Minutes of Planning Commission Calendars

August 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 Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 3, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

ABSENT:????????????????????? None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Isolde Wilson; Edy Zwierzyky; Amit Gosh; David Alumbaugh; Paul Lord; Tony Kim; Paul Deutch;? Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

A.???????? ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1.???????? 2000.257E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WYCKO)

200 TOWNSEND STREET, Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration ?Proposed demolition of existing one-and-two story buildings with about 8,000 gross square feet occupied by clothing outlets, a liquor store, and a vacant bar/restaurant plus a surface parking lot.? New construction of a 97,400 gross square feet, 65 feet high structure with 51 live/work units, 1,400 gross square of retail space, about 10,900 gross square feet of office/business services, and 63 off -street parking spaces.? The project site is situated at the northwest corner of Third and Townsend Streets in Assessor?s Block 3787 and includes Lots 9, 10, 11, and 46. The proposed uses are permitted uses in the applicable Service/Light Industrial (SLI) and proposed South End Service (SES) Districts.? Live/work is a permitted use under the interim Mixed Use Housing Zone (MUHZ) also in effect.? The proposed five-story, 65 feet high structure would also conform to the 65-X height and bulk zoning for the project site.? A lot merger is being sought.? Parking, loading, and all other Planning Code requirements would be satisfied.

(Proposed for Continuance to ~~August 17, 2000~~ August 24, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued without hearing to August 24, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? None

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.

AThe 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))

Patricia Vaughey

- Two unit buildings are being converted to single family dwellings.

- There are several properties in the City which are being converted illegally.

- Concerned about the inconsistencies.

- A new residential plan needs to be developed that works.

Gia Fujioka

Re: 1351 Grant Avenue

- A project that was approved as a conditional use has been converted to commercial development located at 1351 Grant Avenue.

- Would like this case to be opened again.

- 20 tenants will be evicted for commercial use.

- A letter was submitted by the Asian Law Caucus to the Zoning Administrator.

- This case should be reconsidered by the Planning Commission.

Choi Kwok

Re: 1351 Grant Avenue

- Many of the tenants which are illegally being evicted are senior citizens or are disabled.

- They were Ellis Acted in October of 1999.

- If the proposed restaurant and bar opens up, there will be many tenants which will be evicted.

- He would like the case to be opened.

Reverend Norman Fong

Re: 1351 Grant Avenue

- Many of the tenants have been fighting to not be evicted since September of 1999.

- He would urge the Commissioners to open and reconsider this project.

- This project has a very negative impact on many people.

Bill Sorro

Re: 1351 Grant Avenue

- He is a native San Franciscan.

- He has seen a lot of changes in the City, and one of the changes is the displacement of many people.

- Approval of the International Hotel project--on August 4 (23 years ago)--caused about 70 Chinese and Filipino Senior Citizens to be evicted form the hotel.

- The Chinatown Community does not want this to happen again.

- Please don?t let these tenants be evicted.

Mrs. Chan Bao Wan

Re: 1351 Grant Avenue

- She does not speak English so she brought a translator.

- She is from the Community Tenants Association.? There are about 60 members here today at this hearing.

- They urge the Commission to reopen this case.? They would like the commission to do whatever they can to save the affordable housing.? San Francisco cannot afford to lose this affordable housing unit.

- They have nothing against the bar and restaurant, they just don?t want to be evicted.

Roberta Caravelli - President of Citizens Review

Re:? 585 Laidley street -

- She is here to speak about all the laws which are being broken just to approve projects.

- The following laws will have been violated: The Brown Act, Section 54953c, 549 54.3a, Sunshine Ordinance Section 67.15(a) (c), and various sections of the Planning Code and Administrative Code.

Brett Gladstone

Re:? 129 Randall Street

- He submitted the latest drawings to the commission.

- Staff will agree to the compromise indicated in the submittal that addresses some of the concerns expressed by some commissioners.

- Hopes that the Commission will take DR and approve changes.

Paul Travis

Re:? 129 Randall Street

- The plans submitted did shorten the top floor, yet there were plans (and a preference expressed by some commissioners) to eliminate the entire top floor.

- Most of the neighbors are still not happy with the new plans.

Paul Curtis

Re: 129 Randall Street

- He is not aware of any meeting with the neighbors and he doesn?t have a copy of the new plans.

Bil Petri

Re: 129 Randall Street

- There was no meeting between the neighbors and the developer.

- There are issues about mass and volume as well as parking.

- He would like a proper conference to agree on the structure.

Tom Gillert

Re: 129 Randall Street

- Would like to have proposed building without the 4th floor.

- He agrees with everything the previous speakers have made.

C.???????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

2.???????? Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of July 13, 2000.?

???????????? ?????????? ACTION:?????????? Approved

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

ABSENT:????????? None

3.???????? Commission Matters

Commissioner Theoharis:??????? 1351 Grant Avenue - Would like this item calendered next week, 8/10/00, to get a status report.

Commissioner Richardson:????? 1351 Grant Avenue - She is concerned that the commission is not creating another International Hotel.? She would like to take appropriate measures that the tenants are not displaced.

Commissioner Joe:????????????????????????????? 1351 Grant Avenue - She remembers when the project came before the commission, the tenants were not to be affected.

Commissioner Antenore:???????? He won?t be here next week but would like the case to move forward since he remembers when this case came before the commission.

SPEAKER(S):

Roberta Caravelli:?????? The item is not on the agenda so the commissioners should not be able to comment.

D.???????? DIRECTOR?S REPORT

4.???????? Director?s Announcements.

- He will not be present for the next 2 hearings but Mr. Larry Badiner will be in attendance.

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

None

6.???????? Discuss procedures for addressing modifications to plans after they have been approved by the Planning Commission.

Larry Badiner:

- They have been working with staff specifically on this item.? They have had a stamp in the office for a number of years.? The procedure has been clarified in the last week.? An e-mail was sent to all planners requiring that they stamp both the application and all elevations and plans of a project that has come to the Commission with the following items: Aapproved pursuant to CPC Discretionary Review action, all revisions should be referred to DCP@.? He has asked staff to follow up on this matter and date and initial the stamp as they put it on.? He will be working with DBI to ensure that these items come back to us.? He will follow up on this and provide reports on items as they come up.? Also, a notation will be included in the permit tracking computer program to augment the hard copy.

Gerald Green:

- Although this is nothing new, Commission Chinchilla should receive credit for initiating this process.

- Unfortunately, in the last year, this method has been applied inconsistently.

- We are taking steps to improve and do a better job.

Patricia Vaughey

- One of the problems she has with the stamp is that certain people get copies of the stamp and use them at their own discretion when it?s convenient.

- She suggests that different color ink be used for different days.

- There are still problems with lost drawings.

- People who are repeat offenders should have double or triple the fine.

Roberta Caravelli

- Internally, both the Building Department and the Planning Department need to watch for staff who are inconsistent about applying the procedures.

- Procedural disciplinary steps should be set in place if certain staff members don?t comply with this.

7.???????? 955 Green Street ?- Status report.

Joe Butler

- He appreciates Mr. Badiner?s eye on the details.

- The compliance with these matters is not hard to do.? This has more to do with the attitude of the contractor and the inability of the project sponsor to get compliance from his contractor.

He looks forward to having these problems go away.

Net Topham - Project Sponsor

- He is working very hard to make sure every last detail of these conditions are approved.? He met with Mr. Butler and they will continue to improve communications and make sure that any infractions are taken care of in a cooperative way.

8.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ALUMBAUGH: 558-6601)

Update on the Better Neighborhoods 2002 project, per the Commission?s request for quarterly updates.

Roberta Caravelli

- Regarding transportation planning, government needs to start educating staff that they should take public transportation.

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

9.???????? 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.

Prior Action: Public comment was closed at the February 17, 2000 hearing.? The Commission continued the item to allow further discussion between the project sponsor and neighbors.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2000).

Note: On June 15, 2000, the Commission passed the following motions:

1st Motion:? Take Discretionary Review with the following changes: 1) set back 8 feet further on the 4th floor; 2) project sponsor to continue to work with staff on architectural detailing of the facade with specific reference to the skylight on the 3rd floor. Vote of +2 -2.? Commissioners Antenore and Joe voted no.? Commissioners Theoharis, Martin and Mills were absent.

2nd Motion: Take Discretionary Review with the following changes: 1) remove 4th floor 2) modify the front facade to fit into the character of the neighborhood.? Vote +2 -2.? Commissioners Chinchilla and Richardson voted no.?? Commissioners Theoharis, Martin and Mills were absent.

Note: On July 27, 2000, the representative of the project sponsor submitted revised plans.? The Commission continued the matter for one week so they, staff, and the Discretionary Review Requestor would have an opportunity to review the new submission.

SPEAKER(S):

Brett Gladstone - representing project sponsor

- New changes are as follows: setting back the top floor an additional 8 feet; making the facade out of plaster to look like the surrounding buildings; change the front to show cornices; and change the front to eliminate wood siding.

- Many of the neighbors did receive the revised plans, although one neighbor mentions that he did not receive it.

John O?Reilley - Project Sponsor

- A transcript of the last hearing which states the requested changes was submitted to the commissioners.? The only item which was not addressed was that the entire floor be removed.

- They have met with the neighbors many times and have had hearings a few times and there was never an intent expressed to remove the 4th floor.

Paul Curtis

-None of the changes made have been major.

- The revised plans don?t say anything about the interior of the house.

- There will be 7 master bedrooms yet there is no way of knowing if the changes refer to a reduction of bedroom sizes.

- There is another house which is being built on this street and there has been no problems at all with that project since it totally complies with the neighborhood requirements.

- The current project is still too tall and too big.

- He hopes that the commissioners have had an opportunity to come to the site of the proposed project.

Paul Travis

- Two aspects need to be clarified: 1) a meeting which was held after the last hearing just outside of the chambers, is not a community meeting although it has been classified as one; 2)the plans which have been submitted address the view of the project from one narrow position.

Art Bender

- The compromise of the project sponsor in no way addresses the concerns of the neighbors.? The neighbors are still strongly opposed.

Bill Petri

- There have not been any meetings since the last hearing.

- The issues have not been addressed.

- They are asking for a meeting so that all the items can be addressed.

- Meeting in the hall after the last hearing is not considered a meeting.

ACTION:?????????? Excused new Commissioner, Jim Salinas, who stated that he has not had an opportunity to review all tapes and material related to this case.

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

ABSENT:????????? None

ACTION:?????????? Take DR and remove 4th floor.? The motion failed to carry.

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Joe, Antenore

NAYES:??????????? Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson

EXCUSED:??????? Salinas

ABSENT:????????? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to August 17, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? None

(ADDENDUM)??? 2000.269D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)

585 LAIDLEY STREET, south side between Castro and Roanoke Streets, Lot 025 in Assessor?s Block 6727 - Request for Discretionary Review of building permit application No. 9923677 of proposal to construct a third-story addition on top of an existing two-story single-family residence in an RH-1 (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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2000)

Note: On May 18, 2000, following testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve the project with design changes --? show new peaked roof design, add dormers to the rear, and setback building on the side of the DR requestor.

Andy Forest

- The project is a 2 story building and plain stucco facade.

- They have gone through several changes.

- Staff has been working very hard to keep abreast of all the details.

- The new design will show a slopped roof to be more in character with the neighborhood; the north side of the structure will be set back, and dormers were inserted on the 3rd floor to allow headroom which is impinged by the slopped roof.? He also kept the dormers away from the north side, which is the DR filer?s side.

- He has followed the Commission?s recommendations from the last hearing.

Geraldine Foster

- The engineer?s proposed changes does not meet the Commissions mandate.

- The proposed peaked roof variation is still too high.

- More architectural changes will not legalize the project.

- To comply with Commissioners? requests, the roof slope should start at the floor of the 3rd level, not 5 feet high.? The side setback at the rear should remain.? The third floor facade should only have one small window and two or three dormers can be added.? The peak of the roof should be limited to 30 feet as promised.? It would provide the owner with more headroom.

- These changes will diminish the possibility of a future creation of a separate and illegal unit.

Patricia Caravelli

- If the 4th story on 129 Randall Street is out-of-character, then the 3rd floor on Laidley is out-of-character as well.

Mr. Alvarenga

-He is a native San Franciscan and grew up in this house.? He would like to provide the same for his children.

- There are only two bedrooms, the addition would be to provide a space for his children.? If the sloping roof starts at the base of the 2nd floor, this would give him no floor plan which was the whole idea for this project.

ACTION:?????????? Excused new Commissioner, Jim Salinas, who stated that he has not had an opportunity to review all tapes and material related to this case.

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

ABSENT:????????? None

ACTION:?????????? TAKE DR and approve project as revised

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

EXCUSED:??????? Salinas

ABSENT:????????? None

F.???????? REGULAR CALENDAR?

10.??????? 2000.742Z???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD: 558-6311)

1306-1314 10TH AVENUE, Initiation of proposed reclassification of three Neighborhood Commercial District parcels (Assessors' Block 1764 Lots 039, 040, and 041) to RH-2 (House, Two Family)zoning.

Recommendation: Initiate reclassification and set public hearing date.

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Approved to Initiate Reclassification and Set Public Hearing Date for 9/7/00.

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

ABSENT:????????? None

RESOLUTION NO.? 15930

11.??????? 96.223E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DEUTSCH: 558-5965)

ALAMEDA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN.? Certification of Final 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 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.?

