Minutes of Planning Commission Calendars

October? 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

Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 5, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT:??????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis

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

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:37 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Paul Lord; Darwin Helmuth; Lois Scott; Craig Nikitas; Adam Light; Julian Banales; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda D. Avery - Commission Secretary

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

1.???????? 1999.579C ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

301 1ST STREET, at the southeast corner of First and Folsom Streets, Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 3748 -- Request per Planning Code Section 304 for Conditional Use Authorization under the Planned Unit Development process to allow: (1) a structure over 40 feet in height in an R zoning district per Planning Code Section 253; (2) site coverage at ground level exceeding 80% on a sloping site per Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B); (3) separation between towers, above a height of 150 feet, of 80 feet rather than 150 feet, as required by Planning Code Section 270(e), pursuant to Planning Code 271; (4) exceptions to bulk limits of the "R" bulk district as stated in Planning Code Section 270 (e), pursuant to Planning Code Section 271; (5) parking within 25 feet of the street frontage on the ground floor on a small portion of the site per Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C); (6) a reduction in the loading requirement of Planning Code Section 152 from 2 spaces to 1 space per Planning Code Sections 304; (7) a small portion of the common open space to be provided in solaria (the fitness room and activity room) per Planning Code Sections 135(g)(3), 249.1(c)(4) and 304(d)(3);and (8) up to 1,000 gross square feet of the commercial space to be a small self-service restaurant as required by Planning Code Sections 304(d)(5) and 710.44. The site is within the RC-4 (Residential Commercial High Density) District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District - Residential Subdistrict.? The northern portion of the site is in a 200-R Height and Bulk district; the southern portion of the site is in a 250-R Height and Bulk district.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to October 12, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 12, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

2.???????? 2000.884D ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (PURVIS: 558-6354)

688 POWHATTAN AVENUE, Appeal of a determination of compatibility, pursuant to Planning Code Section 242(e)(6)(B), of Building Permit Application No. 2000/04/04/6293, to construct a 3-story, single-family dwelling at a height of 30 feet and with two off-street parking spaces.? The project site is within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation and is within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 21, 2000)?????????????????????????????????????????????????

(Proposed for Continuance to ~~October 12, 2000~~)October 26, 2000

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 26, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

3.???????? 1997.433A ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

22 ALTA STREET,? north side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets.? Lot 34A in Assessor's Block 106 -- Request for Certificate of Appropriateness authorization, under Article 10 of the Planning Code, to construct a new, one-unit, residential building, two-stories at the front (Alta Street) elevation and five-stories at the rear in the Telegraph Hill Historic District.? The subject property is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to October 19, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 19, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

4.???????? 1998.967C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558-6344)

3132 - 23RD STREET, northeast corner at Shotwell Street, Lot 20 in Assessor?s Block 2628 - Planning Commission-mandated one-year review for compliance with conditions of approval of Motion No.14810 authorizing a CONDITIONAL USE to establish a PLANT NURSERY WITH ASSOCIATED RETAIL SALES in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 17, 2000)

Note: On May 11, 2000, the Commission continued the matter to August 17, 2000 to allow compliance with conditions of approval.

Note: On August 17, 2000, the Commission continued the matter to? October 5, 2000.? This continuance is to allow for the required variance hearing to take place -- currently scheduled for Wednesday, September 27, 2000.

Note: Results from the Variance Hearing rescheduled for October 25, 2000 will be reported to the Commission on November 9, 2000.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 9, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to November 9, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

5.???????? 2000.943TZ ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD: 558-6311)

GLEN PARK SPECIAL USE SUBDISTRICT - Consideration of a proposal to amend the Planning Code (Zoning Ordinance) by modifying the current? NC-2 zoning controls ?in the vicinity of Monterey Boulevard, Diamond and Bosworth Streets to create a Glenn Park Special Use District.? The proposed changes to the existing NC-2 zoning include;

* use controls intended to prohibit new non-residential uses that exceed 3,999 square feet of floor area; and

* map amendments to include the following Assessor's Blocks and Lots in the Glenn Park Special Use Subdistrict.? Assessor's Block/Lot - 6739/006; 6740/003, 003A, 004, 017, 018, 019, 020; 6742/007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 014A, 019, 020, 021, 022, 029, 030, 031; 6744/020, 021, 025, 026, 027, 031; 6745/025A, 026, 027, 028, 029, 044, 046, 060, 063; 6756/001, 009, 010, 011, 036; 6768/001, 003, 004, 037, 038, 039, 045.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued Indefinitely

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

6.???????? 2000.682C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

290 VALENCIA STREET, northwest corner of 14th Street; Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 3533:? Request for Conditional Use Authorization, per Section 303(e) of the Planning Code, to change the existing Conditional Use Authorization for a 36-unit senior apartment project, approved for rental units, to allow owner-occupied units as well as rental units.? All other aspects of the existing approval, including the occupancy by senior citizens and the requirement that 10 percent of the units be below market rate, would remain unchanged.? The project is in a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Disapprove.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued indefinitely

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

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))

SPEAKER(S):

Steve Williams

Re: Item No. 13,? 338 - 12TH AVENUE

- He believes they have reached a tentative settlement on the case which would withdraw the DR.

Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Community Association

Re: Commissioner Antenore

- He was out of town several weeks ago and discovered on his return that Commission Antenore was fired.

- He can?t understand how this could have happened without a hearing.

- This is supposed to be a democracy.? He urges the other members of the Commission to join in protest.

- He believes that Commissioners should have diverse ideas, not ideas that are dictated by the Mayor or anyone else.

- New members to the Commission should bring forth new ideas not just one.

