Minutes of Planning Commission Calendars

January 2000

Presented below are Minutes of the Planning Commission. The top of the this page lists Commission meeting dates for the month. Click on the date and you will reach the minutes for that that week. The minutes present a summary of actions taken at the Planning Commission hearing and provides a Motion or Resolution number for that action.

With most browsers you will be able to search for any text item by using the Ctrl-F keys. It is recommended you search by case number and suffix, if you know it, as that will always be a unique item. You may search by any identifying phrase, including project addresses.

(Please note, commission minutes generally are approved and finalized two weeks following the hearing date.)

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chamber - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 6, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT CHINCHILLA AT 1:45 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Paul Rosetter, Joy Navarrete, Mark Paez, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary.

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1. 99.516C (BEATTY)

262-268 CHESTNUT STREET, north side between Grant and Kearny Streets, Lot 5 in Assessor's Block 55-- Request for Conditional Use authorization to subdivide the subject lot, with one single family dwelling on each lot. The two lots would have front widths of 18 feet-6 inches, which is less than the required width of 25 feet. The subject lot is in an RH-3 District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 1999)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 20, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

2. 99.602CV (ALVIN)

4445 - 3RD STREET, southeast corner of 3rd and La Salle Streets, Lots 17, 17A, and 30 in Assessor's Block 5291--Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121.1 to merge 3 lots into one lot of approximately 18,736 square feet; creating a lot size development for a lot greater than 10,000 square feet pursuant to Section 712.11 and to construct a four story mixed use building including 30 affordable dwelling units. The proposal also requests a Conditional Use Authorization underSection 712.39 to demolish four dwelling units on the second story within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, the Third Street Special Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 20, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

3. 99.630C (FALLAY)

130 - 132 TURK STREET, north side of Turk Street, between Taylor and Jones Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0339 -- Request for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow a re-establishment (per Section 178 of the Planning Code) of a Commercial use (Assembly, Personal and Social Services) above the ground story, as required by Planning Code Section 209.8, in RC-4 (Residential Commercial, High Density) District within the North of Market Residential Special Use District.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

B. 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. If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

"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))

SPEAKER(S):

Patricia Vaughey

Re: 1. - 2844-46 Greenwich, enforcement case

- 2254 Bush Street

2. Test case under State liquor license laws - ABC does

not do enforcement.

Jaroslaw Triska,

Re: 333 Dolores: (Con)

Robert McCarthy, Re: 333 Dolores (Pro) Attorney, representing project sponsor

Barbara Crialcom, Re: 333 Dolores (Pro)

Barbara Walco, Project Manager, Mercy Charity Housing California, support the project.

Tracy Kirkham, Re: 333 Dolores

Joyce Thornton, Preschool Teacher, at Children Day School for the last 10 years.

John O'Connor, former pastor Mission Dolores, re: 333 Dolores - oppose the project.

Keith Bernestin, Re: 333 Dolores - Oppose the project.

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

4. Consideration of adoption - draft minutes of December 9, and 16, 1999.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

5. Commission Matters

Antenore: Statement in Minutes to show why matter was continued.

Theoharis: CPC Yearly schedule.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

6. Director's Announcements.

- Happy New Year

- Zoning Administrator, Mary Gallagher has resigned her position.

7. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

BOS: 275 Olympia Way - continued to 1/24 to gather additional information as well as to allow the Commission on the Environment to conduct a hearing and express themselves re: this matter.

- Enforcement Program - continued to 2/3

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

8. 99.799Q (KOONTS)

1701-1705 PAGE STREET, south side between Cole Street and Clayton Street, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 1230, six-unit residential condominium conversion subdivision in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-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.

~~Note: On October 28, 1999, after public testimony the Commission closed the public hearing.Commissioner Chinchilla was absent.~~

SPEAKER(S):

John Bardis, procedure and logic of the notice for this project. Public received a notice on the date that was obviously before last week. Calendar with language different from notice.

ACTION: Continued to 1/13/00

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

9. 1999.861 ETT (ROSETTER)

REVISION TO THE CONDITIONAL USE ABATEMENT PLANNING CODE AMENDMENT, Consideration of a revision to a proposed amendment to the Planning Code previously initiated by the Planning Commission and recommended for adoption by the Commission on October 7, 1999 but not heard by the Board of Supervisors. That proposal and this revision would amend Section 303 to clarify the appeal delay in the effective date of a conditional use approval and to provide a process for abating conditional uses which violate their conditions of approval, are in violation of the law, or have become a public nuisance.

After Planner presentation:

COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS:

Commissioners Chinchilla: Do you have written text that have all the modifications that you had suggested?

President Theoharis, an important issue, if there any new evidence that comes up, is confusing, she need to see new language and was no in the position to read it right there, need more time to read it.

Commissioner Antenore: In the original consideration at the Bd. Of Supervisors, they inquired whether was formal or informal to delete the language that permitted appeals by tenants as supposed by simply property owners. How do that occurred? How that change took place in the legislation.?

Commissioner Richardson: How soon they can get new language. If this is confusing to us. How do you expect the public to grasp and make the proper comments? Public need to know exactly what they are commenting on.

SPEAKER(S):

Deborah Stein, GCA, had some comments on the issue of frequency, section 303e does required that the process for modifications and conditions must be the same procedure not a different procedure, as issue on use of the initial conditional use authorization both as to notice and also it will required the same procedure as a frequency. The procedure for frequency for consideration of conditional use authorization it has been rejected, can not come back with that same project, week after week, to reiterated the same series of hearing, however, if you come with a new project with substantial new evidences and issues that were not preciously considered, that can be considered sufficiently an issue, to allow a project/conditional use application to be submitted within than 12 months. With re: conditional use abatement it should follow the same procedure which it is that the decision by this Commission or if is appealed by the Bd. Of Supervisors should final and no subject to subsequent additional reviews, unless the Director determine one there is substantial new evidence about the same conditional use abatement issue that was considered, but it raises new issues that were not originally considered, or evidences of a different conditional use abatement.

Commissioner Antenore: In the past when we deal with abatement questions that they tend to drag out of period time and we tried not to take rakonian actions in the early stages of a case. Bring cooperation on part of the property owner, who might be violating conditional use rather than jump into some severe action. Your suggestion make difficult for us to use our judgment in dealing with the situation as evolve for a period of time and really tied our hands in a way that give us a sort drastic choice of doing strict enforcement of an abatement proceeding versus of doing nothing and be stuck without an ability to deal with it again in future months. Peoples behavior in these kind of situation. some time difficult to judge, need to do investigations we tend not to able to make that kind hard and fast up and down decision. Your suggestion is unwise.

Debra Stein: The careful incremental consideration of abatement issues can be very lengthy. The Commission over a period of month would reach the determination, that either after careful consideration of evidence there is not violation of conditions or that has been a violation, so the Commission determine that violation has been abated, in other words, as some point at the end of the lengthy process, would be a final decision could be appealed. The issue of resubmission of frequency of reconsideration of abatement items, is not any way to suggest that has to be dealt with the public hearing, is at the discretion of the Commission to look over period of time and tried to work that out. And when the Commission reached their final decision, there is violation but we believed is been abated.

Commissioner Richardson: Asked Mr. Stein, to submit comments in writing for further consideration.

ACTION: Continued to 1/20/00

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

10. 1999.533ET (ROSETTER)

CHILD-CARE OPTION AMENDMENT, Amend Section 314.1 and 314.4 of the Planning Code to allow a developer to satisfy the child-care requirement by entering into an arrangement pursuant to which a nonprofit organization would provide a child-care facility at a site within the City.