Note:? The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed.? The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on January 31, 2000.? The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs.? Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Final Environmental Impact Report

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Approved to Certify Final Environmental Impact Report

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

ABSENT:????????? None

MOTION NO.???? 15931

12.??????? 2000.271E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BLOMGREN: 558-5979)

415 BRYANT STREET, Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration,?? Lot 97 of Assessor?s Block 3995. The project would entail the construction of a four-story, 45-foot high building which would have eight live-work units at 415 Bryant Street, south side of Bryant Street between Second and Third Streets (Assessor?s Block 3775, Lot 97).?? The project is within the Mixed Use Housing Zone (MUHZ), a South End Office (SEO) Interim Control District, Service/Secondary Office (SSO) Zoning District, and a 40-x Height/Bulk District.? The proposed building would cover the entire 4000 square foot lot which extends from Taber Place on the south to Bryant Street on the north.?? A one-story, 24-foot high office building at the south end of the parcel would be demolished.? The floor area of the proposed building would be 17,800 gross square feet, excluding parking.? All of the units of the building would be accessed from stairways and hallways which would have entrances on Bryant Street and Taber Place.? The proposed building would provide eight parking spaces in a ground-level garage with an ingress/egress from Taber Place.? Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 6, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Lee Molton

- He has been a resident of the neighborhood for 13 years.

- He is against the fact that this project is designated as live/work.

- When live work was created, it was to preserve diminishing large space for artists in industrial zones.

- He is not sure why the City or the Planning Commission is allowing housing to be built under live/work.? He strongly disagrees with that.

- Housing patterns in San Francisco has advocated setbacks and open space between buildings and this pattern is not doing that.

- The Commission could help the neighbors by looking at the pattern.

- Census data is being used from 10 years ago so it?s not up to date.? The neighborhood has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.

- He wants to be a good neighbor with the developer.

(-) David Fink

- Resident of South Park.

- They are not against development in general.

- They are asking for respect from their new neighbor.

- Someone who doesn?t live in the neighborhood will not know the impact of the construction.

- Developers of new houses need to abide by the laws.

(+) Alice Barkley - Representing Project Sponsor

- The project architect did not appeal the negative declaration.

- Currently the rear of the property is used for parking.

- There is no basis for ordering an EIR or not to affirm this Preliminary Declaration.

- The project sponsor volunteered not to work on Sunday and limit work hours on Saturday.

- There are no environmental issues for this project.

ACTION:?????????? Uphold Negative Declaration

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

ABSENT:????????? None

MOTION NO.???? 15932

13.??????? 1999.728C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)

2, 4 AND 5 CHARLTON COURT, an alley off the south side of Union Street between Buchanan and Laguna Streets, Lots 26, 27 and 31 in Assessor?s Block 542 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.2(d) and 725.55 to continue operation of an existing inn, The Bed and Breakfast Inn, on two lots located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District and on one lot located within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Elizabeth Gordon

- She is an attorney and represents the owners John and Beverly Shields

- There are about 220 petitions to support the project to remain as it is.

- The Inn has been in operation for the last 30 years.? The Inn is also featured in the Inn City Guide Magazine.

- Would like for 2, 4 and 5 to remain in operation as an Inn.? The department has indicated that the Shields needed to bring their guestrooms within the current zoning.?? The Shields agreed to do this.? This would involve eliminating two guestrooms, brining the total number of guestrooms from 11 to 9.

- She asks that the Commission adopt the department?s recommendations with the following modifications: 1) continuation of the use of not only 2 and 4 but also 5 Charlton Ct.; 2) elimination of the two guestrooms in 4 Charlton to bring the Inn within the required zoning; 3) she is agreeable with the conversion of the two eliminated guestrooms to residential use.

(+) John Shields

- He and his wife purchased the Inn in 1987.

- They did not fully appreciate the legal significance of the zoning disclosed on the 3 R reports they received.?

- They believed incorrectly that the Inn which had then been in operation for about 25 years had always been a Bed and Breakfast Inn.

- They have always had a business license with the city, a tax registration certificate and have paid hotel tax since the purchase of the Inn.

- In June of 1997, the Department of Public Health issued a permit to operate and a certificate of sanitary inspection authorizing food preparation.

- Also, in June of 1997, Planning approved continuation of their existing continental breakfast.

- They believed that there were no problems to continue running the Inn as is.

- They replaced a green house and a fence without obtaining proper permits.? Although they eventually obtained permits, they realize that after-the-fact permits are not the same as obtaining the permit before starting the work.

(+) William Abend - Project Architect

- Buildings 2 and 4 are architecturally significant.

- Buildings 2 has 4 units and will remain that way.

- Building 4 which has 5 units, will combine 2 units for residential use, and keep the other 3 units.

- Building 5 which is across the street has 2 units and will remain as 2 units.

- There will be no modification to the outside of any of the buildings.

(+) Leslie Lenhart - representing the Union Street Association

- Their organization has positive comments about the Inn.

- The Inn cannot be held responsible for people who are not guests of the Inn.

- The Inn is a vital part to the shops and restaurants of the surrounding neighborhood.

(+) Dennis Beckbam - Owner of the Enchanted Christal

- He has spoken to hundreds of guests at the Inn.? Their experiences are positive

- He has reserved rooms at the Inn on several occasions for his family.

- There are very few opportunities in the City to stay at Inns and shop and dine in the surrounding area.

(+) Heleen Rene

- She lives very close to the Inn.

- She has lived in the neighborhood for about 15 years.

- The Inn is always clean and it is always calm.

- She would like the commission to approve the existence of the Inn

(+) Ainya Housener

- She feels that the response of the tourists makes the inn the jewel of the neighborhood.

(+) Daniela Kirshenbaum - member of the Pacific Heights Residents Association

- The owners have shown that it is possible to control noise and traffic on Charlton Court.

- Her recommendation for the Commission to approve their permits to continue operating is contingent on a few considerations.? The main one being 5 Charlton Court.? This unit should be reverted to a 1 single family dwelling.? It would be great for the owners to live at this unit.

(-) Pauline Johnson-Brown

- As a neighbor she has tried to dialog with Mr. Shields regarding a code violation.? It took him 8 months to return her phone call.

- There is non-stop noise from the commercial laundry, the maids, the services.

- Her drive way is constantly blocked.

- There is no possibility for fire vehicles or emergency services.?

- At one point she wasn?t able to leave her house because her car was blocked.

ACTION:?????????? Approved as per staff recommendation:? convert 5 Charlton Court back to a single family dwelling and allow no activities related to the remaining inn operations at 2 and 4 to occur at 5 and shall maintain an on-site full time manager and shall provide guest who plan to arrive by car with parking passes prior to the arrival to alleviate congestion on the court and a need to pull in.? Diligently monitor a taxi/limousine service and ensure sound levels do not exceed acceptable noise levels.? No events shall be held at the inn and other standard conditions.?

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

ABSENT:????????? None

MOTION NO.???? 15933

14.??????? 2000.304C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (FALLAY: 558-6367)

4050 19TH AVENUE, east side, between Byxbee and Monticello Streets,? Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 7083 -- Request for a Conditional Use Authorization to add approximately 4,380 square feet of floor area to an existing nonconforming self-storage facility as required by Planning Code Section 186(b)(expansion of a non-complying use) in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

John Rhinehart

- There is no traffic impact.

- They are well under the square footage coverage.

- They are not altering any of the elevations.

ACTION:?????????? Approved

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

ABSENT:????????? None

MOTION NO.???? 15934

15.??????? 2000.565C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DIBARTOLO: 558-6291)

430 COLUMBUS, east side between Vallejo and Green Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 131: --Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Section 722.27 of the Planning Code to Extend the Hours of Use from 2:00 am to 6:00 am, to allow for a 24-hour operation, for the existing Full-Service Restaurant (Calzone's) in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Without hearing, continued to August 10, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? None

16.??????? 1999.209EC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WANG: 558-6335)

1748 HAIGHT STREET, a rectangular corner parcel, north side of Haight Street at Cole Street: Lots 8, 32, 33, 34, and 35 in Assessor?s Block 1229 B Request for Conditional Use authorization as a Planned Unit Development under Planning Code Sections 303 and 304, requesting authorizations, modifications and exceptions related to Code Sections 719.11, 121.1, 719.12, 134, 719.21, 790.130, 121.2, 790.91, 790.92, 152, 136, 260, and 261.? The project requires Conditional Use authorization for lot size exceeding 5,000 square feet, for up to five commercial uses over 2,500 square feet in area, allow replacement of an existing self?service restaurant up to 3,000 square feet in area or a future full?service restaurant up to 6,000 square feet in area. Authorization as a Planned Unit Development is requested to permit 100% lot coverage below grade and at the first commercial level, to allow the construction of two town house units in the rear yard, to permit commercial and underground parking use in the rear yard, to allow the substitution of two van loading spaces for the larger code required? single loading dock, to allow minor deviations from the provisions for measurement of building height, loading space, awnings, marquees and bay windows. The property is in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40?X Height and Bulk District.????

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Lu Blazej - Representing John Brennan Company

- This is a good project for San Francisco since it?s a 34-unit housing project.? It replaces retail. ?It?s not building new retail.

- He thanked staff for their great work.

- He handed out a 28 page presentation outline.

- The commission will be making judgement with respect to housing affordability.

- This project is exempt for consideration from the housing affordability requirement.

(+) Mark Brennan

- Lives on Cole Street

- He supports the project.

- 10 years ago before the Goodwill building was built, Haight Street was a very bad place.

- Now more housing will be built.

(+) Fredo Sarashederi

- He is the owner of business called Coffee Cantata

- He has had this business since 1992

- He wholeheartedly supports this project.

- It will help the parking problems around the Haight?????????

(+) Don Dietzing - support

(+) Mathew Brennan- support

(+) Joe O?Donaghue

- This is not a live/work

- This is a 100% union project

- There should be no property taxes on the units

(+) Ted Lowenberg

- The last time he was here, the commission failed to listen to the neighbors

- The current project will improve the neighborhood

- Please do not play politics.? Approve this project.

(-) Jerum Donalds

- He and his wife have lived there since 1973.

- He hopes that this case is not approved right away.

(-) Margerie Donalds

- Their garden is their pride and joy.? With the proposed construction, she will loose the sunlight coming into her garden.? She will also loose air.

- They were never approached by the owner.

- Does not keep the Haight?s character???

(-) Nane Obalstein

- Didn?t receive any notice

- Density of the infill is considerable

- The impact will unsupportable for the people living on Haight Street?????????

- Traffic Impacts

- Loss of light into her backyard

- Reduce the number of units

- Reduce the square footage of the restaurants.

(-) David Walker

- He opposes the townhouse.

- The original plan was to renovate the I-beam

- He is a tenant not a property owner.

(-) Phil Sower

- President of the Height/Ashbury Neighborhood Association

- 1) keep mom and pop shops character; 2)neighborhood should decide what commercial site will be put in to the neighborhood; 3) maintain a bit of the diversity of the neighborhood.

(-) Elizabeth Kurshin

- They oppose anything that will bring more cars into the neighborhood.

- She is opposed to the commercial parking

(-)James Beck

- This area is a major transit corridor.

- The area has a large volume of rental housing.

- It?s a good thing that the owner wants to build more rental housing.

- Would like the owner to reduce the parking

(-) Calvin Welsh

- The developer is asking for special permission.

- Not opposing the rental housing or the affordable housing.???

- This is not a historical site.?

- Opposed to tripling the parking spaces

- Height Street is a transit preference street--the project should be designed to take advantage of it.

(-) Lin Grinow

- Adding a 74 stall parking component to the project will not improve the character of the Haight neighborhood.

- He would like the commission to do a review of the traffic impact of the proposed project.

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Richardson, Salinas, Joe

NAYES:??????????? Antenore

ABSENT:????????? None

MOTION No.????? 15935

17.??????? 1999.817C? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

990 COLUMBUS southeast corner at Chestnut Street; Lot 048 in Assessor's Block 0065 ?? Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 3 panel antennas on the roof of an existing 3-story commercial building and base station equipment in the basement of the building in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 6, 2000)

(+) Anthony Lolowell - Representing project sponsor Hammet & Edison

- The facility proposed meets the requirements of Section 303(c)(1) of the Planning Code

- Worked very hard with the staff to secure the highest security for this facility

- This site is a preference 6

- The project will provide a reliable wireless system that will be good for not only the neighborhood but the entire City of San Francisco

(+) Bill Hammet

- This proposal meets the SCC standards in all accessible locations

(-) Sheryl Harrison

- She has been a tenant of this building for many years.

- There are many tenants in the area.

- These people will have exposure 24 hours a day.

- There are many other apartments, schools and preschools in the near vicinity of the proposed location for the antenna.

- There is a serious transmission of electro-magnetic fields and radiation

- Concern about public safety issues - would affect human being

- Would like commissioners to consider another location for these antennas.

- We do not really know the impact of this antennas

(-) William Parell

- The city of Los Angeles banned the installation of cellular phone towers within 100 meters of schools.? If we where in Los Angeles this would not even be considered.

- This is very much of a health issue.

- The proposed antenna has 10,000 times the output of the hand held cell phones.

- The proposed antennas are for residential neighborhoods

- A number of neighbors have expressed their fears

- There are a number of alternative sites in the area.

- There is no need for this cellular tower to be in this neighborhood.

- Sprint has no need to increase capacity

- There is new equipment on the market that they click on from their existing sites to address the problem

(-) Derk Carkjus,? Consulting Engineer

- He has been a resident of the area for 45 years.

- There are many guidelines regarding the safety/appearance and cost?

- The government has put standards through the FCC, through OSHA, through the Veterans Administration

- There are no requirements that these antennas be installed at the proposed site.

(-) Barry Martinez

- Has lived in North Beach over 9 yrs.

- There have been studies made on the effects of microwave transmission

(-) Carol Humphrey

- Works on the second floor of 900 Columbus

- There are conclusive studies regarding the effects of electro-magnetic-radiation transmission

ACTION:?????????? Approved

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

ABSENT:????????? None

MOTION No.????? 15936

18.??????? 2000.323C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

545 POWELL STREET, southwest corner at Bush Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0284 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to (1) install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 4 panel antennas on the existing rooftop penthouse of a building and base station equipment inside a new penthouse on the roof of the building and (2) construct a structure exceeding 40 feet in height (the new penthouse) in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Robert Crebs - Project Sponsor representing Sprint PCS

- The design is visually unintrusive.