Mary Jue Loo

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12TH AVENUE

- She is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Jue

- She supports the settlement recently agreed upon.

Joanne Tinloy

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- She agrees with settlement but would like to ensure that the owner abides by the regulations.

Jew Mar

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- The property owner is trying to build a very large house.

- He is still in disagreement with the size of the proposed house.

Sam Manthorpe

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- He is opposed to the settlement.? Mr. Lam?s last minute compromise is acceptable to him.

Peter Ngau

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- He agrees with the settlement.

Galvin? Wong

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- He supports the settlement.

Tom Ng

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- His parents bought a house on 12th Avenue. He opposes Mr. Lam?s proposed addition.

Kai Loo

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- He has been a San Francisco resident for many years.

- He supports the last minute settlement if it?s in agreement with all parties.

Helen Jue

Re: Item No. 13, 338 - 12th AVENUE

- She supports the last minute settlement.

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

7.???????? Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of August 24, 2000 and September 7, 2000.

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? without hearing, continued to October 12, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

8.???????? Commission Matters

Commissioner Theoharis:??????? The public has complained that the agendas are too long and they have to wait a very long time to hear their cases.? She would like to have calendered on the October 12, 2000 agenda, a proposal to review the Commission?s Rules and Regulations with a possible amendment to have Public Comment at the end of the calendar.

She would also like a staff person from the Planning Department and the District Attorney to look into the rules of conducting hearings and come up with suggestions to run the hearing in a more timely and efficient fashion that will best serve the public.

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

9.???????? Director?s Announcements.

None

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

BOS

Re: Emporium Project

- The Board approved the project and it will be moving forward.

BOA

RE:? 326 18th Avenue

- The Commission heard this item on April 27 as a DR.? The Commission denied the proposal.? The BOA overturned the Commission on a +5-0 vote.

Re:? 829 Deharo Street

- This was a DR of a two family house.? The Commission took DR and asked for modifications.? The BOA overturned the Commission and imposed slight changes.

Re: 1624 Vallejo Street

- The Commission took DR and the BOA upheld the Commission with a +4-1 vote.

11.??????? Status Report of the Job Housing Program

(See below)

12.??????? Status Report on Supervisors Katz? Legislation regarding live/work.

The following report relates to both Items 11 and 12:

- In May of 1999, the department brought before the Commission the legislation which attempted to amend the OHPP provisions of the planning code and convert it to the jobs housing linkage expanding the number of activities which would be subject to affordable housing and child care exactions.

- The BOS in January, considered the legislation which the Commission acted upon and sought amendments of that legislation.

- This created two different versions of the same legislation.? Both Supervisor Amiano and Supervisor Katz had amendments.? The only difference was with regards to the definition of office use.?? On October 19, 2000 these two pieces of legislation will be brought to the Commission.

- The Commission will then advise the BOS as to the appropriate language and the appropriate fees.

- There are two ballot measures which will affect the definition of office use as well.

- Both Planning Department and City Attorney?s Office as well as Supervisor?s Amiano and Katz? will be bringing recommendations to the Commission with regards to consistent definition of office use and fees.

- At that time the public will be allowed to comment.

SPEAKER(S):

John Bardis

- Will there be materials available a week before the October 19, 2000 hearing regarding the legislation from Supervisor?s Amiano and Katz?

(If there is material provided to the Commission, it will also be made available to the public)

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

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.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

Alice Barkley

- The settlement is on the design of the building.

- Both attorneys have agreed to taking DR to make revisions to the current design.

Steve Williams

- He agrees with the settlement.

ACTION:?????????? Intent to take DR.? Will be brought back to the Commission

?to October 19, 2000 with plans that reflect the agreement.

AYES:????????????? Baltimore, Joe, Mills, Theoharis, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

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

14.??????? 2000.1007T???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LORD: 558-6311)

LIVE-WORK TO LOFT HOUSING AMENDMENT, Initiate amendments to Part II, Chapter 11, of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Planning Code) by amending Sections 102.7 and 102.13 to redefining "live/work" units as "loft housing" and classifying them as residential uses; repealing Section 233 regarding live/work; adding Section 232 to establish requirements for loft housing that would subject it to existing live/work controls except that there would be no restriction on the nature of work which could be performed in the unit so long as the use is permitted in the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) zoning district and no requirement that the occupant(s) work in the unit, would require loft housing to comply with inclusionary housing policies, would establish and in-lieu payment for affordable housing requirements in the 40/85 foot height district contained wholly within the South of Market Residential Service District (RSD), would require loft housing in residential areas to comply with all requirements for residential uses including the residential design guidelines, would require loft housing constructed in areas not zoned residential to comply with all requirements for residential uses except for height, front setback and open space requirements, would prohibit existing live/work units from being used or converted to office space, and establishes minimum dwelling unit air and light exposure standard; states that this ordinance supersedes any inconsistent Planning Commission policies.

Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate

SPEAKER(S);

(-) Carlos Romero

- He would like to address the affordable litigation aspect of it.

- There is a portion within the legislation which discusses a switching of the 10% construction of affordable housing in the development to a $50 per sf fee.? This would be about $100 less than what is going to cost the live/work developers.? This legislation deprives the City of San Francisco $100 of impact mitigation per square foot.

- This part should be stricken.

- He believes the legislation is flawed.? Supervisor Leno?s legislation is much more appropriate to what the City of San Francisco really needs.

(neutral) Sue Hestor

- She would like to have Supervisor?s Leno?s legislation come before Supervisor?s Katz? legislation.

- Why is one piece of legislation on the same subject moving and the other is not?

- The procedural issues should be addressed as well.

