• April 6, 2000
• April 13, 2000
• April 20, 2000 Cancelled
• April 27, 2000

1. 1999.829C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

540 VALENCIA STREET, west side between 16th Street and 17th Street; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 3568 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow amplified live and recorded music (defined as “Other Entertainment” by Planning Code Section 790.38) in an existing nonconforming Bar, as required by Planning Code Section 726.48, in the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapprove

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2000).

(Proposed for Continuance to April 27, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):             None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:           Theoharis

2.  98.635ECB (BADINER: 558-6350)

2101 -2125 BRYANT STREET, 700 YORK STREET, 2830 20TH STREET, 2717 19TH STREET, also known as the BRYANT SQUARE PROJECT, Assessor's Block 4080 (Lots 7, 11, 12, and 14), bounded by Bryant, 19th, York and 20th Streets -- Consideration of:             

(1) Conditional Use Authorization under Section 303 for (a) demolition of two Industrial Buildings at 2125 Bryant Street and 2850 York Street under the interim zoning controls for the Industrial Protection Zone; (b) a Planned Unit Development, under Section 304, including authorization to provide required parking on a valet assisted basis, rather than independently accessible spaces; and (c) an exception, under Section 271, from the bulk limitations; and (2)Project Authorization under Section 321 for the net addition of 148,000 square feet of office space. (3)Discretionary Review of the demolition of a vacant industrial building at 700 York Street under the provisions of Planning Commission Motion No. 14861. This project lies within an M-1 (Light Industrial) and a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and within a 65-B Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 13, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):             None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:           Theoharis

3. 1999.571C                           (ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)

1344 OCEAN AVENUE, northeastern corner of Granada Avenue, Lot 16 in Assessor’s Block 3198 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of nine panel antennas on the roof of a four-story apartment building; and storage and maintenance of related equipment in an existing storage room within the ground-floor garage. Storage of equipment on ground-floor will not result in elimination of parking stalls. The antennas and equipment storage are part of a wireless communication network in an NC-2 (Neighborhood-Commercial, Small-Scale) District; Ocean Avenue Fast Food Subdistrict; and 40-X Height/ Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapprove

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 9, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):               None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:               Theoharis

4. 1999.154E (KUGLER: 558-5983)

992 PERALTA AVENUE, on the west side of Peralta Avenue, at the corner of Peralta and Tompkins; Lot 36 of Assessors Block 5696. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration for a planned unit development (PUD) of 66 condominium residential units and 3,500 sq.ft. retail. The proposed project is the construction a structure with residential units, a 2,500 sq.ft convenience store and a 1,000 sq.ft. fast-food takeout after demolishing three existing warehouse structures and removing an existing truck parking/storage yard. The new four-level building (three residential floors over a ground floor that would contain the retail space and 66 spaces of internal parking) is proposed to be constructed to follow the topography and would cover the entire lot at differing grade levels. The building would be approximately 40 feet in height. The proposed site is zoned NC-S with a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):             None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:           Theoharis

5. 98.770E (MALTZER: 558-6391)

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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 24, 2000).

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):             None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:           Theoharis

6. 1999.040C (WILSON: 558-6602)

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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 24, 2000).

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):                       None

ACTION:                     Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:                     Theoharis

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):           

(-) Lloyd Schloegel

- is very concerned about parking in the Executive Park Area.

- the housing will be over prized so this is not an ideal site for housing

- the landscaping are

( ) Dwayne Jones

- would like to have an extension of the project of Executive Park

- there are a lot of community issues involved that still haven’t been resolved.

- the developer has not met any standards in resolving unmet issues.

- it is imperative that time be given to resolve these issues

- doesn’t think that if project begins as scheduled, these issues will not be met.

- the various committees need to have their issues resolved.

6. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 1/27/00, 3/16/00 and 3/23/00.

SPEAKER(S):             None

ACTION:             Approved with further corrections and streamlining

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

ABSENT:           Theoharis

7. Commission Matters

Antenore: Would like to have the calendar mailed in the standard mailing envelopes.

8. Director’s Announcements.

• No announcements

- Wisconsin Street - investigation report: Delving Washington:

- owner would like to maintain the deck and stairwell,

- a suspension has been issued on the permit at the building board of        appeals.

- there were changes that were made by the owner during construction

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

BOS: none

BOA: Planning Commission matters were continued to later dates.

10. 1999.442E                    (MONTANA: 558-5984)

Executive Park Development CEQA Findings .Consideration of adoption of Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Guidelines, and Chapter 31 of the City’s Administrative Code for General Plan amendments to the Executive Park Subarea of the South Bayshore Area Plan of the General Plan and for a Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development at Executive Park on Lots 85, 86 and 88/90 of Assessor’s Block 4991.

Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2000)

Note: On March 23, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve with amendments by a vote of +4 -2. Commissioners Mills and Theoharis voted no. Commissioner Martin was absent. Final Language 4/6/00.

SPEAKER(S):               None

ACTION:     Approved

AYES:             Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

EXCUSED: Martin

ABSENT:             Theoharis

MOTION No.: 15015




11. 2000.057RM                                                      (MONTANA: 558-5984)

General Plan Map and Text Amendments for Executive Park. Consideration of a proposal to adopt amendments to the Subarea Plan For Executive Park maps and text found within the South Bayshore Plan Element of the General Plan to facilitate the development of a mixed use community proposed as a Planned Unit Development on approximately 58 acres of the 70 acre Executive Park Subarea. The Executive Park Subarea Plan of the South Bayshore Plan Element of the General Plan encompasses Lots 24, 61, 65, 74, 75, 85, 86, and 88/90 of Assessor’s Block 4991 and is generally bounded by U.S. Highway 101 to the west, Harney Way to the south, Jamestown Avenue to the southeast, and Bay View Hill Park to the north, near Candlestick Park in the City. The maps of the General Plan that would be considered for amendment are: (1) The map entitled Figure 18 San Francisco Executive Park Land Use Plan found on page II.9.51 of the South Bayshore Area Plan, to be amended to clarify the various land uses to be developed within the subarea; (2) Figure 19 San Francisco Executive Park Auto Access on page II.9.52 of the South Bayshore Area Plan and Figure 20 San Francisco Executive Park Auto Egresson page II.9.53 of the South Bayshore Area Plan would be combined into a single Figure 19: San Francisco Executive Park Auto Access map which would eliminate an extension of Executive Park West through City of Brisbane jurisdiction to Harney Way and reconfigure that street to remain within San Francisco jurisdiction to Harney Way; and (3) Figure 21 San Francisco Executive Park: Urban Form Plan would be amended to show a more simple height and bulk zones for the project in a re-numbered Figure 20: San Francisco Executive Park Urban Form Plan consistent with the new Figure 18. The text proposed for amendment include portions of the text of the Subarea Plan For Executive Park to (a) create a new Urban Design policy for the subarea and include several new urban design guidelines through the various text sections of the subarea plan; (b) add text to reinforce the Town Center concept for retail space and an outdoor plaza gathering place for workers, residents and visitors to meet and communicate and develop a sense of community; (c) seek to preserve the 26 acre open space in a natural environment with the least amount of further grading to accommodate public trails, yet which will provide at least one scenic vista point to view the water; (d) seek to strengthen transit use by workers and residents of the area; (e) seek to minimize single occupant vehicle use by area workers and residents or, at a minimum, seeks to encourage joint use of parking resources by sharing these facilities with workers, residents and area recreational users; and (f) allow the configuration of the extension of Executive Park Boulevard to remain within the jurisdiction of the City & County of San Francisco rather than extend into the jurisdiction of the City of Brisbane to connect to Harney Way. The Planning Commission initiated these amendments on February 4, 2000 and on March 23, 2000 will consider adoption of amendments for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. For more information on this subject, please contact planner Susana Montana at (415) 558-5984.