After Planner presentation:

SPEAKER(S):

John Bardis: Is very interesting, to see that something that is a requirement for downtown office developers, to have childcare facility for the employee inside the building, can be in effect pass off and avoided and therefore that space be use for commercial which probably could be more valuable than have tied up with kids, by making a payment to the City. Now they are not satisfied with that avoidance, basically they are saying, don't want that facility within a mile. What are we doing here in terms of the primary objective, of what this ordinance was supposed to accomplish. Then, if it goes beyond a mile, a non-profit would provide this service not the developers and we pay them for doing it, but then the non-profit take over existing housing stack, and take over housing from the people of S.F. to take care of the commercial need that is going to satisfied downtown. How do we reconcile that, with what we just did, in terms of a gift in the first place.

Michael Burk, National Office Partners, support this amendment that was introduced by Sups. Berman and Tang, who noted their interested for childcare. The reason we support this amendment is that provide an additional opportunity for developers in downtown to meet the needs for childcare in San Francisco.

Ellen ___, Assistant Director, Planning with the Department of Children and ___ express her support .

STAFF COMMENTS:

Gerald Green, Director of Planning: recommended to adopt amendment.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

1. The reference to transit was to be eliminated. The exact phrase is, "...that is reasonably accessible to public transportation." There were two places where this phrase remained. The first is Page 1, Lines 6 & 7 and the second location is Page 5, Line 8. So, in those two locations; please delete, "...that is reasonably accessible to public transportation."

2. On Page 11, at the beginning of Line 22, please add the following language, "...Needs Assessment and will be consistent with the City Wide Child Care..." When this is done, Subparagraph (F) should read, in part: "The Department of Children, Youth and Their Families has determined that the proposed child-care facility will help meet the needs identified in the San Francisco Child Care Needs Assessment and will be consistent with the City Wide Child Care Plan; provided..."

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

RESOLUTION No.: 14947

11. 1999.532ET (ROSETTER)

PLANNING CODE AMENDMENT: MISSION ALCOHOL RUSD EXCEPTION FOR GROCERY RELOCATION. The existing Mission Alcoholic Beverage Restricted Use Subdistrict (RUSD) which is bounded by 14th Street, Potrero Avenue, Cesar Chavez Street and Guerrero Streets, prohibits any new establishment selling or serving alcoholic beverages within that district, but makes an exception for bonafide restaurants. The proposed amendment would allow an existing grocery store to transfer its liquor license to elsewhere within the RUSD, provided, 1) that it would be for the same type of license as held at the prior location; 2) that the grocery store had this license since before the effective date of the Mission Alcohol RUSD; 3) that the store relocation occurs within 24 months after the effective date of the Mission Alcohol RUSD; 4) that the new location is within 500 feet of the prior location; 5) that the proportion of the floor area devoted to alcohol sales at the new location will not be significantly increased; 6) that alcohol sales are abandoned at the former site.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999).

SPEAKER(S): Arlo Smith, Patricia Vaughey, David McGrene, Tony Hestor, Dolores Smith

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 2/3/00

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

12. 98.635E (NAVARRETE)

BRYANT SQUARE PROJECT, Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report. On Assessor's Block 4080, Lots 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14, the approximate 166,815 gross square foot project would include construction/renovation of about 152,600 gross square feet of office, about 9,550 gross square feet of retail, and about 4,700 square feet of light industrial after demolishing about 34,000 square feet of offices, light industrial, and arts-related uses in three structures and renovating two existing structures. The project site is in two Use Districts: M-1 (Light Industrial) and C-M (Heavy Commercial), and is in a 65-B Height and Bulk District.Note: Public comments will be accepted from November 20, 1999, to January 6, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. or the close of the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission, whichever is later.

After Planner presentation:

SPEAKER(S):

Tom Wetzel, lived in the Mission since 1981, his basic problem with this project, is that the project is in violation transit first policy. It will provide of hundreds of off-street parking spaces, which will encourage people to drive, having this high tech employee driving with their SUV, invading his neighborhood daily, and you are providing zero amenities for pedestrians and transit users.

Steve Hortland, gave a different point view re: traffic problems. Anticipated that this project would have almost 600 people would working in this building and they only providing 100 spaces. People already parking on sidewalks, double-parking. Where the rest of these 500 people is supposed to park?

Mr. Liken, Director, Awakening Dream, Non-Profit. Neighborhood should stay with light industrial. Project like this are better situated around China Basin.

Peter Sutherland, 11 year resident of this neighborhood, report didn't take in consideration the overall development of the neighborhood. It is very important that somebody does a complete study on the accumulative effects of development in the neighborhood. Also the project, is one the most important project that ever is going to be done in S.F. for the simple reason, basically you are bringing downtown bldgs.,structures, and melding with San Jose type of architecture into a various establish and very old neighborhood in the City.

Jule Nemeyer, concerned about the height of the proposed bldg., is out character with the neighborhood.

Batel Libes, concerned about the lack of disability parking spaces.

David Malte, opposed project.

Giselle Perez, business owner in the neighborhood, this is a heinous monstrosity project, the residual effects are going to be long term, it will change this neighborhood forever. This building is inappropriate.

Joshua Collins, commented in the visual quality of the project. How it will affect the community.

Jonathan Youtth, encouraged the personnel from SKS to read about community development and think about the process and redesign this project with the input from the neighborhood.

James Cochran, in concurrence with the former speaker. The most important issue is the social impact in the community.

Terry Matelson, Keep the character of the neighborhood intact.

Mary Benneth, considered all the noise during construction, traffic, size of the project, parking, etc.

David Jaymes, Please do not allow approval to this project. The height of this bldg., will create a shadow that will block direct sunlight and views for numerous existing property, parking congestion; also do not believe this project is gear to the artistic or industrial population, which currently occupied this space.

Andrew Hope, designer, engineer, artist. Opposed project.

Samon Eastwood, concerned for the people that didn't attend the meeting. This building does not fit the neighborhood. It will put the neighborhood in the darkness.

Sue Hestor, S.F. Reasonable Growth, on pg. 2-4 for the project description, wanted a displacement info., very specific exact name of business they were in this bldg., what product do they produce?, were they women/minorities owner?, how long were they there?, what rent do they paid?, all the descriptions that what had been there, which is been eliminated is grossly general, need to be more explicit. Throughout the entire doc., including in these pg., every time the staff use the word "office" is use, the staff should say whether is legal office within the term of prop. M accessory offices in a manufacturer facility are not office, the City is using the term office much too loosely to get the impression that this is just a continuation of former legal office use. Every time you describe the height of the Bldg., with floors give in feet as well. On pgs., 2-5, and 2-6 where you have the drawings of the bldg., should have the street address on every single of the bldg. On pg., 2-12 project sponsor objector: 1) should be the honest "make a lot money", they are not in this as a charitable enterprise, they don't care about sustaining the historic urban. Their goal is to make a lots money. On pg., 2-14 this is another place that the office issue be pull out and talk about. Prop. M, changed the definition of office. Pull out the exact language of Prop. M, priority policy, because of the policy of the votes of the City more than the general plan policies are, they are higher than that. On pg., 3-2; do not discussed about the pending rezoning. On pg., 3-4; put down rental houses, rental versus ownership.

Jake McGolde, made reference to sec, 5.1, parag. 3.

STAFF COMMENTS:

Commissioner Richardson: The EIR addresses long term Env. Impact. There is nothing that addresses the temporary Env. Impact (noise, traffic, dust). Requested the Director to help her to understand why? Because she had some suggestions, that would help to mitigate the adversity part on the residents of the community.