(+) Alice Barkley

- She urges the Commission to initiate the legislation as proposed.

- If the Commission does not initiate this legislation there will be a huge gap.

- This needs to be done before the interim controls end.

Eric Quesada - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

- He is wondering why the two legislations are not being presented together.

- How will this be moved forward without a true democratic process?

ACTION:?????????? Initiated (Public Hearing scheduled for November 2, 2000)

AYES:????????????? Baltimore, Joe, Mills, Theoharis, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

RESOLUTION No.????????? 15999

15.??????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (RICH: 558-6345)

General Plan Referral for Urban Design aspects of the Third Street Light Rail Project, including, station platforms, street lighting, trackway paving, and other urban design elements.

Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of conformance with the General Plan.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 7, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Without Hearing, project continued to October 12, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

16.??????? 2000.118E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BUFORD: 558-5973)

HARDING GOLF COURSE, Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration.? The proposed project involves the upgrading and minor changes in the layout of Harding Park Golf Course, an 18-hole course located at Lake Merced in southwestern San Francisco.? The existing nine-hole Fleming Course would not be substantially altered.? The proposed project would include: removal of all existing grasses, replanting of tees, fairways, greens, and roughs with new grasses; realignment of the 13th fairway and green and relocation of the 18th green; and minor repositioning of several other greens and tees.? Excavation and shaping of the ground surface would be required, generally to a depth of one foot or less.? All existing buildings, including the clubhouse and pro shop, restaurant, cart barn, and maintenance building (totaling about 17,500 sq. ft. of floor area), would be demolished and replaced with new structures that would have approximately 30,000 sq. ft. of floor area.? New structures include a combined and larger restaurant and clubhouse, and banquet facilities for group events.? The proposed project would include construction of a driving range at a new location, double-decked with lighting to allow nighttime use; the existing driving range would be upgraded.? Artificial turf would be used on the driving ranges.? New irrigation systems would be installed on both the Harding and Fleming courses.? Existing parking lots would be demolished and replaced at generally the same location as the main lot; about 50 parking spaces would be added.? About 120 mature trees B mostly eucalyptus, cypress, and pine B would be removed as part of the project; additional trees may be removed as part of a city plan to replace existing trees that are nearing the end of their life span.? No wetlands would be affected by project-related construction.? The project site is in a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District, and is within the Local Coastal Zone permit area.??

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 2000)

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Without Hearing, project continued to October 12, 2000

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

17.??????? 1999.410E??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (HELMUTH: 558-5971)

450 RHODE ISLAND STREET DEVELOPMENT- CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - The project site occupies Assessor's Block 3978, Lot 001, bounded by 17th, Rhode Island, Kansas and Mariposa Streets, and is in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, in an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ), and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? The proposed project would involve the demolition of an existing auto service and repair facility and the construction of a four-story, six-level building to provide approximately 312,724 square feet of multimedia space.? The building would also provide 546 Off-street parking spaces, 80 bicycle spaces and two off-street loading spaces.? Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed.? The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July 25, 2000.? The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs.? Public comment on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify EIR.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Final EIR certified

AYES:????????????? Baltimore, Joe, Mills, Theoharis, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

MOTION No.????? 16000

18.??????? 1999.410C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (SCOTT: 558‑6317)

450 RHODE ISLAND STREET. Assessor?s Block 3978, Lot 001, bounded by 17th, Rhode Island, Kansas and Mariposa Streets ‑‑Request for Conditional Use Authorization (Planned Unit Development) to allow an alternate method of height measurement, provision of more parking than the maximum and findings related to demolition of an industrial building.. The proposed project would demolish a one story steel frame building occupied by an auto? repair service (S. & C. Motors) to construct a new campus style building containing approximately 295,000 sq. ft. of Multimedia/business service space, ranging in height from 16.5 to 49.5 feet, and providing 546 parking spaces.? The 80,000 sq. ft. site is in an M‑1 (Light Industrial) zoning district, Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) and in a 40‑X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Sue Hestor

- This project had a BOA hearing in August of 2000, on weather this was an office building.

- She still does not have a transcript of the hearing.? She believes that if there is no transcript, the case has to be heard again at BOA.

- This is a huge issue.? She believes that the Commission should have a copy of this transcript since the resolution is not the same as a transcript.? Based on this, she has requested a continuance.

(-) Jim Reuben

- He is opposed to a continuance of the project.

- His letter is pretty complete in stating that there is no relevance with this transcript at the hearing.

- This is not the first time this has happened.

(+) Ron Kaufman - Project Sponsor

- The idea of this project started in mid 1998.

- He along with Macromedia are enthusiastic about this project.

- Their major concern was with the residents of the surrounding areas.

- S&C motors was a tenant of the property.? That company is moving intact so there will be no displacement of jobs.? They will be moving to Bayshore Boulevard.

- They have been successful in accommodating the neighbors of the surrounding area.

- They have done restoration work at the North Waterfront.

- He has raised funds for various non-profits.

(+) Andrea Cochran - Project Landscape Architect

- She lives and has her landscape architectural business in the Potrero Hill area.

- They will design a public park area for neighbors to enjoy.

- There will also be a landscaped terrace for the employees of Macromedia to enjoy.

- The labor unions have been cooperative in creating an apprentice program and employee training program.

(+) Betsy Nelson - CFO of Macromedia

- They are a profitable software company and not a dot.com.

- They have been in San Francisco for about 10 years.

- The company has been public for about 7 years.

- Employees total about 1,500 world-wide.

- They occupy 5 buildings currently in San Francisco.

- Over 65% of employees are in technical positions who are highly skilled and highly paid.

- They are a very environmentally friendly company.