Recommendation: Approval.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2000)

Note: On March 23, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve with amendments by a vote of +4 -2. Commissioners Mills and Theoharis voted no. Commissioner Martin was absent. Final Language 4/6/00.




SPEAKER(S):               None

ACTION:     Approved

AYES:             Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

EXCUSED: Martin

ABSENT:             Theoharis

MOTION No.: 15016




12. 1990.299CC                              (MONTANA: 558-5984)

Conditional Use Application for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) at Executive Park. Consideration of an extension and amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to be developed on approximately 58 acres of land consisting of Lots 85, 86 and 88/90 (formerly Lot 87) in Assessor’s Block 4991 to allow up to 1,324,000 square feet (sq.ft) of new office space, 52,500 sq.ft. of new retail and restaurant space, 25,000 sq.ft. of health club/fitness center space, 13,200 sq.ft. of child care space, up to 521 new dwelling units and accessory residential off-street parking spaces, off-street freight loading spaces and accessory commercial off-street parking spaces. The PUD would authorize specific land uses within the Project Site within which one-half of the non-residential development and one-half of 500 on-site housing units must commence construction within 24 months from the date of the PUD authorization and, if this performance criteria is met, the remaining commercial development may be allowed provided construction for this phase, along with the remainder of the required 500 on-site housing units, begins within 48 months of the date of the PUD authorization. All construction must commence within the 48 month period, or earlier, along with all associated mitigation measures, infrastructure, local employment requirements, affordable housing linkage requirements for the office space, and other conditions of approval. The PUD would (1) require the recordation of a notice of special restriction on the deed of approximately 26 acres of open space which describes the open space program to insure improvement and maintenance of the open space area contiguous to Bay View Hill Park; (2) require that a minimum of 500 dwelling units be constructed within the 55 acre site; (3) require that ten percent of all dwelling units provided on-site must be affordable to households whose incomes do not exceed one hundred percent of the median income for rental units and one hundred twenty percent of the median income for sale units; (4) require new office development to meet the housing requirements set forth in Section 313 of the Planning Code; (5) specify design characteristics of the development to foster pedestrian interest and sound urban design of the area as an attractive gateway to the City; (6) allow a greater number of freight loading spaces than required by the Planning Code, if needed to meet projected demand; (7) allow a specific number of residential and non-residential parking spaces , and the potential for additional off-site parking and possibly on-site parking in the event necessary to avoid spill-over parking impacts to nearby neighborhoods; (8) alter the previously approved configuration for the extension of Executive Park Boulevard to remain within City & County of San Francisco jurisdiction as it connects to Harney Way; (9) provide certain exemptions from code requirements of rear yard or light and air, if necessary for housing development and as determined by the Director of Planning upon review of a building permit; and (10) require various other mitigation measures to eliminate or ameliorate potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed development. This authorization is contingent upon the approval of amendments to the San Francisco Executive Park Subarea Plan of the South Bayshore Plan of the General Plan adopted by the Planning Commission and recommended to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. The proposed project also requires land and condominium subdivisions. The Project is in the area generally bounded by Executive Park Boulevard, Harney Way, Bay View Hill Park and Jamestown Avenue, and lies within a C-2 (Community Business) District and 40-X, 60-X, 80-X 100-G, 140-H, 165-I and 200-I Height and Bulk Districts in the South Bayshore area.

Recommendation: Approval. Please note that the Planning Commission approved a Resolution of Intent to approve the Final Motion of Planning Department staff-initiated and Planning Commission initiated amendments to the Planned Unit Development Conditional Use Application submitted by the Project Sponsor. For more information, please contact planner Susana Montana at (415) 558-5984.

Note: On March 23, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve with amendments by a vote of +4 -2. Commissioners Mills and Theoharis voted no. Commissioner Martin was absent. Final Language 4/6/00.

SPEAKER(S):                 None

ACTION:       Approved

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

EXCUSED: Martin

ABSENT:               Theoharis

MOTION No.: 15017

13. 1998.864E (BLOMGREN: 558-5979)

650-690 FOURTH STREET Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. On Assessor’s Block 3786, Lots 8 & 9, the approximate 133,600 gross square foot project would include the construction of 54 live/work units, and about 14,500 gross square feet of street-level retail space, with a below-grade 56-space garage and a 9-space ground-level garage after demolishing a wood-frame former tourist hotel and a masonry and concrete industrial/warehouse structure. The project site is in an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District, an IPZ Buffer Zone, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District. Note: Public hearing closed. The public hearing for this item was held on February 10, 2000 and the public comment period closed on February 10, 2000.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report

SPEAKER(S):                 None

ACTION:               Certified

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT:               Theoharis

MOTION No.: 15018

14. 1999.734ET (ROSETTER: 558-5987)

VIDEO STORE AMENDMENT - Consideration of a proposal to amend the Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance) by amending each of the Neighborhood Commercial District zoning control tables in Article 7 to add a use category called Video Store and to require a conditional use authorization for any video store in a Neighborhood Commercial District; and by adding Section 790.135 to define Video Store.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution recommending adoption by the Board of Supervisors.  

Testimony and Commission considerations could result in recommendations of modification to the proposed legislation.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 9, 2000).

SPEAKER(S):                 None

ACTION:               Certified

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson

ABSENT:               Theoharis, Chinchilla

RESOLUTION No.: 15019




15. 1999.430ETT (ROSETTER: 558-5987)

BERNAL PERMIT REVIEW AND NOTICE AMENDMENT, Consideration of a proposal to amend Part II, Chapter II, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) by amending Section 242 to provide that the review, notification and appeal procedures for residential building permits in the Bernal Heights Special Use District be those provided for the rest of the residential districts in the City pursuant to Planning Code Section 311.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution recommending adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Testimony and Commission considerations could result in recommendations of modification to the proposed legislation.

SPEAKER(S):               

(+) Supervisor Yee

- Legislation came about because there were plans to move a large number of video stores into various neighborhoods.

- Individuals come into the video stores and can create traffic problems while dropping off and/or picking up videos.

- Neighbors have issues regarding the traffic which would be created with these video stores.

- The approval of this change of legislature would create the opportunity for video store owners and neighbors to discuss whether these business can come and open a business.

- Would like to express appreciation for the hard work of Planning staff.

(-) Andrew Junius - Counsel - Reuben and Alter

- Feels that the process of discretionary review does work.

- Feels that a discretionary review policy would be more appropriate than a conditional use.

(-) Alan Huie, Tai Seng Video Marketing

- Would like to object because the CU would have an adverse affect on smaller video stores.

- Would like to suggest that this issue not be approved.