Gerald G. Green - Director Planning: Comm., Richardson, if you like to see a discussion w/re: to impact that are related to construction, if you think that the discussion is adequate or you going to make a determination that there is no discussion at all, you need some. I do believe that every Env. Impact Rpt. Clearly talks about what transpire during const., in section 4 of this doc. , does talk about construction. My suggestion of help you to shape your comments would be that if you by looking sec. 4, that is not an adequate discussion about the impact related to construction.

Commissioner Antenore: Bldgs., of this size and nature the impact that was going to have in the neighborhood that is already very impacted, having a lots problems, many of them particularly in re: to transit for the area, parking, general transportation issues, needed to see the mitigation section in the EIR., to see what proposals there were for dealing what I could see was really an impact. All mitigation proposals except one relay solely to the question of construction impacts and the one mitigation measure that was considered and didn't relay directly construction impact was simple to change the timing on one traffic light in one intersection, and that is the only mitigation measure that stated to be need for projects like this in this EIR. The justification for that is that again, back to the old question of cumulative impact, that we see every EIR., is that we don't need to consider this mitigations because the specific impact of this project is not incremental great enough to justified us having to mitigate the impact. In every EIR on top of every EIR say the same thing about this question and we never get to overall issues. This issues can not be swept under the carpet so easily by saying that this particular project does not add cumulative impact to justified us to deal with it, we have to get to the point to deal with real issues that affect people. This area of S.F., is obviously impacted in some many ways socially, environmentally, economically, transportation, every issue you could think of it practically in terms of urban planning.

ACTION: Meeting held. No action required.

13. 1998.496C (PAEZ)

333 DOLORES STREET, The Children Day School, east side between 16th and 17th Streets. Assessor's Block 3567, Lot 57, a portion of City Landmark 137. Request for authorization of a Conditional Use to expand an existing elementary school from pre-school through fourth grade to include pre-school through eighth grade, as well as to construct a new school building which would contain classrooms, administrative offices and a multi-purpose room, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 9, 1999).

Note: On October 28, 1999, after public testimony the Commission closed public hearing. Commissioner Chinchilla was absent.

After Planner presentation:

President Theoharis: Expressed that her main concerns that the neighbors that were not notified and does was not enough reach out. A lot of the surrounding neighbor are concerns about traffic and the mitigation measures are been put in place, are in good faith and will be very beneficial. They were concerned about 6^th, 7^th, 8^th graders coming into the school, the irony of that, is when you read the report, because this bldg., is 75 yrs., old the preschool would end up be wash, they could retain the preschool. Also think having older kids, could be beneficial to the community and create a very positive harmonious situation.

Commissioner Richardson: the Commission actually had gone beyond the color duty by kicking the project back and forth to allow community input participation, the dilapidation of state of our schools, both in the private and public sector, one thing is to talk info., age, and the other is to see at the middle aging infrastructure that we have in our schools in our country. It seem to me that it is a great and an urgent need to provide environment to conditions to learning both physically and academically. All comments, meetings and conceptions that took place, I strongly agreed with the staff in the motion and all the conditions that are proposed and agreed with the project sponsor. Conditions that would like to attach is that for the school insure that residents of the community actually have a greater access to the facility, that would help alleviate the traffic, and the congestion that people talked about. This is great project and support Comm. Theoharis. Made a motion.

Commissioner Antenore: Questioned re: If the additional conditions were drafted into the motion? Thought this process they went thru by sending it back for further discussion, didn't really work as well as he hoped. There was too much between both sides, a tremendous of just simply a generation of paper supporting or opposing the project without really making a good use of the time for trying to solve problems. Despite, that, think a progress was made. If there a reason, why this conditions had not been added in the motion.

Commissioner Joe: Requested if a fence could be put, so Sr. Citizens could have some yard space.

SPEAKER(S):

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

12. The project sponsor shall facilitate the use of car pools by the school staff and students families.

13. The project sponsor shall establish an advisory committee comprised of school and Notre Dame Senior Plaza representatives, as well as on-site residents, to facilitate communication between the school and resident seniors and to resolve issues which may arise as result of the ongoing operation and expansion of the school facility. Issues which are not resolved by the committee are to be reported to the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Condition No. 17.

15. Upon agreement between the project sponsor and Notre Dame Senior Plaza representatives the school shall install and maintain mirrors in the vehicular access driveway, to improve vehicular visibility, and timers on the security gates in the access driveway, to allow the gates to remain open during the drop-off and pick-up periods of the day and to eliminate exhaust emissions from waiting vehicles.

16. The project sponsor shall provide drop-off and pick-up monitors at the entrance of the school to expedite the transport of children to and from the school with out having to park or exit vehicles, and to enforce the school's Parking, Traffic and Safety Rules.

AYES:Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14948

14. 99.027BC (BANALES)

160 KING STREET, on the north side, being a through lot to Townsend Street, between 2nd and 3rd Streets; Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 3794 -- Request for authorization for Office Space in excess of 50,000 square feet under Section 321 of the Planning Code to permit new construction of a 9-story over basement office building, not to exceed 176,000 square feet of office space. Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow Special Exceptions to Bulk Limits in Districts other than C-3, Planning Code Section 271. This notice shall also set forth an initial determination of the net addition of gross square feet of office space, pursuant to Planning Code Section 313.4 and 314.4. The is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) and 105-F Height and Bulk District.

The project sponsor amended the project to reduce the parking to no more than one parking space for 750 sq. ft. of occupied office space or up to 229 spaces. The basement level for parking is being eliminated.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999).

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 1/13/00

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

15. 98.891E (AHMADI)

2002 THIRD STREET & 595 MARIPOSA STREET, Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. Construction of two new four-story, 50 feet tall buildings on two adjacent vacant lots. The new structures would have 40 live/work units with 40 off-street parking spaces on the Third/Mariposa Streets lot and 8 live/work units with 8 off-street parking spaces on the Mariposa/Tennessee Streets lot. The two lots are on Assessor's Block 3995 - Lots 23 and 22. The proposed buildings are located in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District within a 50-X height/bulk district in the Central Waterfront area.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999)

After Planner presentation:

SPEAKER(S):

Sue Hestor, on this project found difficult that the Office Env. Review that considered light and air to be an environmental issue. In pg. 4 and 5, one of the issues on this block, this bldg., had been done by the same developers (Mills) they pull back the bldg., the most minimum amount from the rear property line on each of the bldgs., so they full no coverage on the garage level and they up one floor and they pull back about 10 ft. Asked, How many units get the only light from the rear and what is the about separation between bldg.,? Why this Commission do not deal with this. How many substandard housing units are going to be there?

Jim Ruben, representing project sponsor, light and air are not an issue, there is a 15 ft., setback on both sides of the property.

Commissioner Mills: Find the analysis inadequate. Voted to uphold the Neg. Dec.

ACTION: Approved. Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14949

16. 98.173E (MALTZER)

526-548 BRANNAN STREET; NEW CONSTRUCTION OF 108 LIVE/WORK UNITS: Assessor's Block 3777, Lots 38 and 41, on Brannan and Freelon Streets between Fourth and Fifth Streets in a Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District. To consider an appeal of the Preliminary Negative Declaration on the proposed project. The site currently contains a two-story office building and a one-story to two-story building occupied by a warehouse, offices, and retail outlet for an import company; and a shed. The proposed project encompasses merging the two lots; subdividing the resulting lot into three lots; demolishing the existing buildings, and constructing three four-story, 55-foot tall live/work buildings, each containing 36 live/work units in three levels with mezzanines totaling about 34,000 square feet and 36 parking spaces in a ground floor parking garage, for a total of 108 live/work units totaling about 102,000 square feet and 108 parking spaces. Garage access and egress for each building would be on Brannan Street.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999).