- There was one community outreach meeting held.? Only 2 people attended.

- Needed service was identified in this area.

- This proposed facility will assist residents with better communication

ACTION:?????????? Approved

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

ABSENT:????????? None

MOTION No.:???? 15937

G.???????? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 6:50 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

19a.????? 1999.833D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558?6344)

1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9916932 ??Retroactive permitting of 176 antennas (variety of hardware and distance off the ground) and two underground fuel tanks, at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions

NOTE:? Items 19a thru 19e were called and heard together.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Doris Linnenbach

- She has been a residence of this neighborhood since 1956.

- Letters received from Supervisors state that they support continuance of this project (hearing).

- Neighbors were not adequately notified

- Sutro Tower has not been a good neighbor.

- Mr. Miller is greatly overworked, he needs to have an assistant.

(+) Charlene Chin

- The Planning Commission considers the effect of the Tower upon surrounding properties when exercising their discretion?????????????????????

- The Office of Environmental Review issuing a categorical exemption does not affect the Planning Commission?s discretionary review authority

- This is an unprecedented series of applications

- There are currently about 80 antennas on the tower

George Lynn

- He has concerns about the radiation of the antennas but he also would like to speak about the tanks replaced on the site.

- The water department has taken great caution

- There are tanks that have fuel.? These were replaced because they were inadequate.? There might have been some leakage into our water.

Emmet Humboldt

- He is very worried about the radiation and EMF of the antennas

- He is worried about the structural integrity of the tower.

- There has been an arrogant approach with the neighborhood.

- He is concerned about the 24 additional antenna panels

- Sutro Tower has not been a good neighbor or corporate partner.

John Rhinehart

- He has been to meeting-after-meeting for the last 2 years.

- He is worried about the effect of the Tower as a whole.

- He keeps coming to meetings because he is concerned about the City.? This tower seems to get rewarded for breaking the law.?

- The neighbors only know that this is happening if they are in the loop.

- Why can?t each antenna stand on it?s own merit?

Catherine Goldam Skyler, President, Twin Peaks Improvement Association

- Lack of notice; inclusion as neighborhood association; questions why all those antennas should be installed before retrofitting the tower.

- She did not receive proper notification.

- Read a letter from Supervisor Mabel Teng.

- The neighborhood associations should have been properly notified.

- It is reckless to permit the antennas before they know if the retrofit will or can be done.

Evelyn Craine, President of the Midtown Terrace Association

- She would like to have good neighbors and would like to communication with the neighbors.

- If the elderly become ill, they can?t have a life line.

- Would like the Planning Commission to provide the same services as the Water Department has.

- The streets are all torn up, yet the Water Department has been working very well with the neighbors.

- The Health Department said that they get more radiation than any other part of the residents of the City.

- Let the neighbors know at least 10 days before (a hearing) so they can be prepared.

- They are not morons, they are citizens of the City just like the Commissioners are.

(+) Christine Linnenbach

- The notice was inadequate.

- A lot of the antennas have been installed without permit.

- 1992, after the Loma Prieta earthquake, engineers did a study to find out what was there (Sutro Tower site).? They substantiated that a lot of antennas been installed without permit.

- Antennas were installed in order to broadcast television to the entire Bay Area.? - The 1988 Planning Commission required conditional use applications and hearings when Sutro wanted to installed antennas.

Robert McCarthy of McCarthy on behalf of Sutro Tower and Metricom

- There have been 3 major concerns from the neighbors:? Seismic safety of tower, safety of radio frequency eemissions and tanks.

- The tanks were replaced because state law changed and they wanted to be in compliance.

- The tanks do not represent a threat whatsoeverto the (resident?s) water supply or the water supply in the reservoir

- In August of 1998, the Commission certified an EIR in connection with the DTV installation.

- The final building permit was never pulled by the contractor.

- Pursuant to findings at the most intense spot the amount of radio frequency emissions

- In order to insure that there is comfort among the neighbors in connection with that, we accept the Planning Director?s conditions (there are 9 pages of them) to be attached to this permit.

- Every time we light a major antenna we will be required to do additional testing at 200 public accessible sites.

- Agree that DPH be permitted to be present and monitor the testing to assure that readings are accurate--and indeed DPH and two designated community representatives will be included to monitor the testing.

- Required to file the results and to notify the neighbors

?(+) Jim Lastros,? General Manager of Sutro Tower

- In regard to the seismic inspection, we have agreed to accept the Planning Department?s conditions to make a very detailed annual inspection by an independent structural firm and licensed engineer.

- We also agree to comply with the recommendations that address any problems or conditions that require repair or remediation as suggested by this inspector.

- After compliance, we agree to bring back the engineer to inspect/insure that repair has been properly done.

- Agree to file these inspections with DBI, and notify the two adjacent neighborhood associations.

ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended

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

ABSENT:????????? None

19b.????? 2000.603D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558?6344)

1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9927275 ??Two microwave interconnect antennas (two?way communication, to and from downtown TV studios to Tower) ??one, two feet in diameter,? on roof of transformer building approximately 35 feet above the ground, and the other, four feet in diameter, on Second Level of Tower at +/?185 feet high ??one new six?foot dish antenna and one replacement six?foot dish antenna (replacing a four?foot dish) to be used as news?related microwave antennas (from studios to and from mobile news vans for dispatch and news transmission purposes), both on Fourth Level of Tower at +/?550 feet high ??one two?way radio whip antenna (two inches in diameter and six feet long), Second Level of Tower at +/?185 feet high, at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a

ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended

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

ABSENT:????????? None

19c.????? 2000.604D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558?6344)

1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000?02?11?1670 ??Related to work in progress under Building Permit Application No. 9913916 (which was the subject of a "Discretionary Review" on August 12, 1999) ??concrete pad to even out floor in transmitter building.? The subject Permit Application was required by the Building Inspector reviewing the work under Application No. 9913916 to cover additional work that developed out of the work permitted therein, at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval without Conditions

SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a

ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended

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

ABSENT:????????? None

19d.????? 2000.605D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558?6344)

1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000?04?07?6699 ??Twenty?four wireless data?service internet?access panel antennas (panels +/?the size of medicine cabinets ??to be attached to horizontal beam on Third Level of Tower, +/?380 feet high ??for "Ricochet" metricom ??to be used for wireless remote access to the internet by users of laptops and hand?held data organizers, etc.), at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a

ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended

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

ABSENT:????????? None

19e.????? 2000.606D????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558?6344)

1 LA AVANZADA STREET ??"Sutro Tower", (also known as 250 PALO ALTO AVENUE), Lot 3 in Assessor?s Block 2724 ??Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2000?06?07?1964 ??One news?gathering antenna (six?foot microwave dish, receiving only ??Fifth Level of Tower, +/?650 feet high ??also to transmit data from traffic jams on Golden Gate and Bay Bridges), at the existing SUTRO TOWER broadcast facility, in an RH?1(D) (House, One?Family Detached Dwellings) District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):?? Same as listed in item 19a

ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approve as amended

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

ABSENT:????????? None

Adjournment: 8:00 p.m.

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

?Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 10, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT:?????????????? Joe, Mills, Theoharis, Chinchilla, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:????????????????? Antenore,

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:33? P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

A.???????? ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1.???????? 2000.634D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MIRAMONTES: 558-6348)

768 EL CAMINO DEL MAR, north side between Lake Street and 30th Avenue, Lots 5 and 6 in Assessor ' s Block 1307 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 200003204801S, proposing to construct a below-grade exercise room at the rear of the property in a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family [Detached Dwellings]) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

Discretionary Review Withdrawn

2.???????? 1998.090E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KUGLER: 558-5983)

YERBA BUENA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA EXPANSION/EMPORIUM SITE DEVELOPMENT CEQA FINDINGS.? Consideration of adoption of Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State Guidelines, and Chapter 31 of the City's Administrative Code in connection with adoption of the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1 and various other actions necessary to implement the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project on Lots 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 33, 38 and 43 of Assessor's Block 3705.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

3.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ABSOLUTE CUMULATIVE SHADOW LIMIT FOR BOEDDEKER PARK.? Proposed action to amend the absolute cumulative limit for new shadows on Boeddeker Park, established by Resolution No. 11595 on February 7, 1989, from zero to 0.007%.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

4.???????? FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANCE FOR NEW SHADOW ON BOEDDEKER PARK.? Consideration of Findings of no significant impact on Boeddeker Park from new shadow within the revised cumulative limit of 0.007% that would be cast on the park by the proposed Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

5.???????? 1998.090R????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS.? Consideration of a proposal to adopt amendments to various maps of the General Plan to facilitate the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.? The maps of the General Plan that would be considered for amendment are:? (1) the Map entitled "Streets are Important to the Perception of the City" found on page I.5.16 of the Urban Design Element of the General Plan, to be amended to remove a portion of Jessie Street which would be reconfigured by the Project; (2) Map 1 on page II.1.9 of the Downtown Area Plan, "Downtown Land Use and Density Plan," which would be amended to include the Project site in the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area; (3) Map 3 on page II.1.21 of the Downtown Area Plan, "Major Open Spaces," which would be amended to show the Project site as included within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area; (4) Map 5 on page II.1.29 of the Downtown Area Plan, "Proposed Height and Bulk Districts," which would be amended to show the Project site as included within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area; (5) Map 7 on page II.1.47 of the Downtown Area Plan, "Proposed Pedestrian Network:? Downtown District," which would be amended to remove Jessie Street within Block 3705 as a "Pedestrian/Service Street"; and (6) Map 2 on page I.2.6 of the Commerce and Industry Element, "Generalized Commercial and Industrial Density Plan," which would be amended to include the Project site within the Yerba Buena Center Redevelopment Project Area.? The Planning Commission initiated these amendments by Resolution No. 14920 on November 4, 1999.

Consideration also of a proposal to adopt amendments to Map 1H of the Zoning Map to facilitate the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.? The current building height and bulk designations for the Project site are 120?X and 160?S (north of Jessie Street) and 160?F (south of Jessie Street) and would be reclassified to designate the project site as 135?X, 200?X and 400?X Height and Bulk Districts.? The Planning Commission initiated this amendment by Resolution No. 14921 on November 4, 1999.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

6.???????? 1998.090R?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND SECTION 101.1 OF THE

PLANNING CODE.? Consideration of findings of consistency with the General Plan and Section 101.1 of the Planning Code for the Amendment o the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1 and various implementing actions for the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project, including but not limited to General Plan and Zoning Map amendments,? partial vacation of Jessie Street, dedication of Jessie Street East and Jessie Street West, including establishment of sidewalks thereon, sidewalk changes to Mission Street and Jessie Street, and project authorization pursuant to Sections 320-325. All of these items are discussed in the Staff Report and all require findings of consistency with the General Plan and Section 101.1 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

7.?? 1998.090R???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

RECOMMENDATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.? Consideration of recommendation of the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1 to the Board of Supervisors for approval.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

8.???????? 1998.090B????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

PLANNING CODE SECTIONS 320?325 (OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LIMITATION PROGRAM) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.? Request under Planning Code Sections 320?325 (Office Development Limitation Program) for 49,100 gross square feet of floor area of office space.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

9.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

DELEGATION AGREEMENT CONTROLS,? Consideration of approval of a Delegation Agreement by and between the City and County of San Francisco, acting through its Planning Commission, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, to administer certain development controls under the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

10.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

SCHEMATIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS, Pursuant to the Delegation Agreement, consider the Schematic Design Documents for the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project for consistency with certain development controls in the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to August 17, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION:???????????? Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

11.??????? 2000.286E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY: 558-5970)

925 BRYANT STREET ? Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. ?The project site is located on Block 3780, Lot 077, within the western portion of the block, contains approximately 20,000 square feet and is within an IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone), a SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District and a 40?X Height and Bulk District.? The site contains 75 feet of frontage along Bryant Street to the west and 265 feet of frontage along Langton Street to the north.? The proposal includes the conversion of approximately 13,000 square feet of an existing office/retail/warehouse structure into retail/business service use and the addition of approximately 26,000 square feet of new floor area.? The footprint of the structure would remain the same.? The addition of two floors would result in a total of three stories.? The resulting building would be approximately 40 feet in height, contain approximately 39,000 square feet and would contain 37 on?site parking spaces accessed from Langton Street.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 24, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

12.??????? 2000.009E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY: 558- 5970)

1800 MISSION STREET ? THE ARMORY ? Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration,? Assessors block 3547, lot 001.? The project site contains the State Armory building, a city landmark containing approximately 200,000 square feet.? The proposed project includes rehabilitation of the building, addition and conversion of use from vacant to office use.? The total new square footage of the structure would be approximately 300,000 and would include 32 below?ground, off?street parking spaces and a loading area.? There would be no substantial expansion of the building envelope.? The 68,722 square foot project site is composed of one lot containing frontages on Mission, Fourteenth and Julian Streets.? The site is within a C?M (Heavy Commercial) District and 65?B Height and Bulk District within the Mission District neighborhood.? A variance would be required to provide fewer than the Planning Code required amount of parking and loading spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Proposed for continuance to September 7, 2000).