(+) Terry Rolleri

- Would like to support this issue

- He feels that as a resident of San Francisco, he should be able to come forward and give an opinion regarding this type of legislation.

(+) Rae Doyle - Greater West Portal Association

- Would like to support this issue

- She feels that neighbors would be able to speak and voice their opinion on chain stores to come into their neighborhood.

- This legislation would make it easier to give the neighbors a voice and an opinion.

(+) Flow Kimberly

- Feels it is important to give the image of the San Francisco neighborhoods by keeping them vibrant and alive.

- This legislation would provide smaller video stores to be able to open a store and yet the neighbors can have an opportunity to allow it or not.

(+) Rolf Mueller

- Resident of Inner Sunset.

- Is against the opinion of the counsel of Blockbuster Video.

- This legislation would allow the neighbors of the Sunset District and the various San Francisco neighborhoods to voice their opinions.

Christian Meefer:

- They understood that the counsel of Blockbuster video would come to the meeting in favor of this legislation yet they came and said the opposite.

- He has heard many contradictions between the representatives of the various chain video stores.

- Discretionary reviews would not allow people to come and comment.

- Although some smaller video stores might have to work harder to come to a neighborhood.

(+) Bill Keean

- Would like to approve this legislation.

- Believes that giving Blockbuster the opportunity to open more video stores creates
more problems to the neighborhoods than the smaller video stores.

(+) Cheryl Foston

- She approves Supervisor Yee plan to have more control over their neighborhoods.

(+) Eleanor Gheardt

- Chain stores have more of an impact on neighborhoods.

- A conditional use legislation provides more control.

 

(+) Emeric Kalman

- He supports this legislation and approves the support of the Planning staff.

- He is worried of large chain stores like Blockbuster to come into neighborhoods.

 

ACTION:               Approved

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:               Theoharis, Chinchilla

RESOLUTION No.: 15020

 

16. 1999.578C               (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

615 HYDE STREET, northwest corner at Geary Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0302 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Sub-Area #2) and an 80-T Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is the installation of two panel antennas, one on each street frontage, flush mounted to the roof parapet approximately 55 feet above ground level, and base station equipment in the basement of the building as part of a wireless transmission network operated by Sprint Spectrum.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 9, 2000).

SPEAKER(S)               

(+) Anthony Lowell - Sprint PCS

- Would like to have commission accept their application to allow installation of antennae at project site.

- There is quite a need for specific sites for the installation of antennae in San Francisco.

- Proposal does meet Planning Code requirements.

- Cellular phone technology benefits residents

- There are 25 units in the proposed building.

(-) David Overdorf - SOS (Save Our Streets)

- Speaks on behalf of various property owners of the area.

- The neighborhood is mainly residential

- Believes that Sprint would be able to provide the same kind of service by installing the antennae about 3 blocks away.

- He believes that vandals would be able to reach the antenna.

- The Antenna would be ugly and intrusive.

- He believes that the antenna would interfere with his hearing aid and would probably cause similar interferences with other health type of devices.

 

(-) Georgiana Warner

- Owner of 625 Hyde Street

- Her concerns are with noise and the problems that might cause with her tenants.

- 35 ____ noise from the basement would be too much.

- All her tenants are opposed.

 

(+) Michael Gebretsadik

- It is critical for Sprint to be on this site.

- Being on an intersection allows antenna to provide signals to all 4 sides.

- They did a drive test and determined that this site would be the most appropriate since moving the location of the antenna would disrupt the distance between the other proposed sites for antennas.

- It’s possible that the technology of the future would be to have less power on each antenna yet this technology would have to allow for more antenna locations.

 

(+) Bill Hamett

- Was hired to evaluated this site with ? Guidelines.

- This site does indeed meet the FCC requirements.

- There were community meetings with Sprint and residents and their issues were addressed.

- The antenna is high above the street and will give small transmission levels.

 

(-) Robert Garcia

- He believes that the project sponsor did not

- The project sponsor gave notice to many neighborhood organizations yet non of these are located on or near the project site.

- Save or Streets have worked hard to provide the neighborhood with appropriate living areas.

- Would like to suggest that a proper list

(-) Tushar Routh

- He resides within 100 feet from the site.

- He has cellular service and can receive transmission with no problem yet there is no antenna at the proposed location.

- Would not like to have his neighborhood to be the tourist attraction for most antennas.

- He is also concerned about his property value.

- Would like Commission to reject proposal or for the approval to have conditions not allowing for any more antennas to be installed in the future, sponsor to dismantle antenna.

 

(-) Maureen Reen

- Opposes this proposal.

- She lives in the 400 block of Hyde Street

- She believes these antennas transmit radiation

- She knows that all the neighbors disapprove this proposal.

- She will be exposed to the radiation and feels that she is already exposed to pollution.

 

(-) Jay Lynch

- Owner of the 15-story building across the street.

- Is opposed to any antennas in the area.

 

Rebuttal

(+) Anthony Lowell

- Is concerned that the commission be aware of all the details involving the installation of this antenna.

- There is not much flexibility with choosing a proper site for antennas.

- If there is a need, Spring is available to provide more evidence to the Commission.

- There is only so much signal that can be provided with certain amount of antennas.

- It is possible for calls to be made but the service is not very adequate.

ACTION:                 Public hearing closed. Continued to 4/13/00

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:               Theoharis, Chinchilla

 

17. 1999.486C                           (BEATTY: 558-6163)

998 BUSH STREET, northeast corner of Bush and Jones Streets, Lot 6 of Assessor’s Block 275.--Request for Conditional Use authorization to construct a vertical addition over 40 feet to the existing building, which is currently 46 feet in height (including the parapet). Eight of the units on the top floor will be expanded to create a partial sixth story. The addition will not project above the top of the existing parapet, and therefore will not be visible from the street. The subject building is in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 24,2000).         

ACTION:                 Continued indefinitely

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:               Theoharis, Chinchilla

18. 1999.677C (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

1081-1097 PINE STREET, southeast corner at Jones Street; Lot 007C in Assessor's Block 0275 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to construct a building exceeding 40 feet in height in an RM-4 (Residential Mixed, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is the demolition of a 1-story commercial building and the construction of a 5-story over basement, 65-foot high residential building containing five dwelling units and five off-street parking spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKER(S):               

(+) Andrew Junius

- Would like to have proposal approved as a Conditional Use.

- Doesn’t think that there should be matching light wells.

- The building is already provided with a light well.

- Not much light is transmitted from the light wells.

(+) Jonathan Pearlman - Architectural Design Studios

- Spent a lot of time walking around the area and looking at the architecture of the neighborhood.

- Gave detailed information the design of the surrounding buildings.

- Have designed the new building to match in detail similar to the other buildings.

(-) Dylan and Dawn Lawrence

- They live on the ground floor directly across the street of the project site.

- Believes parking is already a problem in the area. Although the new building will provide parking, there wouldn’t be enough not to cause a problem.

- Believes commercial space would be more beneficial to the area.

- The current building provides a more aesthetic look compared with the other buildings.