After Planner presentation:

SPEAKER(S):

Ms. Tillman, lived across the street from project for 30 yrs., objected to number of issues on of them is the scope of the project is far greater than anything in the area and the plan submitted to Planning are in excess of the acceptable planning code limited of 55 ft., there are almost 65 ft.

Sue Hestor, in my comments I really focus on cumulative development issues and the Dept., came back with graphics that has little of that, the size of the project is huge, this is the largest simple live/work project to come before the Commission.

Tony Dominiski, property owner since 1976, referred to pg., 11 on the Neg. Dec., there are couple thing that are contradictory.

Ray Curr, had an office on Freelon since 1985; traffic impact is very significant to the intersection 5th/Brannan). Developers want to build a huge building that has not accommodation for setbacks. Robert Scott, would really like to see that this bldg., could be scale down.

Steve Vettel, representing Project Sponsor, made some responses to the issues that were raised at the hearing. There was an intensive study re: cumulative development issue as part of the Neg. Dec., and was also included in the doc., and that this project contribution to cumulative impact was no considerable, it was no even detectable. Document is adequate, present the project fairly, the staff analysis in response to the appeal is thoroughly.

ACTION: Approved. Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14950

AT APPROXIMATELY 6:00 THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED INTO A SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (DR) HEARING.

17. 98.173D (MILLER)

526-548 BRANNAN STREET, through lot to Freelon Street between 4th and 5th Streets, Lots 038 and 041 in Assessor's Block 3777 -- Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 9803230, 9905488, 9905479, 9803229, and 9918996, proposing to demolish two buildings and to construct three new live/work buildings with a total of 108 units in a SLI (Service, Light Industrial, Residential) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and in an Industrial Protection Zone.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999).

After Planner presentation:

Commissioner Antenore: In the analysis is stated that this site is located within in Industrial Protection Buffer Zone. What is the meaning of Buffer Zone.

Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, created a Buffer within the Industrial Protection Zone, in those instances they were either, joining residential properties or residential zones. Going thru the analysis, the guidelines required as to include the additional preference statements which you include in your decision.

Commissioner Antenore, if this was not a pipeline project, what review we would have over this project? if came in after 4/27, and we are not reviewing, what would be the nature of our review?

Gerald Green - Director of Planning, in the Industrial Protection Zone Buffer, a conditional use authorization would be required. The preference would be toward using the current guidelines, which really are leaning more toward protecting PDR. But this a pipeline project we included the original guidelines which were this project was designed for.

SPEAKER(S):

Steve Vettel, representing project sponsor, Re: material that was delivered to Commission.

Allan Picker, lived directly across from project, neighborhood is been ruined by these structures. Nobody contacted him.

Ana Taomeski, property owner across the street from project, this proposed project is going to be build in a industrial protective zone, where live/work are currently no permitted.

Elaine Bernstein Tillman, in the last page of the project report, said Freelon St., has withdrawn their appealed, which is completly false, Additionally, the height limit was falsely thru the Planning Department, submitted to you for approval as 55 ft., when the limit is really 50 ft., then you give an extra 5 ft., to live/work unit.

Sue Hestor, this bldg., is more 50,000 sq.,ft., of commerical space. This Commission had been very delinquent in applying following the law. Commerical bldgs., over 50,000 sq.,ft., has to comply with the City first source hiring program, which is no in the Planning Code, it is in the Administrative Code. You are required to condition this prog., on certain jobs and employment outreach conditions which is not mentioned in the file. This Commission is out compliance witht the law, is you do not condition this proj., on compliance w/first source hiring ruled of the City both construction and permanent jobs. Staff report is extremely mis-leadingabout the size of Freelon St.

Robert Stoddad, re: sunlight/shadow on his bldg.

Tony Demenski, bldg., owner across the street from project. Recomended that the Commission really look at this project closely.This project is going to be pretty masive. Concerned about the shadow on his bldg.

Steve Kemel, artist, lived on Freelon for 20 yrs., this project would destroy the nature of the street.

Ray Curd, re: concerned re: setbacks and cumulative impact.

Marjorie Scott, Preserve the nature of Freelon St.

Chris Curd, live on Freelon for 10 yrs. Re: parking spaces.

Steve Vettel, re: meeting with neighbors. Presented revisions that were made.

Chris Hardny, represent the bldg., former owner, in real estate transactions. Made references re: Owner of the bldg., are in the process of moving out of bldg.

Mack Burton, Supported project.

ACTION: No D.R. Approved as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

NAYES: Antenore

ABSENT: Martin and Joe

18. 98.891D (MILLER)

2002 THIRD STREET & 595 MARIPOSA STREET,, southwest corner of the intersection of 3rd and Mariposa Streets, Lots 023 and 022 in Assessor's Block 3995 -- Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 9913151S and 9913353S, proposing to construct two new live/work buildings at 2002 - 3rd Street and 595 Mariposa Street with 38 and 8 units, respectively, in a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District , and in a Mixed Use Housing

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999).

After Planner Presentation:

SPEAKER(S):

Unidentified speaker, gave an overall description of the project.

Alan Gross, project does not have any handicap access. No elevators in the bldg.

Sue Hestor, Re: Policy in the Master Plan that said that this is the only kind of housing, that can be build on a block. Why can you mixed up some housing on the block, if this is mixed neighborhood.

Jim Ruben, representing project sponsor. Re: a letter received from the Dogpatch neighborhood Association that support the project. This block would accommodate 150 units not the 500 units that Ms. Hestor mentioned.If elevator is put in the bldg., would change the ramifications of the project.

Commissioner Antenore: Re: Elevator/Handicap Accessiblity. Do you have any capacity to build a handicap accessibility in the ground floor.? Are these units going to meet the ADA requirements, in general?

Jim Ruben: There are 7 units at grade that can be entered by a wheelchair. This is a requirement of a residential project. This is consider a residential project.

Commissioner Chinchilla: Concerned re: particular site (corner) is going to be very significant in the course of the next decade.How can be assured that the materials that is been represented here today does not get change in the field? Suggested take D.R.

Commissioner Mills: Moved to take D.R. Have one the conditions to be that the material represented by the Proj., Sponsor be mandated and plans be stamped, indicate any changes to that, bring project back.

ACTION: Take D.R. Approved as amended:

- Material plans and conditions submitted by sponsor be mandated and plans stamped to require that any changes made in the field and have to come back to CPC

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin and Joe

19. 99.653D (MIRAMONTES)

2515 SCOTT STREET,. west side between Pacific Avenue and Broadway, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0961 -- Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9913295, proposing to convert a five-unit building to a single-family dwelling in a RH-1(D) (House, One-Family, Detached) District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999).

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 2/3/00

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

20. 99.785D (WILSON)

350 DIVISADERO STREET, east side between Oak and Page Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 1217 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9918820, proposing to convert a ground-story retail space to use as a non-profit medical marijuana clinic in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District).

After Planner presentation:

SPEAKER(S):

Patricia Vaughey, the whole purpose of this D.R., was there no zoning conditions concerning this type of establishment in S.F. Agreed w/staff re: conditions of approval- Hours of operation. Parking issues, many people that came to an establishment like this one, has handicap license plate.

Wayne Justiman, Director and co-founder of the S.F., Patience Resource Ctr. - Project Sponsor. Gave an overview of the project and also answers some of the concerns from members of the Planning Commission.

Terence Halinan, re: minimum restrictions on this operation, as a has been point out for a number of years. He worked really closed with the staff of this project. There are very little complaints. Would suggest that this is a pretty empty strike, there are no problems, there cooperative. To put restrictions on them on his opinion is to start off in the wrong foot, he is trying to get all this operation to cooperate to go thru the proper procedures and if they are restricted with whatever they are trying to do, so I will suggest that we worked with them as least restricted as possible. If hour are going to be put on them, they should be hours that are reasonable with other business in that neighborhood. We should see for remedy that would be in anybody interest.