- They provide a shuttle to and from BART for their employees.

(-) Raferty (last name unclear)

- She is here to describe their community action and community involvement.

- They focused on two areas: bridging the digital divide and employee action.

- The digital divide is the gap between those who do not have access to technology and those who do have access to technology especially providing access to jobs in this new economy.?? They partnered with various organizations like: OPNET, Bay Vac and Arriba Juntos.

- They have donated software and training with these organizations.? They have also provided training for entry level positions.

- Employee action involves Team Macromedia events which involves employees contributions to the community.

(neutral) Steve Moss

- He just purchased his property near the proposed site.

- The signature gathering does not really show the support of the community.

- He urges the Commission to really look deeply into the community involvement.

(+) David Ellington - Former President of the Telecommunications Commission; Co-Chair and Co-Founder of OPNET.

- He is in support of the project.

- He knows Ron Kaufman very well since he used to be his landlord.

- The building will not be a skyscraper and will not be intrusive.

- Macromedia will provide jobs to various disadvantaged youth between the ages of 17 and 24 to begin working in the multimedia industry.

- He is proud and honored that Ron Kaufman is proposing this project.

(+) Dan Geiger

- He is Co-founder of OPNET

- He used to work near the proposed development therefore is familiar with the neighborhood.

- He is working with the Human Resources department of Macromedia to provide job opportunities.

(+) Edward Hatter

- He lives in Potrero Hill.

- Macromedia has communicated with the community and has listened to the community.

- There are two types of people in Potrero Hill, those with and those without.? Macromedia will provide to those without.

(+) Gary Gemma

- He is a new homeowner on Kansas Street.

- He supports the project completely.

- Mr. Kaufman has been very concerned in asking the neighbors what they really want.

- Mr. Kaufman has also been very concerned about cleaning up Potrero Hill and making it more beautiful.

(+) Ann Cook

- She has lived on Kansas Street for many years.

- She supports the project completely.

- Mr. Kaufman has been sensitive to the neighbors and dealing with their issues.

(+) Bob Cantillo

- He has lived in Potrero Hill for about 8 years.

- He supports the project.

- If anyone moves into his neighborhood with some sort of commercial venture and tries to congest it, take advantage of it, or exploit it in any way whether it be by traffic, or over burdening the infrastructure, he would be totally against it.

(+) Manny Flores

- This is a creation of permanent and temporary jobs, jobs, jobs.

(+) Stan Warren

- He is the Secretary/Treasurer of the Building and Construction Trades Council.? They represent over 32 construction and affiliated unions which comprise of about 32,000 union members.

- His organization is here to support this project.

(+) Rick Browning

- He is a Vice President of the Building Trades and also a business representative of the Elevator Construction Union.

- He has lived and worked in San Francisco for the past 23 years.

- He has seen a transformation of the area.

- This project is aesthetically pleasing.

(+) Patrick Lakey

- He is a member of Local 22.

- He is also a San Francisco resident and supports the project completely.

- This project is good for the City and for the State.

(-) Richard Marquez - MAC, Potrero Boosters

- He lives in the north Mission area.

- He opposes this project because of so many displacements and no affordable housing in the City.

(-) Chris Daly - MAC

- This project would fit the neighborhood if the neighborhood had the image of evictions, gentrification and general displacement.

- The housing impacts of this project is very large.

- This project doesn?t bring enough revenue to the neighborhoods.

- OPNET has traded 200 people in the past years.

- There is no community support for this project.

(-) John De Castro

- He?s concern is with the loop which is being carved in the Planning Code.

- The ZA and the Planning Department still insists that this is manufacturing.

- Why is the SKS building at 350 Rhode Island being classified as office space yet this building is being called office services.? This is a blatant attempt to get around Prop M.

(-) Tom Jones

- He is a Potrero Hill resident.

- Every time a use like this is approved, these people need to find a place to live.

- Where will all these people live?

(-) Andrew Woods

- He wants to make some comparison with this project and Bryant Square.? They both are not right for the neighborhoods that they are in; they both are transport hubs; they will cause displacement.? There is no difference between these jobs.

- Come November 7, the voters will pass Proposition L.

(-) Erick Quesada - MAC

- This is about development policies.

-? Ron Kaufman stated that this project had a community process.? This is a joke.

- The frustration around the community is that it is not a community planning process.

- This is about the development policies which are being implemented by this administration.

(-) Laura Farabo

- She is a third generation Californian.

- She lives on 17th and Kansas

- She will be impacted immediately by this project as will the entire neighborhood.? There are still issues on parking and the size of this edifice and the impact on the quality of life on the people of Potrero Hill.

- These programs are ludicrous.

(-) Ron Grossheart

- He believes that this candy-coded thing is going to be approved by the Commission.

- He can?t wait until November 7.

(-) Sue Hestor

- The analysis in the EIR states that there will be 900 people working there.? This amount is not justifiable.

- The space per person is about 150 to 200 sf.

- There will be an incredible stress in parking and transit.

- This site should be provided for housing.

ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions as drafted

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

ABSENT:????????? Baltimore

MOTION NO.???? 16001

19.??????? 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 and is a Preference 5 location.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 24, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Robert Crebs - Project Sponsor representing Sprint PCS

- The proposed installation complies with the San Francisco Municipal Code and the WTS sighting guidelines.

(-) George Brooks Robertson

- He has lived in San Francisco for many years.

- This building is not retrofitted and is close to a senior citizen center.

- He opposes the installation of these antennas.