 

ACTION:                   Approved

AYES:                 Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:                 Theoharis, Chinchilla

MOTION No.: 15021

19. 1999.902C (SNYDER: 575-6891)

880 HARRISON STREET, north side between 4th and 5th Streets, Lot 95 in Assessor's Block 3752 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 815.72 to install (1) four flush mounted panel antennae on the southwest side of the building approximately 37-feet above grade, (2) three northwest facing panel antennae mounted on the building's stair penthouse approximately 47-feet above grade, and (3) a base transceiver station approximately 35-feet above grade in a RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use) Zoning District and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District. As part of the proposal, the existing penthouse would be enlarged to be 47-feet above grade so that the proposed northwest facing antennae can be mounted on it. The installation of the antennae and related equipment would be part of a wireless communication network operated by Nextel Communications.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Molly Gills - Nextel Communications

- Nextel is an alternative to cellular service

- Site is needed to off load 3 other sites.

- This site will help alleviate problems with communication within that site.

(-) Ada Harrigon

- Is speaking on behalf of 47 home owners.

- Her house is within 30 feet of project site.

- The townhouses look down on the roof where the antenna would be located.

- There are studies that there are many problems with health devices when there area antennas close by.

- This is a densely residential block.

- Is a cancer survivor and has received chemotherapy therefore her skin tissue is not normal and is worried of the health affects by this antenna.

(-) Cathleen Murphy

- Lives in a close location near the proposed site.

- She and her husband would like to start a family and is concerned with the health hazards.

- There are quite a number of health problems with the certain degrees of transmissions from the antennas.

ACTION:               Public hearing closed. Continued to 4/13/00

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:               Theoharis, Chinchilla

20. 98.703C      (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

399 WEBSTER STREET, southwest corner of Oak Street; Lot 1 in Assessor’s Block 842 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 209.2(d) to add a bed and breakfast inn use with five guest rooms to an existing one-family dwelling, in an RM-1(Low Density Residential, Mixed) District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2000).

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Brett Gladstone - Counsel - Gladstone and Vettel

- Project sponsor.

- Feels that this project is a win-win situation for everyone.

- Is concerned with the certain accessories.

- The neighborhood supports it since certain neighborhood organizations may use it for conferences.

- Victorian preservationists are happy with conserving the building.

- The city would not loose housing it would gain.

- If the bed and breakfast were to close there is nothing that would currently be done to it to loose the Victorian architecture.

- There hasn’t been a rental use of this building since the war.

ACTION:               Approved with amendments to conditions

AYES:               Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:               Theoharis, Chinchilla

MOTION No.: 15022

21. 1999.639D (ARCE: 558-5986)

265 TINGLEY STREET, on the south side of the intersection of Tingley Street and San Jose Avenue, Lot 048 in Assessor’s Block 6781 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9505908S, proposing to construct a new single-family house on a vacant lot in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No recommendation at this time.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2000). NOTE: On February 3, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to 2/17/00 with instructions to staff to explore and address traffic concerns. The vote was +7 -0.

SPEAKER(S):

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to 5/18/00

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:           Theoharis, Chinchilla

22. 2000.222D (BRESSANUTTI: 575-5892 )

1363 PALOU AVENUE, Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9922806, Lot 027 in Assessor’s Block 4759 proposal to construct a two-story addition to the rear of an existing two-story single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District; and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Carol Brasseti

- The addition is without proper permits.

- The building inspector has had to site them.

- The matter has gone to a community board and the owner has not gone.

- The house has been in the family for over 40 views one of the best things about the house is because of the bay views.

- She showed various pictures of how the addition would block her bay view.

( ) partner of Ms. Brassetti

- has been a carpenter for many years.

- there is a parking issue, the addition will add more problems with the parking

- believes that the addition will provide 2 rental units.

- no permits were obtained until the unit was in construction.

- believes that this is in clear violation.

- would like to have zoning enforced because there are 2 separate entrances.

 

(+) Eduardo Troz

- believes that the pictures are conjured and they don’t really show that the addition would block views.

- the construction is up to all codes and the planning department

ACTION:            Intent to take D.R. and disapprove. Final language             4/13/00

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

NAYES:             Mills

ABSENT:             Theoharis, Chinchilla

23. 2000.164D (BORDEN: 558-6321)

17 IDORA AVENUE, Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9922673S, Lot 050 in Assessor's Block 2914 -- proposal to construct a two-story addition to the rear of an existing two-story single-family dwelling in the RH-1 (D) (Residential House, One-Family, Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as revised.

SPEAKER(S):               (-) James Linwood, (-) Florence Mitchell, (-) Lori Liken, (-)Kate Tokuda, (-) John Kingery, (+) Lincoln Lou, (+) Martin Lum     

ACTION:

AYES:               Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

NAYES:               Mills

ABSENT:               Theoharis, Chinchilla

24.2000.206D(ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)

39 ELLERT STREET, Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9809227S, between Bennington and Bocana Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 5677, requesting to construct a rear two-story addition, with roof deck above, attached to three-story house, within RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District; Bernal Heights Special Use District; and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve plans with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Robert Ater

- There are a number of iconcistencies with the approvals given to this case and the sections of the Planning Code.

- Does not disagree that this construction take place.

- Would like for the commission to decide that this project is not in the Planning Department jurisdiction.

- The property owner is using a previous permit that only has to do with the previously built addition and not the reconstruction of this addition. The new construction should have the appropriate permits from the Building Department.

- The first permit is completely vague and does not apply to the new construction.

(+) ? - Attorney to Mr. and Mrs. Bustamante

- Lived in neighborhood for several years.

- Would like to construct an addition to their home.

(+) ? Bustamante

- His family has lived in this house for many years.

- He was required to redo the addition previous constructed in his house.

- The addition to his home is not being used for anything other than an extension of his home for he and his family.

- The window concerned from the neighbors house is not a legal window anyway

ACTION:Take D.R. Approve with staff conditions and that the ____ window is opaque and was not operable

AYES:Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:Theoharis, Chinchilla

25.2000.114D(KOONTS: 558-6372)

3 MONTAGUE PLACE, south side between Montgomery and Castle Streets, Lot 14 in Assessor’s Block 114 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No.9912721S, proposing to alter front and rear facades, add a partial third story and roof deck to existing two-story over garage house, and merge the two dwelling units into a single family residence in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application (revision 4 of BPA 9912721S), subject to Board of Appeals action regarding Zoning Administrator’s determination (Appeal No. 00-039).

SPEAKER(S):

( ) Tom Leture

- Lives at 5 Montague Place and have lived there for 15 years.

- Design of proposed vertical addition - he and the property owner have come to an amiable solution.

- He believes that the Planning Department approved a permit that should not have been approved.

( ) ? Hescon

- The design does not meet with the compatibility with the other neighborhood homes.

ACTION:Do not take D.R. Approve as submitted

AYES:Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:Theoharis, Chinchilla

26.2000.111D(MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)

768 EL CAMINO DEL MAR, north side between Lake Street and 30th Avenue, Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 1307 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9920588, proposing horizontal extensions to an existing single family dwelling at the front and rear, relocation of the garage, and facade alterations in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Patrick Richard

- The issue is if there will be an environmental review now or in the future.

- An environmental review is required in this type of situation.

- Demolishing a retaining wall will affect the adjoining retaining wall.

- Requests for a discretionary review be taken up.

(-) Oley Greenberg

- Concerned that the retaining wall removal will his property dramatically.

(+) Barry Rosenstein

- He believes that the property owner is stalling the construction.