Rod Roach, do not grant D.R. for this project, this is based upon a concern the D.R., requestor, had concerning: noise, traffic, loitering.

Mandy Webster, Medical patient, volunteer at S.F. Patient Res. Ctr., change of hours would impact the Ctr., severely. All patients have different appointments, some time even into late in the evening.

Owner of the Porosteric shop,four doors down from ctr., having problems with patients from the Ctr., parking in the blue zone that has been assigned for his shop.

Wayne Canyack, neighborhood was not properly notified. Ctrs., like this one should be removed from the Sts., of S.F. and put into the County hospital.

Jane Wyatt: volunteer at Ctr., support program.

Staff Comments:

Commissioner Antenore: No testimony that justified any restrictions that we would not place on any operation in this particular location, based on the history up to now. They shouldn't have any restrictions in terms of hours operation, in re: to other business operation in the area by requirement. Voted against motion.

Gerald Green, Director of Planning, pointed out that there are other business in the area that are open after the hours that are suggested here. The dept., responded to concerns, fears. Not calling a Pharmacy, but in all fairness recognize, there is a legislation that had been adopted that allowed pharmacies to remain open 24 hrs., primarily because of the need, no suggesting that they be allowed to be open even until midnight. Also responding to a comment that was made re: limiting hours re: restaurant operations; the theory that we are limiting the hours of operation to the general public, when a restaurant closes for business there still a lot work that has to be done and our interpretation has allowed that work to go on after the hrs., operation, we are really concerned about the service that is provided in hrs., to the general public. The Commission has an option, he suggested that in the past they had taken some cases, had attached a condition that no have any hrs., or you would any hrs. , but you would have a test to be run. It might be possible if you add a condition that would allow for this to be conducted for a period of time, and there is any complaints, you can bring it back here. Recommend attach the condition of approval, focusing in the hrs., of operation.

Commissioner Mills, Take D.R. Approved the project with the conditions as created by staff.

Commissioner Richardson, We should focus in the security issue. We shouldn't impose any restrictions. Have them come back within a year. Do not take a D.R.

ACTION: Take D.R. Approve staff recommendation with conditions as modified:

- Hours of operation are 9-10 p.m. 7 days a week; report back to Commission in one year.

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14951

21. 99.418D (MARTIN)

45 JUNIPER STREET, north east side between Harrison and Folsom Streets, Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 3520 -- A Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9907694, proposing to construct a three-unit residential building on a vacant lot in a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use District) and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

After Planner presentation (presented by Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning):

SPEAKER(S):

Jim Micho, property owner on Folsom St., lived and worked there since 1977. Would loose his view and antenna reception.

Angelo Garro, concerned about his business/lightwell/air/sound. Especially concerned put out of business (blacksmith) for the kind work he does, it generates a lots noise.

Alice Barkley, sound engineer, took sound measurment for 7 days, in addition to that with Mr. Garro assistant they took sound measurement inside/outside bldg., when noise are been generated. Sound engineer recommended certain things to be done to the bldg., are they goint to be incorporated.

Joe O'Donoghue, spoke re: most lv./wk bldgs. , sound proof andheight differential.

STAFF COMMENTS:

Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Asked to take D.R. and add conditions that Ms. Barkley mentioned.

Commissioner Mills, moved to take D.R., to adopt the 3 recommendations by the sound and vibration expert, and also add in the notice of special restrictions.

ACTION: Approve as amended with conditions of approval:

- Other. The recommendations of the acoustical analysis to reduce vibration levels shall be conditions of the permit approval. They shall also be made part of the Notice of Special Restrictions. A Special Disclosure Related to Adjacent Land Uses shall be exhibit to the Notice of Special Restrictions. The conditions of the Notice of Special Restrictions. The conditions of the Notice of Special Restrictions include the following:

A. Using resilient channels on the exterior wall facing the metal shop and at the ceilings in the units;

B. Using a lightweight topping slab on the floors to stiffen them;

C. Eliminating any direct contact between the foundations of the existing and new buildings; and

D. Any other recommendations by the acoustical engineer.

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin and Joe

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY APRIL 13, 2000.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Richardson, Joe

ABSENT: Chinchilla, Martin

Adjournment: 7:55 P.M.

DRAFT

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Board of Supervisors Chamber - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 13, 2000

2:00 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Martin, Richardson

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT CHINCHILLA AT 2:OO P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Larry Badiner, Jonathan Purvis, Julian Banales, Joan Kugler, Alison Borden, Isolde Wilson, Kelly Pepper, Linda Avery - Commission Secretary.

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1. 1999.312E (JAROSLAWSKY)

699 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, Assessor's Block 4104, Lot 002 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing 4,500 square foot building and the construction of an 17,126 square foot building. The new structure would contain 10 live/work loft units and 10 parking spaces. Ingress and egress to the garage area would be along 22nd Street. The structure would utilize the entire site, be a maximum of 40 feet in the height and contain three stories, not including the garage level. The project site is located in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, within the Potrero Hill District of the City of San Francisco. The project site is also within the Industrial Protection Buffer Zone (IPZ) and will undergo mandatory Discretionary Review.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 1999).

(Proposed for Continuance to January 27, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

B. PUBLIC COMMENT

(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))

SPEAKER(S): Marie Jones

Re: Proposition M

James Morrison

Re: 1st and Howard

John Winston

Re: 1st and Howard

Keith Saggers

Re: 1st and Howard

Sue Hestor

Re: Brannan St. Project/First Source Hiring Program

Robert McCarthy

Re:

Joe O'Donoghue

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

2. Proposed adoption of Planning Commission hearing schedule for 2000.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as amended

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

3. Commission Matters

Antenore: Merger -------

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

4. Director's Announcements.

- Ann Bloomfield Resolution

- Dwelling Unit Merger (Antenore)

5. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

BOA: - 2931 Pierce St.: Upheld +5 -0

- 1993-14th Avenue: Upheld +5 -0

6. (BADINER)

Status report on the Annual Limit (Office Development Limitations Program, Planning Code Sections 320-325) for office buildings.

SPEAKER(S): Robert McCarthy, Marie Jones, Jim Gonzales, Sue Hestor, Jim Rubin, Jeffrey Heller, Joe O'Donoghue.

ACTION: Meeting held. No action required.

7. 98.472C (PURVIS)

140 SOUTH VAN NESS, Presentation of a three-dimensional model of a mixed-use PUD project to show context and design details. This project was approved, with conditions, by the Commission on June 3, 1999 under Motion No. 14837. It is presented as an informational item only.

SPEAKER(S): Justin Herman

ACTION: Meeting held. No action required.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

8. 99.799Q (KOONTS)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 6, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14954

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

9.99.489C (PURVIS)

201 9TH STREET, between Howard and Folsom Streets; Lot 82 in Assessor's Block 3729: Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 181 (f) to permit the intensification of operation for a legal non-conforming nighttime entertainment use (known as "Asia SF") in an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) District within the South of Market Mixed Use District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation..

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 18, 1999)

Note: On November 18, 1999, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion to approve the Conditional Use Authorization for live entertainment with amended conditions, and a motion of intent to disapprove the extended hours for the entertainment. The vote was +7 -0. A revised draft motion to this effect will be presented to the Commission.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved entertainment

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14955

G.REGULAR CALENDAR

10. 99.027BC (BANALES)

160 KING STREET, onthe north side, being a through lot to Townsend Street, between 2nd and 3rd Streets; Lot 25 in Assessor's Block 3794 -- Request for authorization for Office Space in excess of 50,000 square feet under Section 321 of the Planning Code to permit new construction of a 9-story over basement office building, not to exceed 176,000 square feet of office space. Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow Special Exceptions to Bulk Limits in Districts other than C-3, Planning Code Section 271. Request for Planed Unit Development to allow a reduction in Planning Code requirements for parking. This notice shall also set forth an initial determination of the net addition of gross square feet of office space, pursuant to Planning Code Section 313.4 and 314.4. The is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) and 105-F Height and Bulk District.