ACTION:?????????? Approved with conditions as drafted

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

ABSENT:????????? Baltimore

MOTION NO.???? 16002

20.??????? 1999.812L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT: 558-6254)

3200 CALIFORNIA STREET, north side of the street between Presidio Avenue and Walnut Street, Lot 6 in Assessor?s Block 1021: The San Francisco Planning Commission will consider a proposal for Landmark Designation of the San Francisco? Jewish Community Center.? The proposal for Landmark Designation of this property was recommended by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board at its regular hearing of August 16, 2000. The site is in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) zoning district, and a 40-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Disapproval

SPEAKER(S):

(+)Joshua Steinhauer - Coblentz, Patch, Duffy and Bass

- They will not have everybody testify yet the message is very clear that the JCC building should not be landmarked.

- Some believe that the JCC building should be landmarked because Arthur Brown Jr. had some role in the design of the building.

- The building is not architecturally significant.? The building is not associated with any important persons or events.

- There are only people?s fond memories.

(+) Kevin Hart? - Gensler Architects

- There is a debate over the role Arthur Brown, Jr. played involving the design.

- This is not a very good building, especially in comparison to other buildings that Arthur Brown designed.

(+) Alan Rothenberg - Past President of the Jewish Community

- While he was president, the center went bankrupt.

- The people at the center have tried very hard to provide funds to keep the center running.

- This is not a safe building.

- The community has offered to fund the construction of a new building.

(+) Howard Fine - Current President of the Board of Directors of the Jewish Community Center.

- The center has been around for 100 years.? They have occupied 4 different buildings.

- The JCC has a variety of services for the neighborhood.

- For and in the past, people have tried to save the center but they cannot.

- Please consider that if the current JCC building is landmarked they will not be able to survive.

(+) Nate Levine - Executive Director of the JCC

- He strongly opposes the designation of landmark status to the current JCC building.

- The JCC has conversed with various architectural firms.

(+) Supervisor Kaufman

- She has been a member of the JCC for many years.

- Her children have attended various services at the JCC.

- The importance of the JCC is what is inside the center.? The center cannot continue to function in it?s current building so would like not to have the building landmarked.

- Programs are more important than the building itself.

(+) (Name unclear)

- He is a native San Franciscan

- He is excited about what is about to take place.

- He has had a lifelong involvement

(+) Rabbi Doug Kahn? - Jewish Community Relations

- He attended the August 16 Landmarks Board Meeting.

- To recognize the cultural significance of the JCC, one has to look at the services it provides to its members.

- The JCC has collected thousands of signatures and thousands of support letters

(+) Ron Blatman - Presidio Heights Neighborhood Association

- He is a father of twin boys

- It is so important for this building not to be determined as a landmark.? There seems to be a discussion about families leaving the City so the JCC is a good resource to enhance and serve those institutions that serve families.? Also, as president of FAN, you don?t find any neighbors that are against the construction of a new building.

(+) Sandee Blechman

- She has been at the center for 5 years.

- She has been intimately involved in developing the program

- There are many inadequacies for the building and has noticed the limitations the center has because of the current building.

(+) Lev Weisbach - Gensler Architects

- The existing building, as it is, cannot be reused.

- They looked at an alternative reuse scheme but there were a lot of deficits.

(+) David Freedman - Structural Engineer for the JCC

- The building requires major structural engineering work.

- The JCC should be housed in a new structurally sound and state-of-the art building.

(+) Sandy Gallanter

- He has been in housing and real estate preservation for many years.

- He knows what a historic building is and this is not a historic building.? It does not require a landmark status.

(+) Jim Connors - Captain at the San Francisco Fire Department

- There are many deficiencies in the building that make it difficult to put out a fire there.

(+) Joe Rich - Treasurer of the JCC

- He opposes the landmark status.

- The JCC runs a deficit of $300,000 a year.

(+) Anita Friedman - Executive Director of the Jewish Family and Children Services

- If Landmark status is passed it will not be able to provide and take care of these families.

- She urges the Commission not to pass Landmark status on the current JCC building.

(+) John Rothmann - Laurel Heights Improvement Association

- He has spent a lifetime at the JCC.? His children participate regularly at the JCC.

- This center deserves a new building.

- There are certain parts of the building which will be preserved.

(+) Gale Mondry

- She co-chairs the JCC Capital Campaign.

- Any decision to landmark the building would hurt the center?s capital campaign.

- The new center should provide services to the people who participate in the center.

(+) J. Moreau Brown - President of the Monte Fiori? Senior Center

- The JCC is opposed to the landmark status of the building.

- He has been a member for 22 years.? He speaks with validity and truth.

(+) Mel Lichtman - Past Member of the Brotherhood Way Neighborhood Center

- This center went out of business because it didn?t have the proper facility.

- This should not happen to the JCC.

(+) Ron Miguel - President of the Planning Commission of the Richmond District.

- Many people in the Richmond use the services of the JCC.

- His mother raised funds for the JCC and he used to use the services for many, many years.

(+) Jefrie Palmer

- The JCC building is like a terminal cancer patient which is dying from within.

- He has been an employee of the JCC for many years, he met his wife there and his children? have participated in services there.

- This building is just saying: Aplease let me go!@

(-) Arnie Lerner

- The real issue here is money.?

(-) Paul Finwall - Member of the Landmarks Advisory Board

- He would like the JCC to go back and look further into designating the building as a landmark.

- If this had not been such a hotly contested issue, it would have had a unanimous vote.? The building qualifies as a landmark.? It qualifies for the national register.? There aren?t many land marked buildings in the area.

(+) Don Andreini - San Francisco Heritage

- Some of the problems the current JCC building has are the same City Hall had before it was renovated.

- The JCC should be designated as a landmark.