- Would like to continue with remodeling

(+) Bill Hanzel Architect for Rosensteins

(+) Frank Rollo - Treadwell and Rollo Engineers

- Has substantial information that the renovation of the Rosenstein home will not cause any danger regarding sliding.

- It will actually increase stability.

- T&R were representatives of the City working with the Department of Public Works when the slides of 1998 in this area therefore they are quite familiar with this area.

(+) John Sanger - Sanger and Olson - representative for the Rosensteins

- Would like to have project approved.

(+) Mike Daigger

- Believes that the construction and renovation will only improve and increase the strength of the Rosensteins property.

(+) Doug Engman

- Rosenteins are neighbors

- Would like to have project approved.

ACTION:Do not take D.R. Approve as staff recommend

AYES:Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:Theoharis, Chinchilla

27.2000.138D(WANG: 558-6335)

4038-17TH STREET, north side between Castro and Douglass Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor’s Block 2623 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA Nos. 9914005 and 9814006, proposing to demolish an existing one-story over garage, residential building and construct a new three-story over garage, three-family dwelling in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve demolition permit application and the building permit application for the proposed new building with modifications.

ACTION:Motion to continue indefinitely so the project sponsor can come back with a design that incorporates a project without demolition of existing structure; retention of a substantial portion of the front part of the Victorian house; and allow 3 units to be constructed on the site. (Staff would ___ and calendar the new design for hearing). If the sponsor does not wish to pursue this, staff will calendar the project that the Commission heard today for final.

AYES:Mills, Antenore, Joe, Richardson, Martin

ABSENT:Theoharis, Chinchilla

28.1999.764DD(KEYLON: 558-6613)

3009 WEBSTER STREET, west side between Pixley and Filbert Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0506 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9913093, proposing to add a third floor and third floor mezzanine (partial fourth floor) at the rear and center of the existing single-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as per revised plans.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2000.

Adjournment: 8:50 P.M.

 

 

1. 2000.002C       (MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)

1415 VAN NESS AVENUE, west side between Austin and Bush Streets, Lot 4 in Assessor's Block 666 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.8(d) for the provision of 4,700 square feet of office space located above the ground floor on a site located within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, 130-V and E Height and Bulk Districts, the Van Ness Special Use District and the Special Sign District for Illumination.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to May 4, 2000)




SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin





2. 98.635ECBD       (BADINER: 558-6350)

2101-2125 BRYANT STREET, 700 YORK STREET, 2830 20TH STREET, 2717 19TH STREET, also known as the BRYANT SQUARE PROJECT, Assessor’s Block 4080 (Lots 7, 11, 12, and 14), bounded by Bryant, 19th, York and 20th Streets -- Consideration of

(1) Conditional Use Authorization under Section 303 for (a) demolition of two Industrial Buildings at 2125 Bryant Street and 2850 York Street under the interim zoning controls for the Industrial Protection Zone; (b) a Planned Unit Development, under Section 304, including authorization to provide required parking on a valet assisted basis, rather than independently accessible spaces; and (c) an exception, under Section 271, from the bulk limitations.

Recommendation: Approval With Conditions; and

(2) Project Authorization under Section 321 for the net addition of 148,000 square feet of office space. Recommendation: Approval With Conditions.

(3) Discretionary Review of the demolition of a vacant industrial building at 700 York Street under the provisions of Planning Commission Motion No. 14861. Recommendation: Take DR and Approve with Conditions

This project lies within an M-1 (Light Industrial) and a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and within a 65-B Height and Bulk District.

The Project would include a total of approximately 159,015 square feet, including approximately 152,840 square feet of office space, approximately 1,500 square feet of retail space, and approximately 4,700 square feet of light industrial space in two new buildings (2125 Bryant Street and 700 York Street) and three renovated buildings (2101 Bryant Street, 2717 19th Street, and 2830 20th Street) on the site.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 4, 2000)




SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




3. 1999.668E (BLOMGREN: 558-5979)

38-44 TEHAMA STREET/543 HOWARD STREET, Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration--Assessor’s Block 3736, Lot 111. The proposed project involves improvements to a three story building and construction of 23,000 square feet on the fourth and mezzanine levels. The renovated and new space is proposed for office use. With construction of the additional story and mezzanine level, the building would be approximately 64 feet, 22 feet taller than the existing structure. The 14,500 square-foot project site is composed of one lot in the middle of a block bordered by Howard Street to the north, First Street to the east, Tehama Street to the south, and Second Street to the west. The site has frontages on Howard and Tehama Streets. The proposed renovated and enlarged building would contain approximately 73,000 gross square feet (gsf). The structure would not provide off-street parking. The project would also include two off-street freight loading spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2000)




SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin





4. 1999.583E       (CHAN: 558-5982)

881-899 HOWARD STREET, SOMA SQUARE - Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration: Assessor’s Block 3733, Lot 79 on the SE corner of 5th and Howard Streets, within the South of Market neighborhood. There are two inter-connected buildings on the site, a three-story building consisting of approximately 95,000 square feet (including basement) and a six-story building consisting of approximately 213,500 square feet (including basement). Of the combined approximately 308,500 square feet of space in the two buildings, about 114,000 square feet are presently retail, 13,000 square feet are office, and 172,500 square feet are storage and vacant retail space. The proposed project would consolidate all the retail space into the three-story building and convert the six-story building into an office building. The net result of the project would be a combined total of approximately 92,000 square feet of retail, 165,000 square feet of office, 12,000 square feet of storage space, and 20,000 square feet of parking on site. The basement of the six-story building would be converted to 45 valet parking spaces. The vehicular access to the parking garage would be from Tehama Street. The project site is located within the C-3-S (Downtown Support District) and within the 130-F Height and Bulk district. The proposed project requires review by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Planning Code Section 309, which regulates permit review with C-3 (Downtown) zoning districts and Planning Code Sections 321 and 322 which monitors the annual limit on office development.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2000 May 4, 2000)




SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




5. 1999.684D (WILSON: 558-6602)

129 RANDALL STREET, south side between Whitney and Chenery Streets, Lot 038 in Assessor’s Block 6663 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9911578, proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a new two-unit building in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review, approve project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2000).

(Proposed for Continuance to May 25, 2000)




SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin





6. 1999.738D           (CHIN: 575-6897)

2131 DIVISADERO STREET, west side between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor’s Block 1004 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9914768, proposing to raise a portion of the roof to match existing roof at the rear of a three-story, two dwelling unit building in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 9, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2000)




SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




7. 2000.246D (WILSON: 558-6602)

511 ELIZABETH STREET, south side between Castro and Noe Streets, lot 043 in Assessor’s Block 36546 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application NO. 9918088, proposing to construct a two-story vertical addition and a rear horizontal addition to an existing two-story single-family dwelling in an Rh-2 (House, Two-Family District and a 40-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve building permit application as submitted.

WITHDRAWN




SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

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): Sue Hestor
Re: 3852 19th Street - illegal demolition of housing in the Mission. Demolition permit was not processed properly. The site was posted for a demolition permit and the neighbors immediately filed an appeal. Despite the appeal and that there was a 15 day hold, the building was demolished as of this morning. This is at least the 2nd time that a demolition permit has not been dealt with properly.