The project sponsor has amended the project to reduce the parking to 307 parking spaces where 343 spaces are required by the Planning Code. The basement level for parking is being eliminated.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 6, 2000).

SPEAKER(S): Jim Gonzales, Jim Rubin, Jeff Heller, Harold Moose, Richard Dickenson, John Bizell, Jim Green Lloyd Schloegel

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14956

11. 98.902E (KUGLER) 1ST AND HOWARD STREETS PROJECT,Assessors Block 3720-lots 5, 6 and 7; Block 3721-lots 10, 11, 35 and 88; Block 3736-lots 1, 2, 3A, 4 and 116; and Block 3737-lots 1, 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Environmental Impact Report Certification. The proposed project would demolish all but one of the existing structures on the four corners of the intersection of First and Howard (south of the Transbay Terminal) and construct four office buildings in the C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District in the South of Market area. The new space would be approximately 1,120,000 sq. ft. of office and about 56,000 sq. ft. of retail. About 1,233 underground valet parking spaces are proposed. The Article 11, Category I historic structure at 231 First St. would be retained and converted to restaurant or retail and office use.

SPEAKER(S):

ACTION: Approved as corrected

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14957

12. 99.626C (BORDEN)

851 HEAD STREET, north side, between Ashton Avenue and Holloway Avenue; Lot 14 in Assessor's Block 6923 -- Request for a Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 209.3(c) (Institutional Uses Permitted in R Districts) to change the use of an existing building in the RH-1(D) (House, One-Family (Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 2/10/00

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

13. 99.644C (WILSON)

259 BROAD STREET, south side between Orizaba and Capitol Avenue; Lot 52 in Assessor's Block 7114 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to allow the establishment of a residential care facility for 7 or more persons, pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(c); in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKER(S): James Wood, Edna James

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14958

14. 99.730C (PEPPER)

1100 OAK STREET, northwest corner at Divisadero; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1215 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of nine antennas and a base transceiver station on the roof of the existing commercial building as part of Sprint's wireless telecommunications network in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Note: On December 16, 1999, after public testimony the Commission closed public hearing and instructed staff to determine whether or not the penthouse is a dwelling unit. Commissioners Theoharis and Martin were absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin

MOTION No.: 14959

AT APPROXIMATELY 4:00 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONVENE INTO A SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (DR) HEARING.

15. 99.740D(PEPPER)

3525 CLAY STREET, south side between Laurel and Locust Street, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 1010 - Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9913221, proposing to construct a new rear addition to the kitchen in a RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and a 40-X height and Bulk District.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT: Martin, Chinchilla

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, _______________, 2000.

Adjournment: 5:05 P.M.

DRAFT

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chamber - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 20, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT: Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Martin, Richardson

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:47 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Paul Rosetter, Ken Chin, Kelley LeBlanc, Corey Alvin, Edy Zwierzycki, Judy Martin, Jana Beatty, Michael Kometani, Susana Montana, Kelley Pepper, Sharon Young, Ellen Miramontes, Isolde Wilson, Mary Woods, Linda Avery - Commission Secretary.

A. ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1. 1999.218E (COOPER)

1715 OCTAVIA STREET, 1907-09 PINE STREET and 1911 PINE STREET. Assessors Block 663, Lots 1, 28, 28A, 29 and 30. Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project would be the construction of a high school campus for 200 to 250 students. The campus would be comprised of: 1) three connected, two-to three-story, maximum 40-foot tall buildings, including an underground gymnasium, that together would form an approximately 48,000 square foot main building; 2) an existing residential and office building; 3) an outdoor courtyard; and 4) eight off-street parking spaces. The project site is located at the corner of Pine and Octavia Streets and is in an RH-2 (Residential, House Districts, Two-Family) zoning district and a 40-X height and bulk district.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 1999).

316 BARTLETT STREET, west side between 24th and 25th Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor=s Block 6515 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9913213, proposing to construct a three-family dwelling in a RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: No D.R. Approved as proposed

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Martin, Richardson, Joe

ABSENT: Antenore

23. 1999.783D (MIRAMONTES)

2416 LAKE STREET, north side between 25th and 26th Avenues, Lot 017 in Assessor=s Block 1333 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9916721, proposing to reconstruct the top floor so that the roofline changes from a pitched roof to a flat roof in a RM-1 (Mixed, Low Density) District.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN

24. 1999.846D (WILSON)

378 CUMBERLAND STREET, north side between Sanchez and Noe Streets, Lot 054 in Assessor=s Block 3601 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9919078, proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new three-story dwelling in a RH-1 (House, One-Family) District.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: No D.R. Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Martin, Richardson, Joe

ABSENT: Antenore

25. 1999.436D (WOODS)

618 - 16TH AVENUE, east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets, Lot 036 in Assessor=s Block 1629 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9900828, proposing to construct a second floor addition at the existing roof deck above the first floor at the rear of a two-story over-garage single-family dwelling in a RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Take D.R. Approve project with _____ light ____.

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Martin, Richardson, Joe

ABSENT: Antenore

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, ___________, 2000.

Adjournment: 7:40 P.M.

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chamber - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, January 27, 2000
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
ABSENT:                Martin

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:50 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning, Bill Wycko, Jonathan Purvis, Paul Deutsch, Tom Wang, Julian Banales, Catherine Keylon, Jim Miller, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Judy Martin, Ellen Miramontes, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary.

A.        ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

        1.        1999.862C                                                                  (CHIN)
2001 UNION STREET, southwest corner at Buchanan Street; Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 0541 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 725.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of nine antennas on the existing rooftop penthouse and an equipment room on the sixth floor of the existing six-story commercial building as part of Cellular One’s wireless telecommunications network in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a -40-X Height and Bulk District.

                (Proposed for Continuance to February 3 10, 2000)
        SPEAKER(S):        None
        ACTION:        Continued as amended
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin

2. 98.703C (ALVIN)

399 WEBSTER STREET, on the west side of Webster Street, and on the corner of Webster and Oak Streets; Lots 1 in Assessor’s Block 842 -- Request under Planning Code Section 209.2(d) to convert a two-family residence to a bed and breakfast hotel with no more than five rooms or suites of rooms none with cooking facilities, including allowing private parties with no more than 100 guests, in an RM-1(Residential, Mixed Districts, Low Density) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 18, 1999).
                (Proposed for Continuance for February 10, 2000).
        SPEAKER(S):        None
        ACTION:        Continued as proposed
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin

3.        98.324C        (BEATTY)

897 CALIFORNIA STREET, southeast corner of California and Powell Streets, Lot 16 in Assessor’s Block 256-- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to construct a new six-story, nine-unit residential building above a height of 40 feet in an RM-4 District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
                (Proposed for Continuance to February 10, 2000).
        SPEAKER(S):        None
        ACTION:        Continued as proposed
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin

        4.        98.770E         (MALTZER)
1738-9TH AVENUE, east side between Moraga and Noriega Streets; Lots 31 and 32 in Assessor's Block 2041 - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration for a proposal to demolish an existing one-story building containing a preschool and community meeting room, and construct a new four-story building containing eight senior housing units, a preschool and community meeting room.
                (Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2000)
        SPEAKER(S):        None
        ACTION:        Continued as proposed
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin

        5.        1999.040C (WILSON)
1738-9TH AVENUE, east side between Moraga and Noriega Streets; Lots 31 and 32 in Assessor’s Block 2041 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to allow a child care facility and a community facility, under Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 209.4(a), within an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for rear yard and off-street parking variances under Planning Code Sections 134(c)(1) and 151.
                                (Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2000)
                SPEAKER(S):                        None
                ACTION:                        Continued as proposed
                AYES:                                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:                        Martin


6.1999.247E (KUGLER)

1247 HARRISON STREET: Assessors Block 3757, Lots 63,65 and 66. Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project would remove bus parking around and incidental uses in the former Shrader Iron Works building, demolish the structures, and construct three new three-story buildings (two residential floors over ground floor retail [in the larger two buildings fronting on Harrison] and internal parking) for a total of 64 live/work units. Parking would be provided at a one-to-one ratio for a total of 64 spaces. The proposed buildings would be about 45 feet in height at the roof level with additional height from a parapet and stair penthouses which would raise the height by approximately 10 feet for a total of 55 feet. The proposed site is zoned SLI(Service/Light Industrial District) with a 40-X Height/Bulk District and is within the interim Industrial Protection Zone.
                                (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 9, 1999)
                                (Proposed for Continuance to February 24, 2000)
                SPEAKER(S):        None
                ACTION:        Continued as proposed
                AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:        Martin

                7.                98.599E        (WONG)
2361 LOMBARD STREET _126_Room Hotel; Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. South side between Scott and Pierce Streets; Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, and 30 in Assessor’s Block 512; within an NC_3 (Moderate_Scale Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and within a 40_X height and bulk district. Proposed demolition of an existing 24_room motel, a 4,400 square_foot restaurant, an auto repair establishment, and flower stand. A new hotel would be constructed with about 102_126 hotel guest rooms. The new building would be 4 stories, approximately 80,152 square feet, and approximately 40 feet in height. About 85_102 parking spaces would be provided, with ingress/egress on Scott Street and on Lombard Street. One level of parking would be underground.
                (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 1999).
        (Proposed for Continuance to March 2, 2000).
        SPEAKER(S):        None
        ACTION:        Continued as proposed
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin

B.        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. If it is demonstrated that comments by the public will exceed 15 minutes, the President or chairperson may continue Public Comment to another time during the meeting.

“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))
        SPEAKER(S):
                        Jim Hass, Re: Status report on Organ Project (Mid-Embarcadero Open Space)
                        Patricia Vaughey, Re: Computer (Public DBI) is not user friendly - for public access.

Lloyd Scholegel Re: Building on downtown parking lots - too many - we don’t need them - wasting time and money - consider a moratorium on these proposals.

                        Josh: Re: Convenience of downtown parking.

C.        COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        8.        Commission Matters
                None

D.        DIRECTOR’S REPORT

        9.        Director’s Announcements.
                None

10.Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

BOA: None
BOS: 275 Olympia Way--Board of Supervisors upheld Planning Commission by +6-0 (they didn’t have the two thirds votes necessary to over rule the Commission).

11.Status Report: Expansion of the Transportation Impact Development Fee (TIDF); discussion of program objectives; authorization to circulate a Request for Proposals for consultant services.
        SPEAKER(S):        None
        ACTION:        Approved
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin
        MOTION No:        14972

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

12. BERNAL SOUTH SLOPE STUDY (MONTANA)
Consideration of adopting a policy of automatic discretionary review for new construction proposed on VACANT parcels with slopes greater than 20 percent, or on parcels that front on undeveloped streets or that do not yet have City utilities extended to the property within an area of the City generally bounded by Crescent Street to the north, Gates Street to the east, Alemany Boulevard to the South, and to an area generally bounded by Jarboe, Peralta (both sides of street), Tompkins and Bradford Streets. This DR policy would be in effect for two years or until a cumulative impact study was prepared by the City which addressed slope stability, construction of roadways, utilities and other infrastructure to these undeveloped areas, pedestrian and traffic circulation systems, open space systems and urban design neighborhood character effects of hillside developments in the study areas.
Note: On January 20, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote of +7 -0. Final language on January 27, 2000.

        SPEAKER(S):        None
        ACTION:        Approved
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin
        MOTION No:        14973

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

13.97.522E (WYCKO)
49 & 55 PAGE STREET Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for a mixed use project with approximately 14,000 gross square feet of retail/commercial space and 128 residential units with a revised total of 126 parking spaces accessed from Page Street in an 80-foot high new building at 55 Page and through reuse of the facade of the existing building at 49 Page Street.

SPEAKER(S):(-) David Snyder, Exec. Director, San Francisco Bicycle Coalition -- traffic gross is estimated to be at .5% compounded annually and that is 6.5% in 13 years. Pointed out the traffic on Valencia, Dolores, Guerrero, South Van Ness and Mission showed an increase in just 1 year of 1.1% and that is over a time period that there weren’t any traffic changes as a result of the Central Freeway. The traffic pattern in the area, was practically stable during the time period. This data is reliable. Traffic on Market Street, showed similar increases. Over 13 yrs., the difference between a 1.1% and a .5% is a difference between 6.5% and 15%.

(-) John Suisky -- would like the developer to reduce the number of parking spaces. Encouraged the department to re assess requirements in areas like this.
(+) Andrew Junius, Asked Commission to deny appeal.

        ACTION:        Approved. Negative Declaration Upheld
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin
        MOTION No:        14974

       14.                97.522C         (PURVIS)
49 & 55 PAGE STREET, between Gough Street and Franklin Street; Lots 7 & 8 in Assessor’s Block 854: Request for Conditional Use Approval under Planning Code Sections 712.11, 712.26, 271 and 304 to: (1) authorize development of a lot in excess of 10,000 square feet in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, (2) provide a walk-up facility in an NC-3 District, (3) construct a building that exceeds the bulk limits, and (4) develop the project as a PUD (Planned Unit Development), with exceptions from density standards as set forth in Section 712.91, from dwelling unit exposure requirements in Section 140, from rear yard requirements in Section 134, from parking requirements in Section 151, from bay window and canopy dimensions standards in Section 136 (c).
SPEAKER(S):(+) Andrew Junius, representative of project sponsor -- gave an overall description of project.
                                (+) Jeffrey Heller, project architect -- gave a brief design presentation of project
(+) John Kim, supported project.
        ACTION:        Approved as proposed without sponsor recommended changes
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:        Martin
        MOTION No:        14975

        15.                96.223E                         (DEUTSCH)
ALAMEDA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN. Public hearing, to receive comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda County Watershed Management Plan. The Watershed Management Plan would provide comprehensive policies and actions for managing the land and resources of the 40,000 acre Alameda Watershed, located in Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, owned and administered by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Supply and Treatment Division. The Watershed stores and provides water for homes and businesses in San Francisco and portions of San Mateo, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. The Draft EIR analyzes at a programmatic level the potential environmental impacts of various activities and development projects that could occur under the policies of the proposed Management Plan. Written public comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted until January 31, 2000.
        SPEAKER(S):        None
        Meeting held. NO ACTION REQUIRED.

        16.        1999.630C         (FALLAY)
130 - 132 TURK STREET, north side of Turk Street, between Taylor and Jones Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0339 -- Request for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow a re-establishment (per Section 178 of the Planning Code) of a Commercial use (Assembly, Personal and Social Services) above the ground story, as required by Planning Code Section
209.8, in RC-4 (Residential Commercial, High Density) District within the North of Market Residential Special Use District.
                (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 1999).
        ITEM ON CALENDAR IN ERROR.
        PROJECT HAS NOT YET BEEN ADEQUATELY NOTICED.