(+) Robert O. Appleton, Architect

- His father?s firm? designed this building.? He is the most emotionally involved person regarding the JCC.

- The building should be demolished because it?s tired and it needs to be retired and a new building built.

ACTION:?????????? Project Disapproved for Landmarks Status because of the following additional findings: There is significant disagreement as to the importance of the building.? There is not enough evidence that the principal architect was Arthur Brown.? The design of the building does not distinguish significant qualities.? The existing building does not have significant landscaping or enough public spaces.

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

ABSENT:????????? Baltimore, Theoharis

RESOLUTION NO.? ?????? 16003

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

At Approximately 5:54 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

21.??????? 1999.243D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BANALES: 558-6339)

673-683 BRANNAN STREET/168-178 BLUXOME STREET, south side of Brannan Street between 5th and 6th Streets, Lots 20 and 21 in Assessor's Block 3785, Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permits Application Nos. 9907388 through 9907391, proposing new construction of 177 live/work units. The subject property is in a SLI (Service / Light Industrial) Zoning District and? a 50-X Height-Bulk District.? It also lies within the Industrial Protection Zone, pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861.

Preliminary Recommendation: ?Do not take Discretionary review; approve project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Steve Vettel - Representing Project Sponsor

- It took a long time to get the transportation analysis done.

- The Commission considered the Negative Declaration which was appealed but was approved.

- There is no opposition in the immediate vicinity.

- The project does provide 177 live/work units.? If the new legislation passes it will be called loft housing.

- This provides ?much needed housing.

(+) Paul Chow - Architect

- Submitted actual material samples.

- He will work with staff to choose this material.

(+) Joe O?Donaghue

- His company supports this project.

- This project needs to be approved.? It is consistent with what has been approved before.

- This project will provide funds.

- This project meets all the criteria.

(+) Mack Burton

- He would like the Commission to approve this project.? The developer has provided many funds to schools,

(+) Lou Rovano

- The neighborhood is not in opposition to this project.

- They have talked to the neighbors and they all agree with the project.

(+) Amon Hurlehe

- He has lived in the Mission District for many years.

(-) Sue Hestor

- It?s too bad that two of the Commissioners are not here to vote on the largest live/work development ever.

- This developer is eliminating live/work use.

(-) Gary Moody - Member of Dog Patch

- He complained about Linda Richardson and her conflict of interest with the RDA.? He has filed an ethics complaint.? He has also filed an ethics complaint regarding Commissioner Salinas since he is an agent with the Carpenter?s Union and the Union is doing business with Residential Builders.

ACTION:?????????? Take DR and approve based on staff recommendations

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

ABSENT:????????? Theoharis and Baltimore

22.??????? 1999.858D ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)

241 - 8TH STREET, east side between Howard and Clementina Streets,? Lots 35 and 36 (to be merged) in Assessor's Block 3730 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 200005220612, proposing to demolish an existing shed building and to construct an approximately 50-foot tall building containing 14 live/work units and 14 off-street parking spaces in an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) District, a Mixed-Use Housing Zone, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? DR Withdrawn

Public Comment Continued:

Sue Hestor

- Public Comment should not be moved to the end of the calendar.? People have no idea what time meetings will be over.? The public should have the right to testify and not have to take off the whole afternoon.

- If the Commission has problems with Public Comment then, the Commission needs to follow closely time limits.

- This is going to be on the calendar next week and the Secretary should put it in bold on next week?s calendar.

Joe O?Donahue

- If the public comment had been moved to the end of the hearing, the people who were here for the JCC who are mostly elderly, would have to still be here in order to be able to speak.

- He can turn out many people to come to these hearings because they are organized.

Gary Moody

- Most people have to work. ?Especially because this Commission is making it increasingly impossible to live in San Francisco.

- He would still like to hear from Commissioner Salinas regarding his relationship with the Carpenter?s Union and Residential Builders.

Adjournment: 5:30 p.m.

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2000

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 12, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT:??????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis

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; Ken Rich; Paul Maltzer; Hillary Gitelman; Leslie Buford; Jonathan Purvis;

Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Andrea Green -Acting? Commission Secretary

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

1.???????? 1999.579C ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

301 1ST STREET, at the southeast corner of First and Folsom Streets, Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 3748 --? A proposal to develop the site with up to 342 dwelling units, approximately 10,300 square feet of ground floor and second floor retail and professional services space, and 342 to 349 independently accessible parking spaces and 113 tandem spaces. Request per Planning Code Section 304 for Conditional Use Authorization under the Planned Unit Development process to allow: (1) a structure over 40 feet in height in an R zoning district per Planning Code Section 253; (2) site coverage at ground level exceeding 80% on a sloping site per Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B); (3) separation between towers, above a height of 150 feet, of 80 feet rather than 150 feet, as required by Planning Code Section 270(e), pursuant to Planning Code 271; (4) exceptions to bulk limits of the "R" bulk district as stated in Planning Code Section 270 (e), pursuant to Planning Code Section 271; (5) parking within 25 feet of the street frontage on the ground floor on a small portion of the site per Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C); (6) a reduction in the loading requirement of Planning Code Section 152 from 2 spaces to 1 space per Planning Code Sections 304; (7) a small portion of the common open space to be provided in solaria (the fitness room and activity room) per Planning Code Sections 135(g)(3), 249.1(c)(4) and 304(d)(3);and (8) up to 1,000 gross square feet of the commercial space to be a small self-service restaurant as required by Planning Code Sections 304(d)(5) and 710.44. The site is within the RC-4 (Residential Commercial High Density) District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District - Residential Subdistrict.? The northern portion of the site is in a 200-R Height and Bulk district; the southern portion of the site is in a 250-R Height and Bulk district.?