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

13.???? 1999.543DD????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS: 558-6315)

338 - 12TH AVENUE, east side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Streets, Lot 33 in Assessor?s Block 1443 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 9901007S, proposing to add a new fourth floor, front, side, and rear additions to the existing single-unit building at the front of the property only in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 20, 2000)

Note: On June 8, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to give Staff time to review permit history.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 14, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

14.??????? 2000.209C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558-6344)

1470 PINE STREET, north side between Polk and Larkin Streets, Lot 7A in Assessor?s Block 645 ??Request for authorization of a CONDITIONAL USE for a FIBER?OPTIC TELEVISION and TELECOMMUNICATIONS CABLE EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION in an existing one?story building, in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and an 80?A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 14, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:??????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

15.??????? 2000.415C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)

510 -? 3RD STREET, southwest corner of 3rd Street and Bryant Street, Lot 115 in Assessor?s Block 3776 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 817.73 to install three sectors of antennas (four antennas in each sector) on the building?s rooftop penthouse, in an SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The antennas would be flush mounted to the penthouse approximately 85-feet above grade or 6.5-feet above the height of the building?s parapet.?? As part of the proposal, a base transceiver station would be installed within the building.? The installation of the antennas and related equipment would be part of a wireless telecommunications network operated by Nextel Communications.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to September 21, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued as proposed

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

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):

Patricia Vaughey

- There is an application at the Planing Department--2860 Filbert Street--drawings done by an interior??? designer not by a licensed architect.

- There are several issues concerning this case:?? Lot line differentials, and lot issues that have been overlooked.

- Building? is on next door neighbor?s lot--2812-2814 Lyon?

- The Department could be liable for a law suit because of the fact that the building passes onto the neighbors lot.

- There should be a survey made before 311 notices are sent out.

Aaron Peskin - Speaking on Behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Alta-Filbert Preservation Association, and Friends of the Garden

Re: 22-30 Alta

- EIR does not adequately respond to the comments and also failed to take into account that in June of this year, the? Landmarks Board unanimously rejected this project because it has not been consistent with the Historic District.

- They are in negotiations with the project sponsor

- Would like the Commission to not certify this case

Joe Latro - Speaking on Behalf of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Alta-Filbert Preservation Association, and Friends of the Garden

Re: 22-30 Alta

- The Landmarks Board rejected the proposed alternative called C in the final EIR

- This can?t be a proper bases for comparison

- Would like to focus on the shadow

- The lot has shade on the garden during 26 days of the year.? If C goes in, it will increase the shade to 115 days.? There will be 89 additional shade days per year.

- The final EIR should not be approved.

Debra Stein, representing property owner at 22 Alta Street

- The Board?s opinion is not evidence of significance of environmental impact.? The CEQA? charge to the Planning Commission is to use its own judgment.

- The project is compared to the former McNear building and not to the empty site.? However, for informational purposes the DEIR also compares the project with the McNear building, but for compliance with CEQA, there is compared data with the empty site.

- There is concern that alternative C somehow presents substantial new information that requires a recirculation and reevaluation of the environmental review document

- The new alternative is smaller than the prime project that is being evaluated.

C.???????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

16.????? Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 7/20/00.

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES: Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:????????? Antenore, Chinchilla

17.????? Commission Matters

Commissioner Mills: - Look into the conversion of 2 units into 1 unit.

????????????? Schedule for the first week of September when Gerald Green returns.

Commissioner Theoharis: 2860 Filbert Street

???????? - staff to check project to make sure that the owner had a survey by ????????????????????????? ????????????a licenced professional.

420 Collingwood Street

- The floor was not removed.

- staff has schedule a meeting with the DR requestor and project sponsor.

- wants to schedule a staff report to insure the Commission that what was decided in the DR is carried out.

D.???????? DIRECTOR'S REPORT

18.????? Director?s Announcements.

2860 Filbert Street

- ZA is consulting with the District Attorney

- will provide information on 2860 Filbert and 420 Collingwood on 8/17/00 under Director?s Report.

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

None

20.????? Status report on 1351 Grant Avenue

Following the status report, the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Badiner, recommended that this matter be calendared on the Commission's 9/7/2000 hearing agenda to consider revocation.

SPEAKER(S):

Wai Ching-Kwan, Chinese Community Development Center

- pleased with the ZA ' s report and they support his recommendation.

- look forward to the hearing of the conditional use.

E.???????? REGULAR CALENDAR?

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

21.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GITELMAN: 558-5977)

Update City List of Categorical Exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Citywide.? The proposal is to adopt an updated list of types of projects that are categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).? CEQA and the Guidelines for implementation require that local agencies adopt a list of types of projects that are exempt from environmental review.? Such a list must show activities at the local level that fall within each of the classes of exemptions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, and must be consistent with the letter and the intent of the Guidelines.? The Planning Commission adopted such list in 1981.? Since that time, CEQA and the Guidelines pertaining to categorical exemptions have been revised.? The City?s list currently proposed for adoption has been updated and amended to be consistent with changes in CEQA statutes and Guidelines.? Chapter 31 of the Administrative Code (Section 31.17) requires that modifications to such list be adopted as administrative regulations by resolution of the Planning Commission after a public hearing.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Updated List of Categorical Exemptions.

SPEAKER(S):

Don Andrini, Architectural Heritage Association

- Class 31 Historic Resource Restoration Rehabilitation exempts projects if they are constructed in a manner that is consistant with the Secretary of the Interior?s standard for the treatment of historic properties? with guidelines for preserving/rehabilitating and reconstructing historic buildings.

- In California the Office of Historic Preservation is charged with pre-construction and post-construction review.

Aaron Peskin - Telegraph Hill Dwellers Neighborhood Association

- Will give written comments to Environmental Officer next week

Sue Hestor

- Glad that this item is being continued for a week.

- it would be very helpful if, in addition to making important documents available early enough to obtain to review, they would be advertised in advanced.

- The department has not decided on what is the determination of dot.coms.

- The Department does not have General Plan evaluation.

Alice Barkley

- She supports adoption of the categorical exemptions.

- It is a very important exception being adopted by the Commission.

- There is no inconsistency.

- Adopt the list as circulated.

- This hearing was mentioned more than once in public

John Bardis

- The BOS legislation is considered the chapter 31 update that Sup. Kaufman submitted, which was then submitted to the department as a staff report.

- There is a horrendous oversite that a piece of legislature like this go unnoticed.

- The BOS will recognize this oversite and send the documents back to the Department.

ACTION:?? ??????? Continued to 8/17/00

AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills, Chinchilla, Joe, Salinas, Richardson

ABSENT:????????? Antenore

22.????? 1997.433E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (COOPER: 558-5974)

22-30 ALTA STREET, ???? Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project would be the construction of a new residential building at 22?30 Alta Street, north side, between Sansome and Montgomery Streets (Assessor?s Block 106, Lot 34A). The project site is located on a steeply sloped parcel adjacent to the Filbert Steps and Grace Marchant Garden. Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on December 22, 1998. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public Comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Environmental Impact Report

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? None

ACTION:?? ??????? Certified the Final EIR

AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla

ABSENT:????????? Antenore

MOTION NO.???? 15938

23.??????? 1998.497B?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LeBLANC: 558-6351)

215 FREMONT STREET, Southeast corner at Fremont and Howard Streets, Lot 12 in Assessor's Block 3738 -- Request for Project Authorization under Planning Code Sections 320-325 (Office Development Limitation Program) for 49,950 gross square feet of office space.? On November 4, 1999, the Planning Commission approved Case No. 1998.497X, per Section 309 of the Planning Code, to alter the existing 6-story, approximately 286,991 square-foot office building at 215 Fremont Street.? The approval of Case No. 1998.497X included the demolition of an existing 4-story penthouse structure, the conversion of 21,660 square feet of existing ground floor office space to retail space, and the construction of a new full seventh floor and a partial eighth floor, resulting in a net addition of 24,950 gross square feet of office space.? The current project proposes to construct an additional 25,000 gross square feet of office space on a new partial floor within the 7th floor of the building at 215 Fremont Street, therefore bringing the total net new office space to 49,950 square feet.? The project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office Special Development) District and within a 350-S and 200-SHeight and Bulk Districts.? Pursuant to Planning Code Section 313 the Department has determined that the project would result in the net addition of approximately 49,950 square feet of gross floor area office use, requiring compliance with the Office Affordable Housing Production Program.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(s):

Andrew Junius, Project Sponsor Representative

- requesting additional floor area

- The exterior changes are well underway

- The majority of the steel structure is now in place.

- The job is 50% complete.

- Because the floor height is larger than 20 feet, there is enough space to build an additional floor.

- Charles Schwab is the new owner of the building

Meredith Foundoff, Charles Schwab team

- They are very excited about this project.

- Every bit of space in this building is very important to them.

- They are a highly-developed technology company.

- This is a very positive opportunity for Schwab.

Sue Hestor

- She is glad that the height has dropped below the limit to 205 ft.

- The relations between DBI and the Planning Department are not very good.

- She would like the Commission to place restrictions when square footage is so close to the limit.

- It would be a good idea to start looking closely at this type of case.

ACTION: Approved as amended with the following condition:? In? 6 months, staff is to report on whether art space is accessible open space.

AYES:? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla

ABSENT: Antenore

MOTION NO.15939

24.??????? 2000.326C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)

988 HOWARD STREET, northeast corner of Howard Street and 6th Street, Lot 25 in Assessor?s Block 3725, -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 815.73 to install six antennas on the southwest corner of the building's roof approximately 38.66-feet above grade, in an RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use) District and an 85-X Height and Bulk District.? As part of the proposal, the antennas would be installed within a stealth chimney vent and a base transceiver station would be installed on the property.? The installation of the antennas and related equipment would be part of a wireless telecommunications network operated by Sprint PCS.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

Robert Crebs - Representing project sponsor - Sprint PCS

- The Conditional Use petition complies with both the WTS Sighting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.

- The current building is a mixed use building.

- On June 21, a community outreach meeting was held.? Nobody attended.

- The proposed equipment will be unintrusive.

- The proposed installation is necessary for communication of cellular equipment.

- A CU is permitted if the equipment is necessary and is compatible with the community.

- The design is compatible with the neighborhood.

ACTION??????????? Approved

AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla

ABSENT:????????? Antenore

MOTION NO.???? 15940

25.??????? 2000.580C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DAVIDSON: 558-6363)

620 CLEMENT STREET, north side between 7th and 8th Avenue; Lot? 021 in Assessor's Block 1426 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 186.1(b) and 186.1(e) of the Planning Code to allow the relocation and enlargement of a financial institution (National American Bank), which is considered a non-conforming use, from 100 Clement Street (Assessor's Block 1431, Lot 18) in the Inner Clement Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Dan Sullivan - Speaking on Behalf of National American National Bank

- Some neighborhoods want to have banks in their neighborhoods.

- In the old days, banks were considered a threat.

- This project is compatible with the neighborhood.? It will be a small bank.

- The bank will have a neighborhood-serving use.

- This proposal should be approved.

(-) Isai Gershwil

- As of this date, the neighborhood has not received information on how this proposed bank will impact them.

- Will the current space be used completely by the bank, or will there be an expansion done?

- The area of the proposed bank has the highest traffic (pedestrian and cars) in the Clement Street area.

(+) Ron Miguel

(-) George Jules

- What are the conditions of the approval?

- At the existing site, the bank is located in the center of the neighborhood?s commercial? area

- What happens if there is another bank which wants to be located there?

(+) Peter Chan

- Would like landlords to have the possibility to request additional banks to come into the neighborhood.

ACTION:?? ??????? Approved

AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla

ABSENT:????????? Antenore

MOTION NO.???? 15941

26.??????? 2000.565C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (DIBARTOLO: 558-6291)

430 COLUMBUS AVENUE, east side between Vallejo and Green Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 131: --Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Section 722.27 of the Planning Code to Extend the Hours of Use from 2:00 am to 6:00 am, to allow for a 24-hour operation, for the existing Full-Service Restaurant (Calzone's) in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 3, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Restaurant owner

(+) Marsha Garland

ACTION:?? ??????? Approved

AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla

ABSENT:????????? Antenore

MOTION NO.?? 15942

F.???? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 3:10? P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

27.??????? 2000.732D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KEYLON: 558-6613)

3445 GEARY BOULEVARD, southeast corner of Geary Boulevard and Stanyan Street, Lot 041 in Assessor?s Block 1085 -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 200006304172, proposing a retail store (BEVERAGES AND MORE) of approximately 5,998 square feet on the ground floor of a newly constructed four-story building within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: The Planning Department recommends that no Discretionary Review be taken and that the building permit application be approved as proposed.

SPEAKER(s):

(-) Ron Pierce - President of the Jordan Park Neighborhood Association

- He comes with no malice to Beverages and More

- He opposes this case primarily because of the parking and traffic impact in the neighborhood.

- Stanyan is one of many major corridors.

- This is a very hazardous and dangerous location.

- There is a loading dock which will cause traffic problems when delivery trucks are trying to back up into a small space.? The driver would have to be an excellent driver to back up in one shot.

- Parking within the neighborhood and the Lone Mountain neighborhood is very difficult.

- They would like to limit impact on the neighborhood.? It is a quiet neighborhood and they would like to keep it that way.

- Please look at the negative impact and suggestions from the neighborhood.

(-) Supervisor Yaki

- He is here to speak on behalf on the Discretionary Review requestor.

- Beverages and More is a good commercial neighbor, yet this type of store requires its customers to drive their cars.

- This store is not like a Blockbuster where one can walk and drop off their movies.? Purchases from Beverages and More could require a car to be driven to transport them.

- The Coronet Theater will be demolished and a large use will be constructed there.

- It is important that we consider constructing housing in major transit areas.

(-) David Heller - President of the Geary Boulevard Merchants Association

- Their concerns are about safety and traffic.

- Parking is a major problem in the Geary Street area.

- He sees a potential disaster happening if this project is approved.

- This will have a devastating affect on their neighborhood.

(-) William Goodson

- To get to the parking spaces that Beverages and More is providing, you have to drive down below street level through a passage way that is 14 feet wide.? An SUV is about 6 1/2 feet wide which means that anyone who has a car larger than a Geo, Saturn, or Toyota would have to park on the street.

- It is illogical for such a small space to be used for in/out cars.

(-) Bob Lee - President of the Francisco Heights Neighborhood Association

- Supervisor Yaki mentioned that we need to look into the future.

- UCFS is adding many residential units.

- My son was injured at this intersection.