Commissioner Mills: Requested that staff check on this item.

Gerald Green, Planning Director - will investigate and report on this item on the 5/4/00 Commission meeting.

8. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 3/2/00 and 2/10/00.
The draft minutes were not included in the Commissioner’s packets, therefore, they will be included in the 5/4/00 meeting packets.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to 5/4/00
AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin
9. Commission Matters
None

10. Director’s Announcements.
- Mr. Green gave a brief report on his experience in New York at the American Planners Association Conference.
On Tuesday, April 25th, the Friends of City Planning had their event which turned out to be a great success.
Mr. Green honored Ms. Susana Montana with a Resolution because of her retirement.
11. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.
Mr. Green reported on BOS:
- 2361 Lombard Street - Item continued to May 1, 2000.
- Jobs Housing Linkage Legislation - Supervisor Katz has introduced additional amendments about a week a go, this has not been referred to Planning staff.
Mr. Badiner reported on BOA:
- There was a full calendar of which 70% of cases were continued.
- 127 Moffet Street (Case No. 1999.667) - Board overruled the DR 5 to 0.

12.          (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)

INFORMATIONAL ITEM - TRANSIT-ORIENTED URBAN COMMUNITY PLANS NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOPS ANNOUNCEMENTS AND UPDATE. Announcements of the first neighborhood workshop for each of the three areas for which the Department is preparing transit-oriented urban community plans. This is the first product prepared by staff and the public involvement consultant.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action                     

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: No Action

AYES N/A

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




13. 1999.403E.                           (GITELMAN: 558-5977)
INFORMATIONAL ITEM - UPDATE OF THE PROPOSED SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIRFIELD RECONFIGURATION PROJECT, Update of the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) document preparation process, including on-going environmental data collection and identification of potential project alternatives.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action

SPEAKER(S):
(-) Lloyd Schlagle:
- This is a high cost proposal
- Existing airport is built on solid ground. Doing landfill to build more runways would be too much cost and not withstand an earthquake.
- An option would be to switch to other airports when the need arises.
ACTION: No Action
AYES: N/A
ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




14. 2000.213C (SNYDER: 575-6891)
301-8TH STREET, east corner of 8th Street and Folsom Street, Lot 56 in Assessor's Block 3755 (the property which contains the business, California Carpet and Rugs) -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 816.73 and 227(h) to: (1) install six flush-mounted antennae on the building's parapet (three facing 8th Street and three facing Folsom Street) approximately 36-feet above sidewalk grade; (2) install backup equipment on the building's rooftop approximately 37.5-feet above grade; and (3) enlarge the building's parapet by one foot in height so that the proposed antennae can be mounted on it, in an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) District and an 40-X/50-X Height and Bulk District. Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Case Withdrawn
AYES: N/A

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

 

15. 2000.252C         (BORDEN: 558-6321)

800 VELASCO STREET (1-59 BLYTHDALE AVENUE) - Wu Yee Child Care Center, north side, across from Pasadena Street; Lot 1 in Assessor’s Block 6321 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to allow the establishment of a child care facility for 13 or more children on property leased from the Housing Authority, pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(f) Institutional Uses Permitted in R Districts); in the RM-1 (Residential, Mixed: Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The child care facility consists of modular structures.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.




SPEAKER(S):
Patrick Shannon - Child Development Director of Wu Yee Child Development Services.
- Wasn’t prepared with anything to say.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




16. 2000.144C (MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)
1000 VAN NESS AVENUE, east side between O'Farrell and Myrtle Streets, Lots 14, 15 and 16 in Assessor's Block 715 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.8(d) and 178(e) for the provision of office space located above the ground floor in the AMC 1000 Van Ness Avenue building located within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, 130-V and E Height and Bulk Districts, the Van Ness Special Use District and the Special Sign District for Illumination. The proposal is to establish 5,330 square feet of office space on the building's second floor.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):
Susan Biliqui
- Representative of project sponsor Burnham Pacific Properties.
- Floor space is not convenient as restaurant space as it was approved previously.
- Office space will be more appropriate since it would be harder for street public to reach restaurants.
- Will be able to maintain office space needs.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

 

17. 1999.829C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
540 VALENCIA STREET, west side between 16th Street and 17th Street; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 3568 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow amplified live and recorded music (defined as “Other Entertainment” by Planning Code Section 790.38) in an existing nonconforming Bar (dba “Blondies”), as required by Planning Code Section 726.48, in the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapprove
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2000)

SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Case Withdrawn
AYES: N/A

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

 

18. 1999.746C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)               
360-10TH STREET, west side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street; Lot 9 in Assessor’s Block 3520 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the demolition of two dwelling units per Planning Code Section 803.5(b) and 233(a) and to allow construction of six new live/work units in the Industrial Protection Zone across the street from the Mixed Use Housing Zone per Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861, in the South of Market Service/Light Industrial/Residential (SLR)Mixed Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Alice Barkly - representing project sponsor
- Letters of support from neighbors were passed out to Commissioners.
- The housing unit in the building is very dilapidated. The cost of rehabilitating unit will exceed 50%.
- Building is appropriate for live/work. It is a very small site only 25' wide by 104' deep.
- Adjacent to a residential development on Juniper Street.
- Massing has been designed to match neighbors housing.

(+) Jim Meeko - Lives at 364-366 10th Street for 23 years
- Has lived at this location for 23 years.
- He is concerned that the project respect the industrial nature of the area.
- The architect’s original design would have been too tall and unfriendly so she redid the design to accommodate the neighbors. She really works with all the neighbors.

(+) Toby Levy - project architect
- Tried to make the appearance as if it were a 40 foot high building on the face of the street.
- Balcony is set back about 10 feet.
- Bays were individualized with set backs of the open space in each unit.
- Wanted to make it an urban scale but also trying to respect the industrial nature of the buidling - proposing cement panels with stucco around the windows.

(+) Fred Wilman - neighbor
- Any improvement to the area is welcomed.

(-) Sue Hester - San Franciscans for a Reasonable Growth
- Legal issues on this project are: 1) interim controls cannot be less restrictive, they can only be more restrictive. The policy are from the residence element implementation policies are policies of the city and the policies of the master plan for the status of law. The Commission has no ability to change the policies that are in the master plan by a planning resolution. The policy in the master plan is about replacement housing. 2) the categorical mention was legally inappropriate since the previous speaker didn’t mention that he is the project sponsor. A project sponsor cannot do a categorical exemption when there is more than one project going on which includes more than 6 units. The project sponsor is Wilman Import/Export and owns the 3 lots on the other side of Mr. Miko and plans to build a 32 unit live/work project. The categorical exception cannot be used when someone splits the project. The city policy requires the determinations of infeasibility by the mayor’s office of housing. The Mayors Office of Housing has it’s responsibility to protect the supply of affordable housing.