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 19, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 19, 2000

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

2a.??????? 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.

NOTE: On August 24, 2000, after public testimony, the Commission closed public comment and continued the matter to September 14, 2000 to allow the project sponsor time to meet with neighborhood groups and develop modifications to the project.? Public comment will be re-opened to address proposed modifications only.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 26, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 26, 2000

AYES:? ??????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

2b.??????? 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2000)

?(Proposed for Continuance to October 26, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 26, 2000

AYES:? ??????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

3.???????? 2000.474E ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????(KUGLER: 558-5983)

1001 17th Street. Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration.? ?The proposed project is located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue in the northern portion of the Potrero Hill Neighborhood (lots 9 & 10 of Assessor?s Block 3987).? The project would remove an existing single-story warehouse with office mezzanine and adjacent storage yard and would construct a new four-level over basement, 50-foot tall, commercial building of approximately 68,290 sq.ft. for business service use with retail on the ground floor. The site has an? approximate area of 15,361 sq. ft.. The building entrance and access to the 57 spaces of parking (50 independently accessible and 7 tandem) in the ground and basement levels would be from Pennsylvania Avenue while the loading dock entrance would be off 17th Street.? Along with about 37,000 sq.ft. of commercial/business service uses the building would contain about 2,550 sq.ft. of retail space and about 28,740 sq.ft. of parking/building service area.? The proposed building would be constructed to cover the entire site. The site is zoned M-2 with a 50-X Height/Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to November 16, 2000

AYES:? ??????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

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))

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

4..?????? Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of August 24, September 7, 14, 21, 2000.??????????? .

ACTION: Approved

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

5.??????? Commission Matters

6.??????? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE: Consideration of a proposal to amend Article IV, Section 8 of the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission by amending the Order of Business.? The Planning Commission will hear testimony and consider a proposal to amend their Rules and Regulations by altering the location of the? Public Comment category of their Regular Meeting agenda to allow for a more efficient use of the public?s time and participation.

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Continued to October 19, 2000

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

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

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

None

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

None

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

9.??????? 1999.639D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-5986)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: No recommendation at this time.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2000).

Note: On February 3, 2000, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to 2/17/00 with instructions to staff to explore and address traffic concerns.

The vote was +7 -0.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to October 26, 2000

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

10.????? 1999.543DD????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS: 558-6315)

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

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

Note: On October 5, 2000, the Commission passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve as agreed with the Discretionary Review Requestor and Sponsor by a vote of +7 -0.?

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to October 19, 2000

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

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

11.?? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (RICH: 558-6345)

General Plan Referral for Urban Design aspects of the Third Street Light Rail Project, including, station platforms, street lighting, trackway paving, and other urban design elements.

Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of conformance with the General Plan.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Public Hearing Closed.? Continued to October 26, 2000

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

12.????? 1999.603E???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GITELMAN: 559-5977)

555 MISSION STREET OFFICE PROJECT.? Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project involves demolition of? six existing buildings and construction of a new 31‑story building (about 455 feet tall including parapet) containing about 557,000 gross square feet (gsf) of office space, about 8,000 gsf of retail space, and about 38,990 gsf of below grade parking (about 150 valet spaces in two levels).? A plaza of about 11,000 sf would be constructed between the new building and the office building at 101 Second Street to the west.? The project site is on the south side of Mission Street, between First and Second Streets, and within the C‑3‑O (Downtown Office) zoning district; Assessor?s Block 3721, Lots 69, 70, 78, 79, 80, and 81.? Please Note: the public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed.? The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on August 29, 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 EIR.

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: EIR Certified

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

MOTION NO.????? 16004

13.????? 2000.118E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BUFORD: 558-5973)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000)

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Negative Declaration

SPEAKER(S):

(neutral) Stephen Johns

- He lives about 2 blocks away from the golf course.

- He would like to request an opportunity to study and discuss and address the specific issues related to the proposal.? He feels he is being denied this opportunity if the Commission upholds the negative declaration.

- His neighborhood will greatly be impacted by traffic and herbicide which will be sprayed at the golf course.

- An EIR would allow everyone an opportunity to study and find out what is going on and address issues accordingly.

- Please do not issue a negative declaration on this project.

(-) Adena Rosemerin - one of the appellants

- The first step of this project, the broadcast application of roundup, is prohibited by the City?s IPM ordinance.? Palmer has applied for an exception, but it has not been granted.? Therefore the first step of this project is either illegal or non-existent.? The PND cannot be adopted.

- If there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agency that the project may have a significant affect on the environment, an EIR should be prepared.

- The construction date has been moved from this fall to next spring.? This change will likely result in earth moving and other heavy construction during the nesting season.

- Red-Legged Frogs are a federally-protected species and there are documented occurrences of these frogs.

(-) Daniel Murphy - Golden Gate Audubon Society

- Their first concern is with tree cutting since it will affect nesting birds.? Tree cutting should not occur during February and July.

- The night lighting will impact migratory birds which four species are federally listed.

- There are a number of endangered species.

- This project needs much more study.

(-) Did not state name

- The Lake Merced watershed is a crucial resource for San Francisco, there are endangered species involved and there are impacts on the human environment as well.

(+) Phil Havnacheck - Board Member of Harding Club Men?s Club

- He supports the project as well as many other community organizations.

- The lighting issue is not as significant.? It?s a small driving range which will be lit and not the whole golf course.

(+) Lou Perrone - President of the Harding Park Golf Club

- The board and the majority of the members of the club support the Negative Declaration.