(-) Michael Sullivan

- Has lived on Stanyan street for about 40 years.

- He works out of his home.

- Every day of the week he hears screeching brakes.

- He and his wife have a concern of the traffic safety at that intersection.

- Difficult to find parking in this area.

- This store will not be a store which would just attract people from the neighborhood.? It will bring people from various parts of the City.

(-) Ron Miguel - President of the Planning Association of the Richmond

- This is a situation where a building was not designed to effectively handle the commercial activity it will generate, nor the resulting parking issues

- Beverages is ill suited for this neighborhood.

- He has been a customer of Beverages and More but this site is not good for the neighborhood.

(-) Ron Konapouski

- Has lived in the Richmond for about 30 years.

- He echos everything that people have mentioned.

(-) Ralf Sisfek

- Lives on Anza Street

- He shares the concerns which have been expressed.? He knows the intersection very well.? It already is a strange intersection.

- The intersection is very narrow as well as subject to fast traffic.

Tailor Nagle

- 30 years resident of Jordan Park

- His mother lives on Jordan Avenue.

- His concerns are about traffic.

- This project is not appropriate and/or compatible to the neighborhood.

John Steuart

- Has lived in the Richmond for 12 years.

- He is most familiar with the Beverages and More in Oakland.

Rob Isimarkola - Represents the Richmond ? Neighborhood Association

- There are safety and parking issues.

(+) Andrew Junius - Reuben & Alter - Representing Beverages and More

- This project is a fully code-compliant use.

- We talked about the Trader Joe issue in greater detail in our report.

- Project designed so there will not be a traffic problem.

- This store is located in an NC-3 district.

(+) Tim Earny - Wilbir, Smith Associates

- They did count about 500 vehicles going to the Trader Joe store.

- A parking study was done and parking conditions were looked at

- The addition of about 20 -30 vehicles would not substantially worsen the actual traffic conditions.

- Field counts were not conducted at other Beverages and More locations.

(+) Ban Hudson - President and CEO of Beverages and More

- Why does Beverages and More want to open a store at this location?? They don't believe that the majority of the people are against their store.

- They are a neighborhood specialty store.? They assist the neighborhoods.? The neighborhood will appreciate the service they provide.

- Traffic and Parking is an issue in Northern California.? This area has been zoned for retail.? Their retail project fits within the guidelines and the structure of where they propose moving into.

(+) Sharon Mark

- Owns one of the building in the area which has 33 units.

- Please deny DR and approve store.

(+) Wilfred Wong

- He has been a resident of San Francisco for 49 years.

- He has owned a store at Ashbury and Market for many years.

- He has been watching this company for many years.

- This company is a high quality retail store.

(+) David Richards - Officer of Beverages an More

- There are 45,000 members just in San Francisco City and County.

- There are 14,367 members of the Bev Club.

- They have talked to their club members and they are asking for this store because it?s convenient.

(+) Mark Wasack

- 20 year resident of the area.

- He is an attorney and his firm has done work for Beverages and More

- He shops at Trader Joes, and he eats at the restaurants in the area along with his family.

- The products that Beverages and More provide are good quality.

- This would be a good addition to the neighborhood.

(+) Randy Kaplan

- He is a small business owner

- This would help the neighbors.

(+) Michelle Myers

- She is here to support the Beverages and More project.

- She drives to Blockbuster or to Mels Diner even though they are close to her house.

- If she needs to get some ice cream or some beer, she would go to the corner store.? She would go to Beverages and More to get the higher end specialty goods.

(+)? Hudson

- He is in favor of this project.

- If he wants to get more bulk items he would like to have a choice and go to Beverages and More.

- This is not a quiet area, its a commercial area.

(+) Matt Alexander

- He and his family are customers of many of the retail stores on Geary Boulevard

(+) Jessica Hessman

- She agrees with other speakers in support of BevMo.

- She believes that the benefits outweigh the costs.

(+) Steven McCleran - one of the founders of Beverages and More

- The company did an analysis and a comparison of the various Beverages and More.

- The design of the store at this site will fit the circumstances of the area.

- Since 1994, not one single independent liquor store has closed their doors because of Beverages and More, simply because BevMore are a different kind of store.

(+) Joe O'Donahue - Residential Builders

- It makes sense for Beverages and More to be located there.

ACTION:?? ??????? Take Discretionary Review and approve with conditions

AYES:???? ???????? Theoharis, Mills, Salinas, Richardson, Chinchilla

NAYES:??????????? Joe

ABSENT:????????? Antenore

Adjournment: 4:37 p.m.

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000.

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION

?Meeting Minutes

Special Joint Meeting

Board of Supervisors Chamber - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 17, 2000

?12:00 PM

PLANNING -??????? PRESENT:??????????????????? Theoharis, Antenore, Joe, Mills, Salinas

? ABSENT:??????????????? Chinchilla,

RECREATION &

?????? PARK:???????????? - PRESENT:???????????? Chin, Murray, Flunder, Friend, Getty, Segal

? ABSENT:??????????????? ? Martin

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 12:22? P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:? Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Hillary Gitelman, Pedro Arce,? Patricia Gerber - Transcription Secretary, Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

A.???????????? PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Joint Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of these Commissions except agenda items.? With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address these Commissions 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.

(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):???????? None

SPECIAL CALENDAR

1.?????? 98.090E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KUGLER: 558-5983)

_????????????????????? Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? (name unclear)

-the project is an economic liability; complete renovation is not a good idea; totally unnecessary; we don?t need another hotel

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:?????????????? Theoharis,? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Jr.

ABSENT:????????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.??? 15943

NOTE:? - Items 2 through 9 were called and heard together

- Under their authority, the Recreation and Park Commission took seperate and independant action from the Planning Commission on items 2 and 3.

2.???????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s): ?? David Jones, Rep. of Project Sponsor

- ????????? Gave an overall description of the project.

- ????????? Gave a summarized description of the project?s design.????????????????

- Debra Learner, Sr. Planner, Recreation and Park Dept.

- ????????? Gave an overview of shadow impacts

(+) Paul Moss

- ????????? concerned about loading truck monitoring deliveries

(+) Patrice Johnston

- ????????? Supports the project?

(+) Anita Hill, Yerba Buena Alliance

- ????????? Supports the project?

(+) Miles Stevens

- ????????? Project will be a great source of employment for the people of San Francisco; supports the overall project

(+) Carolyn Diamond

????? - ??? This project would serve as a destination to Market Street for new generations

(+) Bernadet Sea, Filipino Cultural Center

?????????????????????? -??????????? Good asset to neighborhood

(+) Naomi Ryan - Toolworks

- ????????? Supports the project?

(+) Nathan Naman - Executive Director for the Committee on Jobs

- ????????? Vast potential to the people of San Francisco

- ????????? Assurance of 4,000 jobs to the City

(+) Jim Chappel, SPUR

- ????????? One of the first projects SPUR was involved in the 1960s was called AWhat to do about Market Street@.

- ????????? Lower Market Street has been successfully rebuilt, yet the mid-Market area has been resisting this renovation, especially the Emporium area.

- ????????? This site must be redeveloped as soon as possible.

-?????????? Patronage in the 5th and Market garage is going down since ATransit First@ is working effectively.? People are definitely taking transit to all the shops and restaurants in the area.

-?????????? He would like Commissioners to expedite this process as quickly as possible.

(+) Don Marcus, Executive Director, Mission Hiring Hall

-?????????? Will help the low income people of the City??????????

(+) (name unclear)

-?????????? Shadow issue is very minimal; this project will benefit people both north and south of Market.

(+) Ernestine Weiss

- ????????? It would be a wonderful thing for Market and Mission Streets.

(-) Charles Chase, Executive Director, San Francisco Heritage

- ????????? Concerned about the decision making process that will have far reaching? implications on the future of San Francisco as it relates to this project--particularly, historic resources.

(-) Mike Ryser, San Francisco Beautiful

-?????????? Concerned about maintaining the quality of our urban environment

(-) Jim Furth, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 101

- ????????? not in supports of the project?

(-) Rick Hetches, ?United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 101

-?????????? employees shouldn?t be discriminated

(-) Mary Ann Miller, San Francisco Tomorrow

?? ???????? -?????????? Planning Code bulk, and height limits

????????????????? - ??? EIR should be used to negotiate and get a better proposal, keeping all the good uses and promote good thoughtful renovation of the Emporium building.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? -????? Should be more discussion about open space

(-) Gary Jacobson

???? -????? Shadow impact is very significant

?????????????????????????????????????????? -?????? Social impact of the project, dividing the community

???? -????? Project does not impact the South of Market Street community

???? -? ??? MOU between the Private Developer and North Market Coalition, this MOU should become a part of the conditions of approval

(-) Winchell Hayward, California Heritage Council

????? - ??? The use of tax payer money to subsidize against competition with private enterprise is a bad precedent.

????? -????? This is a very beautiful historical site??????

(+) Joyce Robertson

????? -???? Project very valuable for the City of San Francisco ?

(+) Elizabeth Sullivan, Executive Director, Car Share

???? ?????????????????? ??????-???? Would make a great a contribution to San Francisco?s livability.????

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Salinas, J r.

ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.?? 15944

3.???????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

FINDINGS OF INSIGNIFICANCE FOR NEW SHADOW ON BOEDDEKER PARK.? Consideration of Findings of no significant impact on Boeddeker Park from new shadow within the revised cumulative limit of 0.007% that would be cast on the park by the proposed Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? (same as shown for item #2)

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.??? 15945

4.???????? 98.090R??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

Consideration also of a proposal to adopt amendments to Map 1H of the Zoning Map to facilitate the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project.? The current building height and bulk designations for the Project site are 120‑X and 160‑S (north of Jessie Street) and 160‑F (south of Jessie Street) and would be reclassified to designate the project site as 135‑X, 200‑X and 400‑X Height and Bulk Districts.? The Planning Commission initiated this amendment by Resolution No. 14921 on November 4, 1999.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? (same as shown for item #2)

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.??? 15946

5.???????? 98.090R??????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

6.???????? 98.090R??????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? (same as shown for item #2)

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.???? 15948

7.???????? 98.090B??????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

PLANNING CODE SECTIONS 320‑325 (OFFICE DEVELOPMENT LIMITATION PROGRAM) PROJECT AUTHORIZATION.? Request under Planning Code Sections 320‑325 (Office Development Limitation Program) for 49,100 gross square feet of floor area of office space.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? (same as shown for item #2)

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.???? 15949

8.???????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

DELEGATION AGREEMENT CONTROLS.? Consideration of approval of a Delegation Agreement by and between the City and County of San Francisco, acting through its Planning Commission, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, to administer certain development controls under the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? (same as shown for item #2)

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.???? 15950

9.???????? (ARCE: 558-6332)

SCHEMATIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS.? Pursuant to the Delegation Agreement, consider the Schematic Design Documents for the Yerba Buena Redevelopment Project Area Expansion/Emporium Site Development Project for consistency with certain development controls in the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Yerba Buena Center Approved Redevelopment Project Area D-1.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(s):??? (same as shown for item #2)

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:??? ?????????? Theoharis, Mills, Antenore, Joe, Salinas

ABSENT: ???????? Chinchilla

MOTION No.???? 15951

Adjournment:____

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2000.

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

?Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 24, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT:??????????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Martin, Chinchilla

ABSENT:????????????????????? Theoharis

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT MILLS AT 1:33 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Eddy Zwierzycki; Paul Maltzer; Bill Wycko; Irene Nishimura; Cecilia Jaroslawsky; Joy Navarrete; Joan Kugler; Mary Woods; Craig Nikitas; Michael Smith; Sharon Young; Matt Snyder;? Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

A.???????? ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

1.???????? 98.953C ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

557-4TH STREET, entire block bounded by 4th, Welsh, Zoe and Freelon Streets (except for the existing building at the corner of Zoe and Freelon Streets which is Lot 62 in Assessor's Block 3776),? Lot 119 in Assessor's Block 3776 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow: the construction of a Public Automobile Parking Garage (as defined by Planning Code Section 890.12) per Planning Code Section 816.30, and to allow parking in excess of accessory amounts per Planning Code Section 204.5.? The site is within the SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Industrial Protection Zone's Mixed Use Housing Buffer and the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District.

Preliminary recommendation:? Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to September 7, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to September 7, 2000

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

2.???????? 98.953D ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

557-4TH STREET, entire block bounded by 4th, Welsh, Zoe and Freelon Streets (except for the existing building at the corner of Zoe and Freelon Streets which is Lot 62 in Assessor's Block 3776),? Lot 119 in Assessor's Block 3776-- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 9825943 through 9825955, submitted 12/19/98, for development of 11 four-story live/work buildings with 172 live/work units (about 194,200 gross square feet), in conjunction with the construction of four to six commercial/retail spaces and? an approximately 244,000 gross square foot, three-level underground parking garage with 480 spaces.? The site is within the SLI (Service Light/Industrial) Zoning District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, the Industrial Protection Zone's Mixed Use Housing Buffer and the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Take DR, approval of project with conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 7, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION: Continued to September 7, 2000

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

3.???????? 2000.496D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MEHRA: 558-6257)

419 - 35TH AVENUE, Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 20000127454, Case No. 2000.496D, for the property at 419 - 35th Avenue, Lot 4 in Assessor's Block 1467, proposing to construct a 19 foot deep, two story addition at the rear of the existing single-family dwelling and to add a one car garage adjacent to the existing one car garage at the front of the property.? This property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Building Permit Application as submitted.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 7, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to September 7, 2000

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

4.???????? 2000.035C?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS: 558-6306)

1101-1123 FILLMORE STREET, northwest corner of Fillmore Street? and Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 052, in Assessor's Block 0755 --? Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 712.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of nine antennas and a base transceiver station on an existing 31-unit apartment building as part of Sprint?s wireless telecommunications network in an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.? The subject site is within the Western Addition A-2 Redevelopment Area.