                17.                1999.530C         (WANG)
1708 - 1712 WAWONA STREET, northwest corner of 28th Avenue and Wawona Street; Lot 24 in Assessor’s Block 2468 - - Request for authorization of a Conditional Use to allow subdivision of the subject vacant lot into two new lots, with each lot having a width of less than the required minimum lot width of 25 feet, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
                                (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 9, 1999).
SPEAKER(S):(+) Andrew Junius, representative of project sponsor -- gave an overall presentation of project.(+) Nam Thran, brother of project sponsor -- in need of having his own house.
                                                (-) Taylor Safford -- subdivision does not meet requirements of sec. 303 of Planning Code. Is not compatible with the neighborhood lot width. Reject application.
                                                (-) John Disney -- there is clearly defined visual character in the neighborhood. The proposed houses would be outside the already defined character.
                                                (-) Dorothy Disney -- Plans violate the scale requirement.
(-) Mitsy Tarver -- project would create traffic and parking problems.
(-) Phyllis Rose -- opposed the proposed project.
(-) Kathleen Safford -- opposed project.
(-) Terry Sechrist -- opposed project.
                ACTION:                Passed a motion of Intent to deny this proposal. Final Language 2/10/00
                AYES:                        Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla
                NAYES:                Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:                Martin

                18.                1999.664C                         (BANALES)
135 DORE STREET, east side, south of Folsom Street, Lot 66 in Assessor's Block 3519 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow a building expansion consisting of two live/work units in a Mixed Use Buffer Zone, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861. The subject property is within a Service, Light Industrial, Residential District (SLR) and 50-X Height and Bulk District.
                SPEAKER(S):        (+) Dennis Singer, working with owner -- gave a brief overall view of project.
                (-) Sue Hestor, staff report didn’t apply conditional use standards.
                ACTION:                Continued to 2/3/00
                AYES:                        Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:                Martin

                19.                98.863C         (KEYLON)
6900 GEARY BOULEVARD, northeast corner at 33rd Avenue, Lot 7 in Assessor’s Block 1465 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 121.1 and 710.11 to develop a mixed-use four-story building with approximately 4,673 square feet of ground floor retail space and 17 dwelling units (including 2 affordable units) on the remaining three floors on a lot exceeding 5,000 square feet in size, on a vacant site within an NC-1 Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S):(+) Van Ly, project architect -- project has been designed and devoted to the immediate district character and responses from neighbors.

(-) Melisa Li, owner of property next to the project -- requested some changes to the project’s design
ACTION:Approved with the emphasis that design and material, as approved by staff, must not be changed.

                AYES:                        Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:                Martin
                MOTION No:        14976

                20.                1999.416C                                   (MILLER)
2516-24 MISSION STREET, west side between 21st and 22nd Streets, Lot 61 in Assessor’s Block 3616 -- Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for addition of three more hotel rooms to an already-approved 21-room TOURIST HOTEL with an outdoor activity area at the rear of the building (for use in conjunction with hotel use and with proposed ground-floor restaurant/bar in the subject building, partially within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-B Height and Bulk District and partially within an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S):(+) Brett Gladstone, Representative of project sponsor -- does not agree with staff recommendation for number of people allowed to be in the back yard and the hours they are allowed to be there
(-) David Dow, opposed project. There would be a lot of noise. Outdoor serving should be limited in areas that are surrounded by residential.
ACTION:Approved the additional rooms with an intent to disapprove outdoor use. Final language 2/10/00.
                AYES:                        Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:                Martin

                21.        1999.312E         (JAROSLAWSKY)
699 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, Assessor’s Block 4104, Lot 002 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing 4,500 square foot building and the construction of an 17,126 square foot building. The new structure would contain 10 live/work loft units and 10 parking spaces. Ingress and egress to the garage area would be along 22nd Street. The structure would utilize the entire site, be a maximum of 40 feet in the height and contain three stories, not including the garage level. The project site is located in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, within the Potrero Hill District of the City of San Francisco. The project site is also within the Industrial Protection Buffer Zone (IPZ) and will undergo mandatory Discretionary Review.
                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 6, 2000)
SPEAKER(S):(-) Sue Hestor, had problems with staff continuing to scope out and basically disregard land use changes.

(+) Alice Barkley, representative of Project sponsor, believed that appeal is without merit.

                ACTION:                Approved. Negative declaration upheld.
                AYES:                        Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:                Martin
                MOTION No:        14977

AT APPROXIMATELY 5:00 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED INTO A SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (DR) HEARING.

        22.        1999.321D                 (PURVIS)
699 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, northeast corner between 20th and 22nd Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 4014 -- A Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9907704S, proposing to demolish an industrial building and construct 10 live/work units with 10 off-street parking spaces in a M-1 (Light Industrial) District, within the IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone), and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
        SPEAKER(S):        (-) Dick Millett, project has no open space.
(-) Gary Moody, a lot of live/work spaces are being sold to a lot of people who are not using them for live/work.
                                (-) Sue Hestor, opposed project.
                                (+) Alice Barkley, project should be approved.
ACTION:Approved with condition that staff continue to work on west elevation design issues.
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson
        NAYES:                Antenore and Joe
        ABSENT:                Martin

        23.        2000.001D                         (MIRAMONTES)
2910 PACIFIC AVENUE, south side between Broderick and Baker Streets, Lot 037 in Assessor’s Block 0963 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9910723S, proposing to construct a new three-story single-family residence in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
        SPEAKER(S):        Oppose project:
Gail Schecter, Dr. Alan Malouf, Judith Wilson, Carol Yamaguchi, Richard Malconian, Jim Porter, Linda Romey, Neol Kirchenbaum
                                Support project:
                                Alice Barkley, Greg Scott, Ed McEachron
ACTION:No D.R. Approved as proposed
        AYES                        Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:                Martin and Chinchilla

        24.        1999.374D                 (MARTIN)
993 TENNESSEE STREET, east side between 20th and 22nd Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 4108 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 9826500S/9826501 proposing to demolish an existing vacant structure formerly used as a plumbing machine shop and construct a 10-unit live/work building, with four stories and two mezzanines, on a 56.75' X 100' lot, in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial Zone) and Interim Mixed Use Housing Zone District, and 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project is set for a Mandatory Discretionary Review per City Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861.
        SPEAKER(S):        Jim Rubin, referred to letter regarding request for continuance.
ACTION:Without hearing, continued to 2/17/00
        AYES:                        Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
        ABSENT:                Martin

        25.        1999.059D                          (PURVIS)
BRYANT STREET, south side between 2nd and 3rd Streets, Lot 087 in Assessor’s Block 3775 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9912957, proposing to demolish two industrial buildings and construct a 10-unit live/work building with ground floor commercial in a SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District, within the Interim Mixed Use Housing Zone, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
        SPEAKER(S):        (the following speakers spoke on the matter of continuance only):
                        Alice Barkley, representative of Discretionary Review, requestor, opposes this particular live/work development. Initially they would have objected to the continuance, but believe that there is letter from project sponsor to Commission stating that he would agreed to certain conditions, which include not to do anything that would end up as being a constructive eviction. As long as those conditions are met, do not have any problems with continuance.
                        Mary, tenant, opposed continuance.
                        Mrs. Sally Chapman, tenant, opposed continuance.
        ACTION:        Without hearing, continued to 2/10/00
        AYES:                Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe
        ABSENT:        Martin

Adjournment: 6:10 p.m.

THE DRAFT MINUTES WERE ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000.

                SPEAKER(S):                None
                ACTION:                Approved with further corrections and streamlining
                AYES:                        Martin, Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson
                ABSENT:                Theoharis

Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.

San Francisco City and County Links