(-) John Elbling - Executive VP of Todco
- Believes that if case is approved this case, it will give the image that all a property owner needs to do is let a building run down and decay so that the building can be demolished and not have to replace affordable housing.
- There seems to be a series of arsons and no one seems to know who did it that are clearing the path for both residential sites and commercial sites to then be developed as live/work.
- His organization is going to pursue this if Commission approves this.
Rebuttal
(+) Alice Barkley -representing project sponsor
- The project sponsor is 360-362 10th Street Associates, LLC and the manager is John O’Conner. This is a 6 unit building not a 32 unit building as Ms. Hester is referring to. The categorical exemption is appropriate because this is only a 6 unit building and exempted under SEQUA.
- The Commission adopted a policy and resolution that any residential development in the City required a 10% affordable requirement be included in those projects.
- Believes that this project is appropriate since it is in the buffer zone, it is across from live/work and residential housing.
Ms. Alice Barkley:
- In the past, the Commission has adopted either policies or legislation to implement policies of the City’s Master Plan.
- The document that Ms. Hester was quoting from is not the master plan policy section.
ACTION: Motion to Continue for 2 weeks for staff to do a further analysis on the impact of Section 7 of the Residence Element.

AYES: Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

NAYES: Antenore (specifically because he believes that the Mayor’s Office of Housing (since they have the primary responsibility of affordable housing) should be consulted on what policy role Commission should play on this and how they should interpret the residence element the implementation of the residence element.)

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




19. 1999.624C                 (WILSON: 558-6602)

123-127 COLLINGWOOD STREET, east side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 30 in Assessor’s Block 2695 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303(e), to change conditions imposed in a prior conditional use authorization, and pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.4(a) to allow the expansion of the existing community facility, in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 10, 2000)




SPEAKER(S):
(+) Bryan Chu - Executive Director of LYRIC
- Initially the application requested that garage be made into office space because they are growing and space has become limited as well as the fact that rent for non-profits is expensive. Their after school program when from 9 to 6 and in the application stated that their hours of operation would be from 9 to 5. There was some concern with neighbors that there would be an increase in noise in the rear yard area.
- They have met with the neighbors many times and have amended the application to include 22 items - one of which is: to change the garage to be used as storage only. The neighbors indicated that they would not oppose the amended application. There is a letter of support from San Francisco Special Police and Eureka Valley Promotion Association. There are letters of support from a neighborhood school and church. Some City organizations as well.

(-) Rachel Heyman - neighbor
- Would like to have ALL items in the amended application to be deal with before this case is approved. LYRIC has never been responsible for things that happen to the youth after they close.

(+) Anne Tamar-Mattis
- Read letter on behalf of gay youth.
- Supports change of conditions to Conditional Use authorization.

(+) Sarah Marxer
- Read letters of support from neighbors.

(neutral) Freddie Niem
- Neighbor and lives at 123-127 Collingwood Street
- He welcomes LYRIC’s 22 items that amend their initial application.
- Is still concerned with: noise, trash and blocking sidewalk.
- Is optimistic that better communication with LYRIC and neighbors will happen.

(+) Ian Fried
- Volunteer for Chains Link(?)
- He believes that LYRIC is an exceptional program where youth can come and express their gender in a safe environment and keep them from mischief.

(+) Godfrey Morata
- Read a support letter from a neighbor

(+) Regina Dick-Endrizzi
- Neighbor for 4 years.
- Supports amended proposal.
- Residential neighborhood is a more appropriate location for the youth since it would be safer for them.

(+) Lion Barnett - Eureka Valley Promotion Association
- This organization at first opposed the application yet with their amended items, this organization feels that the new application is acceptable.

(+) Holly Anderson
- Read a letter support by Mat Also, Director of the Live Oaks School.

Rebuttal
(+) Ryan Chu
- He agrees that they have not been able to meet all the requirements in the initial application yet he does agree that they will cooperate in the 22 items of the amended application.
- He can speak only for the 2 years that he has been Executive Director and believes that there will be improvements made. Most importantly communication with the neighbors.

ACTION: Motion approved with conditions from Director which states that all of the previous conditions apply including 2 new amendments and after a 6 month period, Department Staff will come back with a status report of weather these items were complied to or not.

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

20. 1999.558C (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)
601 VALENCIA STREET, southwest corner of 17th Street; Lot 79 and 81 in Assessor’s Block 3576 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow construction of a new mixed-use building with commercial and 26 parking spaces on the ground floor and 24 dwelling units on the upper floors on two lots totaling more than 10,000 square feet in size per Planning Code Sections 121.1, 712.11, and 726.11 in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District and the NC-3 Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Dan Sullivan - speaking on behalf of the project sponsor.
- The Environmental Review has been completed and it received a negative declaration.
- The mayor issue is: The neighborhood’s concern of height of the building which has been minimized.

(-) Fima Gelman - owner of Europa Motor Service who is a tenant of the building.
- He is concerned that he will have to move his business elsewhere and can’t seem to find a place to move his business to.

(-) Michaela Murka - Resident on Albion Street (a block away from the proposed development)
- Here on behalf of the residents of the neighborhood.
- Their concerns are: 1) height of building and 2) congestion.
- Would like to have case reconsidered with regards to the size and scope of the building.
(+) Robert Isackson - Village Properties - project sponsor
- Would like to request a change of the condition of approval. 1) Item No. 15 - the bicycle storage would not be able to provide for 25 bike lockers. There is a bicycle room which can provide for 24 residences.
- He is sympathetic with the Europa Motors owner but he is an illegal subtenant and during the 2 years that they have owned the building they have never heard from him. The tenant is Carlos Arroyo and he has no right to sublease the space. He has also been aware that he is on a month to month basis and he has been aware that they were going to building another building.
(neutral) Kate Allison - Member of the Clarion Alley Mural Project
- It is important for the Clarion Alley Mural Project be able to continue painting murals on this building in Clarion Alley.
Rebuttal
(+) Dan Sullivan - representing Project Sponsor

- They have redesigned the facade to provide space for the mural.

- The only issue here is that the association managing this building have control of what will be painted in these murals.

ACTION: Approved with staff conditions and changes

AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

 

21. 1999.829C 98.922C (KEYLON: 558-6613)
7355 GEARY BOULEVARD, southeast corner of Geary Boulevard at 38th Avenue, Lot 034 in Assessor’s Block 1507 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Section 187.1(C) of the Planning Code to allow the renovation and intensification of an existing legal nonconforming automotive service station, including a new convenience store within the existing structure, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

(+) Amad Mohazed - architect and project sponsor
- This project has been in the Commission for many years.
- This gas station has gone through many changes and revisions in design.
- There is city policy to retain existing gas stations so they have been working with the gas station owner to make the station feasible.
- The new design has a scaled back version of the property.
- The canopy is shorter than an apartment building would be. It is low obstruction.
- They are replacing the fuel pumps with new card readers. Gas fill up will be much faster.
- They are refacing the building therefore will provide a new look of the station.

ACTION: Approved with staff conditions.
AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




22. 1999.832C (ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)
260 SAGAMORE STREET, north side between Orizaba and Capitol Avenues in Lot 69 in Assessor’s Block 7137 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install three panel antennas placed inside a proposed stealth steeple attached to the roof of an existing church; and add base station equipment at the rear of the property, as part of a wireless communication network in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

 

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Patty Burnhard - Sprint PCS
- This request for condition use to construct an antenna facility.
- This location is required since it is a vital part of Sprint’s San Francisco network.
- Cellular phones are being used more and more in people’s homes.
- A citywide drive test was conducted to determine which areas of the City had low frequency signals.
- A drive test was conducted with an antenna at this location which resulted in better service with cellular phones.
- This location is desirable and necessary for emergency services.