???? ?????????????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to October 5, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):??????????? None

ACTION:??????? Continued to October 5, 2000

AYES:?????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:?????? Theoharis

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))

Kay Lamming

Re: 268 Chennery Street

- She was the Discretionary Review requestor on this case on May 27, 1999.? This case was the focus of much opposition.

- The Commission voted to accept the recommendations from staff.

- She appealed the matter and the decision is pending.

- The reason she is bringing this matter to the Commission is because the plans for this project on file at the Planning Department do not reflect the decision of the Commission.

- She would like to know what the true plans are and that an investigation be done.

Judy Langley - Webster Street Historic District

Re:? Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute

- She lives near the California Pacific Medical Center

- Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute is one of the affiliates of the Center.

- This institute now owns 6 Victorian houses in the area which they have turned into offices; despite the fact that at least 4 of the houses are zoned for residential only.? Many of these houses are becoming deteriorated.

- She would like the Commission to preserve these Victorian houses and keep them for residential use only.

Beverly McCallister - Friends of the Webster Street Historic District

Re: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute

??????????? - The Webster Street Historic District will be very much affected if this Institute is granted a conditional use permit.

- These San Francisco Victorian homes should be preserved as residences.

Nelson Wild - Friends of the Webster Street Historic District

RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????

- This institute knows that they are violating the law.

- They should be stopped.

Heidi Engelbrechten - Friends of the Webster Street Historic District

Re: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute

- She doesn?t believe that offices belong in the Webster Street Historic District.

- She wants the Institute to restore these Victorian houses and have people living in there and not working.

Donald Langley - Friends of the Webster Street Historic District

Re: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute

- He would like the Commission to enforce the zoning ordinance and return the Victorian houses to residential use.

- Dr. Alan Scott, the head of Smith-Kettlewell, mentioned that his organization had been in the area for many years.? Yet, having been around for many years like Smith-Kettlewell does not give it the right to change the look of the neighborhood.

- He would like to support planning staff and support the zoning ordinance.

Matt Rowe - Haight Ashbury Youth Outreach

RE: 2500 Market Street

- He works with the Haight Ashbury Youth Outreach Team.

- He supports the transitional housing at 2500 Market Street.

- Transitional housing projects are very important to the city because they provide shelter for the homeless.

- Agencies that work with homeless are happy to work with transitional houses.

Bill Eddleman - Webster Street Historic District

RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????

- Smith-Kettlewell has been converting the neighborhood to a medical center.

- These buildings which have been illegally used should be returned to housing use.

Paul Horcher - Director of Solid Waste Management Company

RE: Sanitary Fill Company????????

- He has to divert trash by 50% this year.

- If they fail to meet their goal they will be charged $10,000 per day.

John Bardis

RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????

- The neighborhood, at that time, supported the building of the California Pacific Medical Center.

- This institution is violating planning laws and their master plan.? The Commission has to take some action regarding what people have asked for with California Pacific Medical Center.

- Urges the Commission to get some word to the Board and to the Building Inspection Department regarding the enforcement of the Institutional Master Plan ordinance and zoning laws.

Ralph Oroquita

Re:? Sanitary Waste Management Company

- This project has been going on for the past 10 years.? There is no emergency.

- A 2-week continuance shouldn?t hurt the company in any way.

Patricia Vaughey

RE: Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute??????

- There is a vacant hospital at Mt. Zion.

- Is there any way that Smith-Kettlewell can move in there instead of moving into houses?

C.???????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5.??????? Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 7/27/00.

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES: Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

6???????? Commission Matters

Commissioner Mills:????? Would like a status report on the Webster Street Historic District/Smith-Kettlewell case.

Commissioner Antenore:?????????? Would like a status report on 268 Chennery Street.

D.???????? DIRECTOR?S REPORT

7.??????? Director?s Announcements.

None

8.??????? Review of Past Week?s Events at the Board of Supervisors & Board of Appeals.

Re: 2836-2838 Washington Street (Discretionary Review)? - The Planning Commission decision was upheld.

Re:? 450 Rhode Island - There were issues raised about the appropriateness of the development but the Commission?s decision was upheld.

9.??????? 2868 Filbert Street, Status report

- This item came up during Public Comment at an earlier hearing.? The ZA reviewed the documentation and found there is discrepancy between City records.? He has determined that a survey by a licensed architect at the expense of the project sponsor is required in order to determine what the code provisions are in order to implement the Planning Code.

10.????? 420 Collingwood Street, Status report

- The owner has come to an agreement with what the Commission has requested.

- The problems have been resolved.

11.????? Staff report on Business Service Definition - Its impacts on contributions to affordable housing, transportation and child care.

- Staff has been receiving a number of requests over the last year on determinations for business service.? Staff has been implementing projects on a case-by-case basis--requiring a description of the actual tenant in order to determine if multimedia is a tenant.

- They have received 35 cases since January 1, 1999.? A number of these have been duplicated.

- Since April of this year, any building over 2,500 square feet would be subject to these requirements.

- He (the ZA) believes that we are not loosing fees.? The proposed fees also apply to hotels and entertainment.? The Commission has not approved any hotels or entertainment projects.

12.????? Staff report on Congestion Management in SOMA.

Andy Nash - Acting Director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority

- Has designed a program to provide information for use in prioritizing transportation investment decisions and to identify new ways of solving transportation problems.

- Extensive Public Input Process - Started 2 years ago

- Public Input Program:? 1) improve transit reliability;? 2) reduce transportation impacts on neighborhoods;? 3) make it easier to get around by all modes.

- Transportation Model Results

- San Francisco Transportation Policy: 1) General Plan; 2) Charter

- Public Input

- Technical Committee

- City and Regional Agency Input: 1) MUNI Strategic Plan and CIP; 2) DPT and DPW Capital Improvement Plans; 3) BART Strategic Plan and CIP

- Federal, State and Local Funding: 1) 30 year estimate based on past success; 2) assumed extension of existing? 2 cent transportation sales tax.

- Approximately $5.4 billion available.

- Categorize Projects into Components: 1) Maintain and Sustain; 2) San Francisco Enhancements; 3) San Francisco and Regional Expansion; 4) Market-Based and Innovative.

- Problems found: Too little money and too many projects.? The only funds available are $5.4 million.

- Recommendations: 1) CTP Investment Plan; 2) Planning and Funding Recommendations Designed to Address Funding Shortfall

- Prepare a ABetter Neighborhoods 2002" plan for SOMA.

- Consider ways of anticipating new neighborhoods.

- Support Transit Priority Corridor Implementation

Patricia Vaughey

Re:? 2860 Filbert Street

- The deeds of trust between 4 of the neighbors don?t add up.

- In 1946 some of these lots were merged.

- She recommends that the survey be based on the 1922-1946 mergers.

John Bardis

RE: Congestion Management

- The report on transportation was very informative.? Yet it would be wonderful to hear a similar presentation for a housing plan.

E.???????? REGULAR CALENDAR?

13a.??? 2000.725C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KEYLON: 558-6613)

?????????????????????? 2500 MARKET STREET, north side between Diamond and Castro Streets, thru lot from Market Street to 17th Street, Lot 1 in Assessor?s Block 2648‑ Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.2(a) to use the existing structure as transitional housing for up to 15 homeless youths within an RH‑3 (Residential, House, Three‑Family) District and 40‑X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for an off‑street parking variance under Planning Code Section 151 and usable open space variance under Planning Code Section 135.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 7, 2000

AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis

13b.??? 2000.725V??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KEYLON: 558-6613)

?????????????????????? 2500 MARKET STREET, north side between Diamond and Castro Streets, thru lot from Market Street to 17th Street; Lot 1 in Assessor?s Block 2648 in an RH‑3 (Residential House, Three‑Family) District and 40‑X Height and Bulk District. OFF‑STREET PARKING AND USABLE OPEN SPACE VARIANCES SOUGHT: The proposal is to establish transitional housing for up to 15 homeless youths in the currently vacant two‑story, former City Athletic Club building, without providing any required off‑street parking or usable open space.?

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Without hearing, continued to September 7, 2000

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

14a.??? 2000.363CV?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)

471 AND 479 CASTRO STREET, eastern side between 17th and 18th Streets, Lots 59 and 60 in Assessor?s Block 3582? -- Request for Conditional Use authorization to exceed the permitted lot and use sizes of 4,999 and? 2,499 gross square feet, respectively, under Planning Code Sections 715.11 and 715.21, by? merging two lots; creating interior? connections between the retail stores on these lots; and constructing additional floor area in the Castro Street Neighborhood-Commercial District and 65-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Lion Barnet - President of Eureka Valley Promotion Association

- Would like the Commission to approve the project with the conditions imposed by staff.

- He also supports the parking variance.

(+) Ernie Asten - Owner of the property

- If the Commission has any questions, he will be available.

- The proposed alterations will allow him to compete with other businesses.

(+) Joe Curtin - President of Castro Area Planning and Action

- The amendments to the plan will become effective shortly.

- He supports the owner?s application of a variance and conditional use permit.

- The restaurant is in a very important location in the Castro Street.

(+) Patrick Batt - President of the Merchants of Market and Castro

- Ernie came to their community meetings and exposed the project to the neighborhood.? There was no opposition.

(+) Gary Virginia

- The owners of Cliffs are prime examples of how small business merchants could operate with community planning

- Cliffs donates consistently.

- He supports the Conditional Use and Variance request.

ACTION:?????????? Approved

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

MOTION NO.???? 15958

14b.????? 2000.363CV????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ZWIERZYCKI: 558-6263)

471 AND 479 CASTRO STREET, eastern side between 17th and 18th Streets, Lots 59 and 60 in Assessor's Block 3582 -- The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for an off-street parking and loading variance from the five off-street parking and one off-street loading spaces required when connecting the retail uses at the referenced addresses and constructing additional floor area at the rear of, and on top of 471 Castro Street.? The project is in the Castro Street Neighborhood-Commercial Zoning District and 65-B Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKER(S):?? Public Hearing Closed by ZA

ACTION:?????????? The matter has been taken under advisement

15.??????? 1999.151E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MALTZER: 558-6391)

SANITARY FILL COMPANY SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT REVISION;? 501 TUNNEL AVENUE; Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration.? Assessor's Block 4991/Lots 7, 8, 9 and 82 in San Francisco County; and Assessor's Block 152/Lots 030, 340 and 220 (partial) in San Mateo County. The Sanitary Fill Company seeks to revise its Solid Waste Facility Permit to allow for: (1) the removal of scheduling restrictions on refuse fleet hauling; (2) an increase in permitted vehicle trips per day; (3) approval to stage and handle source-separated organic waste as a separate waste stream; (4) approval to enclose the construction and demolition debris sort line and increase the hours of sort line operation; and (5) removal of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility from the Solid Waste Facility Permit.? Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Schwartz - representing Norcal Waste Systems and its subsidiary Sanitary Fill Company.

- This case is a very limited matter.? The City is under an obligation to reach a 50% diversion of its refuse in order to stop using landfill and start recycling more.

- This facility would expand the amount of green waste that comes out of the refuse.? It?s not an increase in the garbage.? It?s just to be able to pull it out and stream it so it?s separate and? recycled in a compost facility offsite.? It will also enclose the sort line that is used for construction and debris.? This would take the workers out of the elements and will benefits the neighbors since it will reduce dust, noise and glare.

- This facility operates 24 hours already and will add 12 employees during off hours.

(-) Ralf Oroquita

- His community is now 50% Asian.? He has not seen any publications in Chinese to inform these residents.

- There are many garbage and recycling facilities in their neighborhood.

- This project requires an EIR and a real plan should be carried out to inform the neighbors.

- The project is too big.? Many homes and yards can be built in this location.

- The Commission can help by postponing this development in order to have more discussions.

(+/-) Don Bertone - President of the Little Hollywood Neighborhood Association and the Chair of the Planning Commission?s? Local Health Risk Assessment Committee

- The Local Health Risk Committee is now dormant, but before, it used to study the systems plan and the household hazardous waste component.

- They had always sought to deal with this expansion.

- They had hoped to get more consideration by the Commission through an EIR.

- They have never been in any dialog or meeting regarding this plan.

- Considering that after many years, they had sought to participate in meetings with organizations, just this morning they came up with a plan.

- They had also requested a continuation.

(-) Rob Gibson - Member of the Little Hollywood Neighborhood Association

- He would like to get some support to protest this project.

- He and his neighbors have been dealing with this situation for 25 years.

ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES:??????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:??????????? Theoharis

MOTION No.?????? 15959

16.??????? 2000.257E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WYCKO: 558-5972)

200 TOWNSEND STREET, Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - Proposed demolition of existing one-and-two story buildings with about 8,000 gross square feet occupied by clothing outlets, a liquor store, and a vacant bar/restaurant plus a surface parking lot.? New construction of a 97,400 gross square feet, 65 feet high structure with 51 live/work units, 1,400 gross square of retail space, about 10,900 gross square feet of office/business services, and 63 off -street parking spaces.? The project site is situated at the northwest corner of Third and Townsend Streets in Assessor?s Block 3787 and includes Lots 9, 10, 11, and 46. The proposed uses are permitted uses in the applicable Service/Light Industrial (SLI) and proposed South End Service (SES) Districts.? Live/work is a permitted use under the interim Mixed Use Housing Zone (MUHZ) also in effect.? The proposed five-story, 65 feet high structure would also conform to the 65-X height and bulk zoning for the project site.? A lot merger is being sought.? Parking, loading, and all other Planning Code requirements would be satisfied.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 3, 2000)

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Preliminary Negative Declaration

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Charles Miller - Bartko, Zankelete and Miller

- The report acknowledges that there are serious traffic problems in the area.

- An EIR is required when there are problems recognized in the report.

- The report also acknowledges moderate damage after a 7.1 earthquake.

- This building will become one of the tallest buildings in this low-density area -- one more reason to prepare an EIR.

