being generally the area bounded by Fifth Street to the East, Seventh Street to the west, Harrison Street to the South; and Mission Street, Natoma Street and Stevenson Street to the north. Amendment of a Redevelopment Plan for the South of Market Redevelopment Project Area, as revised from a previous South of Market Earthquake Recovery Area, and finding said amended Redevelopment Plan to be generally consistent with the San Francisco General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Find in Conformity with General Plan

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Found to be in Conformity with the General Plan

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

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION: 16970

20a. 2000.1081 EMTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the General Plan that revises the Rincon Hill Area Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the General Plan.

SPEAKER(S):

April Veneracion - South of Market Community Action Network

- She is concerned with the development process of the project.

- There are issues of housing affordability. The analysis of the EIR should be used.

- All Inclusionary housing should be done within the district.

- There is not enough information on the number of affordable units to be built.

Angelica Cabande - South of Market Community Action Network

- In December of 2004 they submitted comments but they have not received any response from the Planning Department.

- There is concern about displacement of businesses and residents because of the high cost of housing.

- She recommended that the Commission not approve the documents.

Chris Durazo - South of Market Community Action Network

- She realizes that the discussion is about initiation but she is concerned that this initiation will not include information on the housing linkage.

- She displayed a map of the South of Market Neighborhoods/Planning Areas explaining that there are areas that have impacts.

- She is working to have a healthy neighborhood as well.

- She does not support the amendments proposed.

Steve Vettel - Morrison and Forrister

- He recommended that the Commission recommend the amendments.

- He supports the initiation.

ACTION: Approved Initiation

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16971

20b. 2000.1081 EMTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code consistent with the Rincon Hill Area Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code text.

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 20a.

ACTION: Approved Two Motions of Initiation for Planning Code Text Changes

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16972

MOTION: 16973

20c. 2000.1081 EMTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

RINCON HILL PLAN - Assessor's Blocks 3744, 3745, 3746, 3747, 3748, 3749 (excluding lots 052, 061, 062, and 064), 3766 (excluding lots 018 and 019), 3767, 3768, and 3769. The Commission will consider a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Zoning Map consistent with the Rincon Hill Area Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Zoning Map.

SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 20a.

ACTION: Approved Initiation

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16974

21. 2003.1152E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

329 BAY STREET - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The project site is on the south side between Mason and Powell Streets, with street frontage also on Vandewater Street, on Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 0041. The proposed project is the demolition of an existing one-story, 8,550 square-foot retail building, and the construction of a 40-foot tall four-story building that would contain 21 residential units, approximately 2,000 square feet of ground level retail, plus a one-level basement garage with 21 spaces with access from Vandewater Street. The approximately 39,000 gross square-foot building would cover the 8,640 square-foot site. The ground floor retail space would face Bay Street. Pedestrian access would be from Bay and Vandewater Streets. One mature street tree would be removed on the Vandewater Street frontage of the site and replaced with two new street trees. The site is zoned C-2 (Community Business District), in the Northern Waterfront Special Use District #2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project would require a Variance from Planning Code rear yard requirements.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Sue Hestor

- There has been a difficult time getting the main project before the Commission.

- The neighbors of the project want to get this hearing before the Commission but they cannot file for a Discretionary Review without there being an actual project.

- Everything should be heard together so she recommends that this be continued to some time in April.

David Cincotta

- There is no reason to delay any action or decision today.

- All the issues dealing with the tree can be discussed with regard to the permit and the Variance.

NOTE: Motion to continue to April 14, 2005 did not receive a second and did not move forward for the vote.

Re: Point of Clarity

Sue Hestor

- The permit was has been issued so it is impossible to file a Discretionary Review.

- It is important to discuss all aspects of the tree at one time.

- This is not an abnormal request. It is a natural process.

Re: Merits of Project

Catherine Petrin - Appellant

- She is representing many other neighbors who could not be here today.

- The neighbors did not oppose the project. They support the Negative Declaration issued in 2004.

- If the project would reflect the information of the first Negative Declaration, they would not be here.

- She displayed a block and lot map showing the location of the project.

- She displayed photographs of the tree in question.

- There are certified arborists that state that the tree still has a long life. The tree only suffers from a lack of maintenance.

- The project sponsor has not maintained or pruned the tree.

- She asked the Commission to help preserve this historic tree.

Wendy Hampton - Vandewater Neighbors

- The Planning Department has not done a normal process of investigation for this type of project but is basing its findings on the recommendation of an arborist.

- If this Negative Declaration is approved, the neighbors will protest against the project and the Variance decision.

- This project should accommodate Vandewater's unique character

Stan Lyon

- The rear yard is related to saving the tree.

- He is puzzled. When the developer presented the project to a neighborhood group, he stated that the tree would be preserved.

- If this were the case, the project would have been moved forward with no damage to the roots of the tree.

Carolyn Blair - Tree Council

- They would not be here if the proposal to protect tree would have been accepted.

- They hired unbiased arborists to make a determination on the tree.

- She asked the Commission to follow through with their requirements to preserve trees.

(+) David Cincotta - Project Sponsor

- He understands the resident's concerns about the tree.

- This is not the process to deal with this issue. None of the speakers addressed the Negative Declaration.

- In order to protect the tree it would need 30 feet of clear space.

- The City's arborist determined that the tree was in bad condition.

- The tree has nothing to do with the Variance.

- The tree does not satisfy the mid-block open space.

- The issues here have to deal with the Environmental Impact report.

- The decision has been delayed for five months already.

- The tree is dangerous even if the project did not go forward because it has significant decay.

ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 16995

H. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

Deborah Densler

Re: Dangerous Sidewalks and a Residential Hotel Task Force

- She is concerned that there are tree roots causing parts of sidewalks to rise.

- She fell near the Gough Street area because of this.

- She is wondering if a task force was formed for residential hotels.

Commissioner Olague responded:

- She recommended that Ms. Densler speak to the assistant of Supervisor Tom Amiano regarding this.

Sue Hestor

Re: Notice for C2 Projects

- There is no notice for projects in these areas and she is concerned about this.

- Staff should pay attention to their problems and recommend changes.

- Supervisor Peskin will take an interest of this because a lot of people cannot be deprived of this information.

Adjournment: 7:24 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford Bell