ACTION: Approval with conditions
AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

AT APPROXIMATELY 4:30 P.M. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONVENED INTO A SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW (DR) HEARING.

 

23. 2000.109D (ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)

424 ROOSEVELT WAY, Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9918966 to construct two-story addition with roof deck above, extending approximately 16 feet beyond the rear wall of an existing two-story single-family dwelling in RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Withdrawn
AYES: N/A

ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

 

24. 2000.590D (KEYLON: 558-6613)

1624 VALLEJO STREET, Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0551- Request for Discretionary Review Permit Application No. 98.14775, proposing to legalize 10-foot wide by 7-foot deep deck constructed without permit at the rear of the second story of an existing six-family dwelling in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application as submitted.

Jerry Braud - Agent for Mr. Robert Gray
- Would like to have this case continued to June 1, 2000.

SPEAKER(S): (DR requestor)
(+) Mark Borsick - one of the owner’s of the TIC.
- Would like to have this building permit be granted.
- Mr. Gray who actually built this deck has put the ownership at risk for a number of years. In 1996 they required him to get a permit and he never did. A notice of violation was issued in 1998 and very little was done. He forgoes any right to build this deck because he has continued to put everyone at risk. The new owner, Mr. Spatcia, has allowed this unit to be rented to third parties. Knowing that this condition exists, Mr. Spatcia has gone to put the ownership at risk. In 1993, in a transfer disclosure statement, Mr. Gray mentioned that the deck was permitted, which was false.
- There is significant neighborhood opposition to this deck. One of the neighbors, Dr. Murphy, (who is abroad at the moment). Wrote a letter opposing this deck.

(+) Lillian Borsick - was a member of the home owner’s management committee was well as Mr. Gray and Mr. Ryan.
- Many of the neighbors have opposed and written letter regarding opposition of this deck.
- Would like to ask the Commission to hold Mr. Gray accountable for building an illegal deck.
- Should they have built their own deck without the proper documentation just as Mr. Gray has done.

(-) Key Ryan - one of the managing owners of the property.
- The deck of the Borsick’s is noncompliant if the lot is split.
- Mr. Gray’s deck is code compliant whether or not the lot was split.
- The Borsick’s when to the board of appeals and their case was denied because they didn’t get the approval of the owner association.
- The Borsick’s don’t have a legal right to go against the owner’s association.
- The Borsick’s have filed law suit’s against the members of the association and have lost.
- The parking issue was resolved in the arbitration.
- The Borsick’s have gone against the bylaws of the association.

(neutral) Enzo Spatcia - Owner of the deck
- Owner of the unit since 1996.
- He wasn’t familiar with the TIC programs.
- Everything was disclosed to him. He learned about the deck that had been built illegally. He wasn’t familiar with the laws in San Francisco. His concern was that the deck be safe. Before he bought the unit, Mr. Gray promised that he would comply with all the legal steps. He had an inspector come to the property and inspect the building. He was told that the deck was safe and sound yet that it would be a good idea to legalize the deck. Four years later there have been a lot of problems with the association. He feels that he is in the middle of the battles between the members of the association. Mr. Gray has been very helpful in getting all the proper paperwork regarding this deck.

(-) Jerry Brown - representing Mr. Cray
- Mr. Cray will take every step to make this deck legal.
- The deck will be reinspected and reconstructed to comply with new codes.

- They have applied for a building permit.

(-) Robert Cray - Managing owner of the Vallejo Street Association

- There are 8 owners - 10 units distributed in two buildings.

- He believes that since the Borsick’s can’t get their deck, they don’t want their deck to be legalized.
- When they reported the violation to the building department, DBI sent an inspector and it was classified as satisfactory but suggested to get the proper permits. Mr. Cray has been trying to do that since 1996. He would have had it, but Mr. Borsick found that Mr. Cray was off by 5 or 6 inches on the set back. Mr. Borsick although he as been complaining about the deck not having a permit, he has been making it very difficult to get a permit also.
- He has inferred that Mrs. Murphy, who is away at the moment, wrote a letter opposing the deck, yet Mr. Cray hasn’t been able to authenticate the signature. There is no blockage of light to the neighbor’s home. Except from a privacy wall that the neighbor had requested anyway.
- Mr. Cray believes that either Mr. Borsick signed the letter or wrote the letter for Mrs. Murphy.

REBUTTAL
(+) Mr. Borsick
- Exhibit B - If Mr. Spatcia was concerned about legalizing and getting the permits, why has he allowed third parties to live there.
- Dr. Murphy did write the letter and those are her comments.
- Mr. Ryan spoke about the lack of light, Mr. Borsick’s deck would make. Yet the lack of light comes from Mr. Cray’s illegal deck.
- He doesn’t believe that the Commission should approve a deck that was built illegally and not allow this to happen again.

REPLY
(neutral) Mr. Enzo Spatcia
- The deck was inspected and the deck is safe. The problem is not the deck. The problem is a particular individual who is causing problems within the association.
ACTION: Approved not to take Discretionary Review
AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson

NEUTRAL: Theoharis, Joe, Martin

 

25. 2000.072DD (CHIN: 575-6897)

3530 WASHINGTON STREET, lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 0986, - Request for Discretionary Review of BPA 9918195, proposing to construct a 15-foot by 25-foot, two-story rear addition in a RH-1 (Residential, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height an Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve building permit application with modifications.

SPEAKER(S):
(+) Don Bezerlien - DR requestor
- Lives at 3526-28 Washington Street
- He is concerned that his bedroom windows will be completely blocked, the view will also be block and the neighbors will be looking at a wall instead of a balcony.
- He has 14 votes against the project, although some have dropped their votes.

(+) Camila Smith - lives at 2425 Jackson Street
- Bought the home in 1975 because it provided a lot of light and has a garden.
- Would like to maintain the little light she gets and not approve the project.

(+) Liz Hind - lives at 3526 Washington Street
- All her windows will be obstructed.
- Doesn’t approve of the project.

(+) Martha Mezeralian - lives at 3526-28 Washington Street
- Has good relations with her neighbors.
- Has met with architects (at her expense) and they believe that there are other designs that can be done to accommodate expansion
- Is not asking to drop project, just to modify it.

(-) Davidson Cobb - representing project sponsor: Brody and Francis Cobb
- The proposed construction is below an existing protruding floor. There is no new construction to be added to the top floors.
- After the neighbors saw what was really proposed, 100% of them retrieved their opposition.
- The DR requestor has a larger lot.

(-) Brody Cobb - Lives at 3530 Washington Street
- Wants to build an extension for a bedroom for their daughter.
- In September of 1999 they have been working on the project.
- He has been trying to work with the neighbors to decide on a compromise.

REBUTTAL
(+) Don Bezerlien.
- Mrs. Smith is the most affected by this project.
- Mr. Cobb has had excuses and not met with him.
- Mr. Cobb has not given accurate information on house specifications.

REPLY
(-) Mr. Brody Cobb
- Plans were given to the neighbors as early as October of 1999.

ACTION: Approved to take DR
AYES: Mills, Antenore, Chinchilla, Richardson
ABSENT: Theoharis, Joe, Martin




THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 11, 2000.




Adjournment: 5:45 P.M.