(-) Alan Teague

- He has 4 major concerns: 1) traffic; 2) parking;? 3) 3rd street station building;? 4) height of the building.

- He would like the Commission to not uphold the negative declaration and require an EIR.

(+) Alice Barkley

- None of the speakers who are asking the Commission for an appeal have provided any evidence that this project will create problems.

- A transportation study was prepared and all the intersections were studied.

- The implementation of using public transportation was carried out since after a game, she noticed that there were more people walking towards public transportation than to their vehicles.

- This neighborhood is rapidly changing.? Yes, the building next door is a little bit smaller.

- Would like the Commission to deny this appeal based on that?

ACTION:?????????? Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

MOTION NO.???? 15960

17.??????? 1999.579E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NISHIMURA: 558‑5967)

301 FIRST STREET, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‑ Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) The proposed project is removal of a 200+‑space parking lot, and new construction of a two‑tower residential building consisting of 332 dwelling units, 410 residential parking spaces, and 5,100 square feet of retail space on an approximately 38,000‑square‑foot site on the southeast corner of Folsom Street, Lot 32 in Assessor?s Block 3748; within an RC‑4 (Residential‑Commercial, Combined, High‑Density) District, Residential Subdistrict of the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and 200‑R and 250‑R Height and Bulk Districts.? One tower, on the north portion of the building, would be 21 stories with a height of 200 feet and the other tower would be 26 stories at a height of 250 feet on the south side of the building.? Parking would be provided within two to four levels below ground on the sloping site with entrance/exit on First Street and a garage exit on Grote Place off of Folsom Street, where access also would be provided for one off‑street truck loading space.

Preliminary Recommendation:?? No Action Required.

Note:? Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department office, 1660 Mission St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94103, until the close of business on August 29, 2000.???????????

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Public hearing only.? No Action Required

18.??????? 2000.286E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY: 558-5970)

925 BRYANT STREET ‑ Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. ?The project site is located on Block 3780, Lot 077, within the western portion of the block, contains approximately 20,000 square feet and is within an IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone), a SLI (Service/Light Industrial) District and a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.? The site contains 75 feet of frontage along Bryant Street to the west and 265 feet of? frontage along Langton Street to the north.? The proposal includes the conversion of approximately 13,000 square feet of an existing office/retail/warehouse structure into retail/business service use and the addition of approximately 26,000 square feet of new floor area.? The footprint of the structure would remain the same.? The addition of two floors would result in a total of three stories.? The resulting building would be approximately 40 feet in height, contain approximately 39,000 square feet and would contain 37 on‑site parking spaces accessed from Langton Street.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

Jared Eigerman - Reuben & Alter - Representing Project Sponsor

- Would like the Commission to reject the appeal and uphold the negative declaration.

- Staff has responded thoroughly to the material submitted by the appellant.

- This project is not a major one.? It would maintain an existing retail use and add some business services use.

- The initial study found no physical effects on the environment to require an EIR.

- The appellant?s material doesn?t offer any substantial evidence to dispute this.

- The architect of the project is here to answer any questions.

ACTION:?????????? Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Joe

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

MOTION NO.???? 15961

19.??????? 1999.455E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NAVARRETE: 558-5975)

NEW DeYOUNG MUSEUM-- Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report.? The proposed project would demolish and reconstruct the M.H. DeYoung Museum on the site of the existing DeYOUNG Museum in Golden Gate Park.? The project would include demolition of eight existing buildings, totaling approximately 230,000 square feet, which compose the DeYOUNG Museum and the Asian Art Museum.? (The Asian Art Museum will move to the Civic Center.)? The new building would include two main levels above grade, one level below grade with a varying roof height ranging from 33 to 48 feet, and a 160‑foot tower at the northeast corner of the project site.? The building would increase current DeYoung Museum gallery and exhibition space at the site from the existing 37,000 sf to total about 75,000 sf.? The project would remove the 85 existing paved parking spaces for museum staff, currently on the eastern side of the museum, and would not provide replacement parking.? The project site is within the P (Public Use) zoning district and within an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District; Assessor?s Block 1700, Lot 1, bounded to the north and east by John F. Kennedy Drive, to the south by Tea Garden Drive and to the west by the Hagiwara Japanese Tea Garden.? Note:? Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m., on August 29, 2000.

Preliminary Recommendation:? No Action Required

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Danny Leone - North Beach Chamber of Commerce

- He supports the new design of the museum.? The new design will offer more exhibit space,? more parking space, and a view which it didn?t have before.

(-) Joseph Fusco - Chairman of a new organization called People for a New De Young Museum.

- There are a number of people from the Sunset District who were not notified and did not receive the Draft EIR.

- His organization does not take a stand on the design of the new building, their comments involve context.

- He would like to request a continuance.

- The report does not reflect the impact on the environment.? It is full of weak assumptions, mistaken conclusions, lack of neutrality, and disingenuous use of wording and graphics.

- An EIR is supposed to be an objective assessment of the project?s impact.? It reads like it was prepared by, rather than for, the Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco.

- Fine Arts of San Francisco is just trying to build a high rise.

(+) Margarete P. Archer

- There is one significant change.? The square footage will increase.? Some people don?t like the shape of the tower and the fact that it will move.? The tower moves around very quietly.? The shade will change and it will be very beneficial to the park.?

- In regards to the parking, she believes that a garage is needed.? Some people don?t believe there is a need for parking, other people don?t believe anything should be built at all.

- The fact that the tower will move around will be fascinating to children who come to the museum.

- There are a lot of parking problems in the City.? On weekends people park on Lincoln Way and some park in the park.

- She has been devoted to the museum for a long time and believes that the museum is very valuable.

(+) Jim Killoran - Asian Art Museum

- The project will be complete in July of 2002 and will open in the Fall of 2002.

- The schedules for the Asian and deYoung will overlap.? His organization is working closely with staff of both museums regarding occupancy of space for the art pieces.

- The construction process will adequately abate or mitigate affects on the Asian Art Museum in regards to noise, dirt, vibration, etc. He would like the EIR to reflect these situations and state that measures are being taken to deal with these situations.

(+) Toby Levine

- She read the EIR and believes that this is a very simple one.

- There are no negative impacts from this project.

- She hopes that this project will become a beautiful vehicle for art and for people to come and view this art.

- Would like to have Commission certify this EIR.

(+) Sally Ann Ryan - Art Supervisor of the San Francisco Unified School District

- She supports this project and is exited about the moving tower which will please children.

- The Board of Education unanimously passed a resolution to support children to find ways to provide funds for construction.

- San Francisco is known for many things, now we have a symbol of the love of the arts but also the moving tower so they can see the area that the museum encompasses.

(+/-) Ron Miguel - Member of Planning Association for the Richmond

- The present building is no longer adequate and is not a historical building.

- He doesn?t have great disputes with the EIR.? It is a very simple report.

- He hopes that when the EIR for the Concourse is done, it? will be similar to the one for the deYoung Museum.

(+) Jim Chappell - President of SPUR

- He has reviewed the EIR and believes that the report is quite accurate.

- There is no question that the existing building must be demolished and replaced.

- The EIR considers visual quality and shadow issues.? It is properly conservative in it?s analysis of traffic issues and is adequate for the park.

(+/-) Pinky Cushner - Alliance for Golden Gate Park

- Would like to have case continued since she just received the EIR this morning.

- She is very experienced in commenting on EIRs.

- She has various comments regarding issues she would like to have dealt with in the EIR and she will submit her comments before the deadline.

(+) John Lumis - ?California College of Arts and Crafts

- He is convinced that the majority of the architects in the city will agree with the new design of the museum.

- This museum will be friendly to all ages.

(+) Chooi Eng Grosso - SHARP

- Many people voted to tax themselves to rebuild the museum in Golden Gate Park.

- When she read the EIR, she had no problems with it.

(-) Roger Brandon

- The voters of the City rejected building a new structure twice.

- The design of the building is not appropriate.

- This building is a disaster in the making.

(-) Philip Carlton - Alliance for Golden Gate Park

- He would like the Commission to reject the EIR.

- The tower will be an observation tower which therefore will be a land use change since there has never been an Aobservation@ deck before.? Someone will get hurt at this observation deck.

- There are a number of observation areas throughout San Francisco.? There is no need for another one.

- The EIR states that there will be an additional 300,000 visitors.? This number is very low.

- He would like a description of the land deeded by the BOS, Rec and Park Commission, Planning Commission and the Charter to the Museum.? What is the process for them if they go beyond to acquire this other land.

ACTION:?????????? Public hearing only.? No Action Required

20.??????? 95.385E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KUGLER: 558-5983)

444 DIVISADERO STREET, TOUCHLESS CAR WASH ?Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration on Assessor?s Block 1216 - Lots 5, 17, 18, 19, located on the northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets in the Western Addition.? The proposed project would demolish two existing buildings at 1060-1062 and 1052 Oak Street and construct a new two-story mixed-use building with two dwelling units on the second floor and an auto detailing services and a parking space on the ground floor.? There would be one level of underground parking with 13 spaces accessed by a commercial automobile elevator.? The underground parking would be covered by landscaping.? An additional two story structure would be constructed to serve as an employee lounge and storage area.? Two shed roofed open sided structures would be constructed to connect the existing car wash structure and the two proposed structures.? Minor modifications in the form of the addition of a covered waiting area and the enclosure of an existing laundry facilities wold be done to the existing car wash building.? The car wash vehicular circulation and queuing area would be expanded and reconfigured.? The proposed site is split between two zones; lots 5, 17, 18 and the portion of lot 19 that fronts on Oak Street are zoned NC-2 while the interior remainder of lot 19 is zoned RH-3.? A rezoning of the interior portion of lot 19 from RH-3 to NC-2 is proposed as a part of the project.? The project also has two Height/Bulk Districts 65-A and 40-X.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):??

(-) Cynthia Marcucci

- This matter has a long history and has sparked a number of concerns with the neighbors.

- She would like to have this matter continued because she would like to request that it be heard before a full Commission.

(-) Richard Kay

- He is here representing neighbors who have concerns about environmental hazards.

- He would like this project to have a more detailed traffic and noise study done.

- The car wash noise will be too loud.

- The neighbors have concerns about the oil which will be run onto the sidewalk.

(-) Michael Smithrick - Alamo Square Neighborhood Association

- There has been no explanation, no calculation or analysis that explains how Touchless Car Wash--with proposed renovation and expansion--will not create environmental and traffic problems.

- Over 90% of the wash time is done before going into the wash tunnel.? The traffic jams will be created even before cars go into the wash tunnel. This is in addition to the separate auto detailing area proposed.

(-) Patricia Vaughey

- The negative declaration is breaking the law.? It does not follow CEQA.?? It does not address the rezoning of more property for this site and for the potential use of said property.? Under CEQA this issue needs to be addressed.

(+) Harry O?Brien - Coblins, Patch, Duffy and Bass - Representing Project Sponsor

- There is fundamental confusion in the negative declaration appeals and in the comments today regarding the environmental impacts of the carwash vs. the environmental impacts of the project.

- This project has been designed to express concerns about noise and chemical sprays used at the car wash.

- The capacity of the wash tunnel is unchanged.

- A sound consultant report was issued and passed to the Commissioners.

(-) Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders

- He didn?t read the EIR yet he lives in the neighborhood.

- Is it wise to increase the capacity of what is already an environmental traffic disaster area?

- Pedestrians and/or handicapped persons cannot walk on the sidewalk that front the carwash.

- This neighborhood is completely in opposition to this project.?

- The Mayors office does not realize the significance of the opposition.

(-) Agar Chakes

- He has driven down Oak Street.? A whole lane of traffic is used for people trying to get into the car wash.

- The quality of life of the people that live around that neighborhood is getting damaged.? This is not what the City or this Commission are about.

(-) Jeff Williams - President of the 425-427 Homeowner?s Association on Scott Street

- He is the other appellant.

- The Touchless car wash has been continually breaking all environmental laws, ignoring the neighborhood and their employees.

- The car wash is also in violation on the hours of operation.

(-) Tom Coniff - Lives in the neighborhood

- He agrees with the previous speakers.

- There are 3 gas stations surrounding the area of the proposed car wash.? Those alone create a number of traffic problems.? This is already excessive for a neighborhood.

- This is creating a larger problem to an already dangerous situation.

(-) Michel? Lipman - Lives on Scott Street

- He is concerned about the goodwill of the company since they have made promises they have not kept.

- He has tried to speak to the owners of the touchless car wash and has tried to work out issues and problems but nothing has been done.

ACTION:?????????? Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES:????????????? Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

NAYES:??????????? Antenore

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

MOTION NO.???? 15962

NOTE: Items 21 and 22 were called and heard together.

21.??????? 2000.291CZ ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS: 558-6315)

1062 OAK STREET, north side, between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 19 in Assessor?s Block 1216 - Request to amend the Planning Code Zoning Map to? reclassify a portion of Lot 19 from an RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family) Zoning District to an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning District.?? Currently, the northern portion of Lot 19 (trapezoidal-shaped of approximately 113 feet wide by 82 feet deep) is zoned RH-3 and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District; the southern portion of Lot 19 (a narrow strip of approximately 25 feet wide by 90 feet deep) is zoned NC-2 and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.? The proposal is to reclassify the RH-3 portion of Lot 19 to NC-2 to allow? the expansion of an existing car wash (Touchless Car Wash).? The Height and Bulk District of the reclassified portion of Lot 19 would remain 40-X.??

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the Draft Resolution for Reclassification.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Art Davis - Represents Canadian Oil Company (owners of the Touchless Car Wash)

- The carwash has been at this location for 50 years.

- TCW has been the winner of many awards voted on by consumers.

- This is not about increasing the peak capacity of the block.? The wash tunnel will not be increased so the capacity of the cars would remain the same.

- The company would just like to increase the work area for their employees by adding a break room, lockers, etc.

- They have had many community meetings, have listened to the neighbors and are trying to deal with their concerns.

(+/-) David Gast - Principal of the Firm of David Gast Architects

- They designed the new construction to buffer noise, chemicals, etc from the neighbors.

- They have changed the project to produce a building which is in scale with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood.

- They have increased the area where cars will wait to go into the wash tunnel; this would alleviate the back up of cars on Oak Street.

- They have worked quite hard to come up with a proposal which will deal with the concerns of the neighbors.

(+) Harry O?Brien -

- An important part of this project is to make the car wash useful for everyone -- neighbors, customers, employees.

- Perhaps, in the history of the carwash, they may not have kept every single promise they have made.? Yet, they have always tried to be considerate to the customers and the neighbors.

(+) Javier Calix

- He is the manager of the Touchless Car Wash.? He has worked there for 11 years.

- He is here to represent the workers of the car wash.

- The workers are very much in favor of having a place where they can take their breaks and eat their lunch, as well as lockers to store their belongings.

(+) Robert Bentley

- People who are opposing this project have been using false information and false tactics.

- The people have created confusion and hysteria by using false information.

(+) Peter Radovich

- He is a new resident to the area.

- The first thing he found was a good car wash to get his car clean.

- This project helps the neighborhood as well as it?s workers.

- Would like the Commission to approve this project.

(+) Jason Jermane

- He is also a new resident in this area.

- He supports the car wash since the changes that they are planning make sense.

- He gets his car washed there regularly.

(-) Cynthia Marcucci - Haight/Divisadero Merchant?s Association

- Her organization opposes the project.

- The car wash is attracting new customers which will eventually cause more traffic and traffic problems.

- There has been a 16-year track record in which the owner?s of the car wash has shown that? they have not come through with their promises.

(-) Mark Garner

- Over the years his tenants have had many problems with this car wash.

- There were a certain number of residential units promised yet only a few units were built.

- The trees to buffer the noise were never built either.

- A fence was supposed to built as well and it was never built.

(-) Rafael Zocca

- He lives within 50 feet of this project--(he displayed a photograph of a backup of cars trying to get into the car wash.)

- He has to go into the middle lane to go into his garage.

- There has been no peace in this neighborhood.

- The car wash owners need to realize that neighbors have had many problems with this car wash.

(-) Mary Zocca

- Her backyard is adjacent to the car wash.? There is a section where they will be building a park.

- The park will be for their employees.

- Her fence goes up 6 feet yet the area of the car wash will have to be leveled and a 6 foot fence added--which will make it a 12 foot fence she will have to look at.

- She wants a right to privacy and a right to good health.

(-) Homa Fatalazadelis

- Oak Street is a one way street, when cars come out of the car wash, people are in so much hurry to get out of there to get to their next appointment which can cause dangerous situations.

(-) Patrick Harris

- He has talked to Art Davis regarding employment.? Yet his people cannot fill out applications if Mr. Davis is not on the site.?

- He would like to have more community support from the owner of the car wash.

(-) Holly Thuman

- They gathered 300 signatures and everyone was against the expansion of the car wash.

(-) Mark Lorenzer - Chairman of the Haight/Divisadero Neighbors and Merchant?s Group

- He lives a block away and has used the car wash yet he has found another car wash that is more convenient for him.

- He is concerned that the representatives of the car wash come to the meetings and provide some information only, and don?t provide the residents with solutions to their questions and/or issues.

- He has never met the owner of the car wash.

(-) Richard Kay

- For many years the car wash management has allowed the problems to get out of control--(he displayed pictures of cars on the sidewalk and cars parked in areas where it could be dangerous for pedestrians.)

(-) Jeff Williams

- He lives on Scott Street and is totally against the expansion of the car wash.

(-) Michael Smithrick

- They gathered about 300 signatures in one day and people were almost fighting to sign.? This proves the fact that there are more people against the expansion of the carwash than people who support it.

- Expanding the car wash is supposed to eliminate problems but after analyzing the proposal it doesn?t appear to reduce any problems at all.

(-) Gary Goad

- If the owners are going to spend thousands to expand their facility why can?t they spend $100 to clean their sidewalk?

(-) Brian DeHuff

- He has a tree in his back yard and one side of the tree is dying because of the sprays that are used to clean the cars.

(-) Greg Hansen - Haight/Divisadero Neighborhood Association

- He has lived in the area for about 14 years.

- He uses the car wash yet his issues are about broken promises.? The car wash promised many things and nothing was ever carried out.

- Bottom line: they can?t be trusted.

(-) Joe Konopka - Candidate for District Supervisor

- He is very familiar with this area and uses the car wash yet he is not a customer on Saturday or Sunday because the traffic situation is horrendous.

- If you build more, more will come.? Expanding the car wash will make problems larger.

- The housing issue is critical so spaces should be used for housing.

(-) Susan Chandler -

- She lives on Page Street which is 1 block away from the car wash.

- She lives in a classic Victorian neighborhood and she doesn?t believe in increasing commercialization.

- The owners have proved that they can not be trusted.

(-) Winston Montgomery - Alamo Square Neighborhood Association

- This car wash is a nuisance and this proposal will increase this nuisance.

- He read a letter from a resident who could not attend the hearing and is opposed to the expansion.

(-) Kirk Kleinschmidt

- Since 1985 neighbors have repeatedly complained of the car wash.

- The Commission imposed restrictions on the car wash yet none of these restrictions were ever implemented.

- He would like the Commission to deny this conditional use.

- If the Commission were to approve the conditional use, certain restrictions should be enforced and carried out.

(-) Robin Haxo

- Her family is happy that the car wash is doing so well, yet they should move to an area that can support heavy commercial use.

- This Commission did not approve the expansion of a business just across the street.

- She never takes her children along a very busy street and fight with cars that are either parked on the sidewalk or coming into the car wash.

(-) Mark Toparcher - President of the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association

- He would like the Commission to deny the expansion of the car wash.

- This project goes against the principals of good urban design.

(-) Patricia Vaughey

- This appeal was done by Haight/Ashbury, Alamo Square and The Planning Association of Divisadero Street

- As planners, they hear it all the time -- more housing is required.

- You cannot allow someone to expand a project if they have not followed the rules.

(-) Jerry Wilder

- He is one of the people that run to the park and run back.? He has slipped because of the oil that comes onto the sidewalk.

- How many incidents will it take for the carwash to clean their mess?

(-) Valery Hartwell - Alamo Square Neighborhood Association

- She agrees with all of the comments from the previous speakers--(showed pictures of her back yard and how her trees have died because of the chemicals sprayed onto the cars.)

(-) Joe O?Donahue - Residential Builders

- This meeting should be held not to grant an expansion but to penalize a business owner which did not follow the requirements imposed on them by the Commission.

- The car wash can improve on their existing facilities.? Instead of using money to expand, they should provide better salaries to their employees.

- There is no need for underground parking.

(-) Jeremy Burchin

- He has lived in the neighborhood for over 2 years.

- He opposes the expansion of this project since he has slipped many times on the sidewalk, the parking is really bad, there are cars parked on the sidewalk, there is an incredible amount of noise, and there is an awful smell because of the chemicals used at the carwash.

(-) Mark White

- He feels very strongly about opposing this project.

- He agrees to everything the previous speakers have said.

ACTON:??????????? Motion from Commissioner Joe--Item 21 only:? Deny reclassification from RH-3 to NC-2.? The motion failed for lack of a 2nd.

ACTION:?????????? Public hearing was closed.? Project (items 21 and 22) continued to September 14, 2000 to allow project sponsor to come back with an alternate project.?

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas????????

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

22.??????? 2000.291CZ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS: 558-6315)

444 DIVISADERO STREET AND 1052-62 OAK STREET, northeast corner of Oak and Divisadero Streets, Lots 5, 17, 18 and 19 in Assessor?s Block 1216 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 186.1, 209.7, 303, 304 and 711.59 of the Planning Code to permit a Planned Unit Development for the expansion of an existing car wash (Touchless Car Wash) in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) Zoning District with 65-A and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):?? Same as item 21.

ACTION:?????????? Same as item 21.

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Chinchilla, Joe, Mills, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

23.??????? 98.281Z???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

185 BERRY STREET, China Basin Landing Project; Lot 5 in Assessor's Block 3803 (bounded by Third, Berry and Fourth Streets and the China Basin Channel) -- Request under Planning Code Section 302 for an amendment to the Planning Code's zoning map to change the height and bulk district classification on Assessor's Block 3803, Lot 5 from 60-X to 90-X to allow the construction of a three-story vertical addition to an existing three-story, 40-foot tall building for a total height of approximately 87 feet.? The proposed project at the site would contain up to 120,000 gross square feet of office space and up to 54 dwelling units. The property is within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the Mixed Use Housing Area of the IPZ Industrial Protection Zone), the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special District's South End Office District, and is currently within the 60-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Adopt a resolution of intent to initiate the Zoning Map amendment; Recommend adoption to the Board of Supervisors.

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Without hearing, continued to September 7, 2000

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

24a.????? 2000.225CV? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS: 558-6306)

??????????? 3131 WEBSTER STREET, northwest corner of Moulton Street, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0509 -? Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 712.21 for use size exceeding 6,000 square feet.? The proposal is for a Business or Professional Service Office (McGuire Real Estate) of 12,160 gross square feet to be achieved by remodeling into offices an existing former restaurant, The North India, (two structures totaling 4,960 square feet in area) and connecting those structures to the existing adjacent real estate offices at 2001 Lombard Street (gross area of 7,200 square feet) via a new second-story pedestrian bridge between the lots.? The subject properties are within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. ?

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions

AYES:? ??????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

MOTION NO.???? 15963

24b.?????? 2000.225CV? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NIKITAS: 558-6306)

????????????? 3131 WEBSTER STREET, northwest corner of Moulton Street, Lot 002 in Assessor?s Block 0509.? The Zoning Administrator will conduct a joint hearing on a request for a Variance from the off-street parking spaces required for a proposed office addition.? Sections 151 and 712.22 of the Planning Code require eight off-street parking spaces for the proposed use of the subject property, located within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.? No off-street parking is proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Acting ZA closed the public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.

25.???????? 2000.540C????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SMITH: 558-6322)

1875 ALEMANY BOULEVARD (A.K.A.) 30 ONONDAGA AVENUE, northeast corner of the intersection of Alemany Boulevard and Onondaga Avenue, Lot 23 in Assessor?s Block 6956- Request for a Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 712.83 to install 16 antennas on the Pacific Bell switching facility within an (NC-3 ) Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Schwartz on behalf of Metricom

- Community meetings were held and no one attended.

- One person submitted a letter.? We responded by calling this person yet was never able to speak to this person.

ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions

AYES:? ??????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla

NAYES:??????????? Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

MOTION NO.???? 15964

26.???????? 1999.086C ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG: 558-6346)

815 - 827 HYDE STREET, west side between Bush? and Sutter Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor?s Block 0279: -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 209.8(d) of the Planning Code to establish office use at the second and third story level of an existing three-story building within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined High Density) District and 130-E Height and Bulk District.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Dan Sullivan - speaking on behalf of the project sponsor

- This project was originally thought of as being an ancillary event area for the hotel and that the project sponsor was adjacent to this site.

- The building was constructed in 1904 as a commercial building.? Since 1942, the building had been utilized as a place of assembly.? Show Folks of America occupied the building.

- They have met requirements and would like to have this project approved for conditional use.

ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions

AYES:? ??????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

MOTION NO.???? 15965

G.??? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 7:15? P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

27.??????? 2000.588D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JONES: 558-6477)

432 URBANO DRIVE, Request for Discretionary Review of BPA No. 2000/02/07/1232 to construct a new 2nd story vertical addition, and add a one-story rear horizontal addition to the existing one-story single family dwelling in RH-1(D)? (Detached, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the Building Permit Application as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Les Plack

-The proposed construction will block the vast majority of direct light into his house.? Also, it is not within the character of the neighborhood.

- There are two skylights that allow for sunlight yet he will still get shade into his house.

- He is not an architect so he can?t propose alternatives.

(+) Raymond Yang

- He would like to request an approval to the vertical addition to his home.

- He has lived in the neighborhood for 3 years.

- His neighbor has many trees in his yard so there is minimal sunlight already.

- Many of the properties in the area have 2 levels either because they were built that way or because there were recent additions.

- He would like to build the addition because he and his wife want to start a family.

- He feels that his project is within the guidelines and is considerate to his neighbor.

ACTION:?????????? Commissioner Chinchilla requested to be excused because he lives in the neighborhood.

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ACTION:?????????? No DR.? Project Approved.

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

EXCUSED:??????? Chinchilla

28.??????? 1999.584D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M. SNYDER: 558-6891)

188 KING STREET, north side between 3rd and 2nd Streets, Lot 4A in Assessor's Block 3794 -- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2000/06/20/3161 and Building Permit Application No. 2000/05/24/0891S, proposing to demolish a one-story 20-foot tall building (previously used as a garment factory) and to construct a 44-unit live/work project.? The project site is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, a 105-F Height and Bulk District, and a Mixed-Use Housing Zone.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Permits with Conditions.??

SPEAKER(S):??

(+) Alice Barkley

- The Department did not receive any negative comments.

- The Negative Declaration was not appealed.? There was no DR filed by the public.

- The Department is concerned that the street level have the kind of life and pedestrian interest instead of a blank wall.? The architect has done that.

- There shall not be any T-shirt sales stands.

- Even in the evening, when the door is rolled down and you can still see through it, they will make sure that the loading dock door will have some type of panel so it is not just an ugly metal door.

- When it becomes a retail space, it will be an actual store front.

ACTION:?????????? No DR.? Approved with the condition that T-shirt sales in front are prohibited; project is subject to any permits required for sidewalk sales.

AYES:????????????? Antenore, Joe, Mills, Chinchilla, Salinas

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis

Adjournment:??? 7: 40 p.m.