- He believes that there has been extensive studies done and there will be no damage to the environment.? It will actually be a first step to renovate the Lake Merced area.

(+) Mike Blankinship - Arnold Palmer Golf

- He supports the Negative Declaration

(+) Chris Hamill - Arnold Palmer Golf

- He declines comment.

(+) Dan McKenna - Rec and Park Department

- This issues has been thoroughly discussed at the Rec and Park Department.

- Regarding the pesticides, danger to the environment will be addressed through a resource management plan.

- Light on the driving range will not affect migratory birds.? They are looking into curtailing the lights in the evening especially during seasons that may be more sensitive to migratory birds.

ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

MOTION NO.????? 16005

14.????? 2000.824C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG: 558-6346)

1351 GRANT AVENUE, west side between Vallejo and Green Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0131: -- Consideration of the possible revocation of conditional use or the possible modification of or placement of additional conditions per Planning Code Section 303(f) of a prior authorization to allow the establishment of a full-service restaurant and bar, approximately 3,400 square feet in floor area, within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.? The proposal is to consider revocation, modification,? or? placement? of? additional? conditions on a conditional use authorization approved on December 17, 1998, for the conversion of a vacant commercial space,? the former Figoni Hardware Store,? into a full-service restaurant and bar, per Planning Code Sections 722.41 and 722.42.? The proposed full-service restaurant and bar is located on the ground floor level of an existing three-story residential over commercial building.? The proposal was approved under Building Permit Application No. 9912999.? There have been unresolved complaints from the community in relation to the construction and operation of the facilities and the possible eviction of residential tenants within the building.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Planning Commission to schedule a subsequent hearing to consider the revocation, modification, or placement of additional conditions on the conditional use authorized in Motion No. 14785 under Case No. 1998.243C.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):???? None

ACTION: Without Hearing. Continued to October 26, 2000

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

15.????? 2000.579C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (PURVIS: 558-6354)

50-68 JULIAN AVENUE, west side between 14th and 15th Streets, a through lot from Julian Avenue to Caledonia Street; Lot? 22? in Assessor's Block 3547 --? Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 726.81, 726.11, 726.21 and 726.24 to construct a large institution on a lot greater than 3,000 square feet, with a non-residential use size greater than 3,000 square feet, and with an outdoor activity area, within the Valencia Street NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) with a 50-X height and bulk designation.? The project would involve demolition of three 3-story buildings on the site and construction of a 4-story, 26,560 gross-square-foot, 80-bed residential care facility.? The facility would include counseling offices, a small mental health clinic, administrative offices, community space, and eight off-street parking spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation:? Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S):????

(+) Helen Waukuzoo - Friendship House

- She is from the Navajo Nation.

- She has been Executive Director with the Friendship House for 14 years and employed there for over 20 years.

- She has prayed and dreamed for this project for many years.

- She is happy that they finally found a site where they can provide services to the Indian community.? They will be able to provide 80 beds, jobless programs, prevention programs for women and youth as well as a mental health program.

?- They are very excited about this project and would like to thank all the people who have supported this project.

(+) Ron Rowell - Friendship House Association of American Indians

- He urges the Commission to approve this project.

- He has been working for 14 years to be able to have American Indians to once again own property in this City.

- American Indians have the lowest health status, mostly because of substance abuse.

(+) Ray Moisa - Development Consultant for Friendship House

- He has been involved in this project for the last 4 years.

- This project has been a dream of the organization for more than 14 years.

- He would like to address the issues of local support for this project.? They have petitions and letters of support.

- They have spoken to about 75% of the neighbors and businesses in the surrounding areas.? No one was opposed to the project.

(+) Ashley Phillips - Development Director of Native American Health Center

- He has been working with Friendship House and preparing for this fantastic project.

(+) Martin Waukazoo - Native American Health Center

- He came to the San Francisco Bay Area in 1967.? He has been Executive Director of the Native American Health Center for 20 years.

- It is kind of ironic that on this day, October 12, the Native American community comes before the Commission requesting to be a part of this City and this community and be able to put down their roots on this new facility.?

- There is no opposition within their community and there is no opposition from their neighbors.

- They are truly a community clinic.

(+) Echo Tescier

- He is doing an internship at the U.C. Berkeley.

- Helen Waukazoo has invited him to be part of the Friendship house and do his internship as a counselor and a researcher.

- He supports this project.

(+) Parousha Zand

- She has lived in San Francisco since she was 10 years old and currently she resides in the Mission District.

- The Mission District has been going through a lot of changes and controversy.? Housing has become less available and non-profits have been replaced by dot.comers and other office space.

- She is so thrilled that Friendship House is proposing to expand residential services at this time of great need.

- Homelessness and substance abuse has become clearly visible on their door steps.

(+) Myra Smtih

- Her family has been living in the Mission District for the past 44 years.

- Friendship House has helped her, her sons and her family to have a better life.

(+) Thomas Phillips - Friendship House

- There are many and various Indian tribes in California.

- In the 1980s there were about 250 beds for treatment for alcohol and substance abuse for Indian people in the State of California.?? Today there are less than 75.

- The current programs that Friendship House offers help to many people.

(+) Sally Ramon

- Although she has not had problems with alcohol or narcotics, it has affected her people and her family.

- Behind the Armory, there are a number of homeless people and abandoned cars.? She and a friend often have to go by there to find out what services Friendship House is currently providing.

- She is in support of the project.

(+) Karen Doris Wright

- Although she has to pay for the services at Friendship House since she is a non-Indian, she still likes to participate in the services that they provide and attends graduations.

- She supports the project.

(+) Concha Saucedo Martinez - Director of Instituto Familiar de La Raza

- She is Chicana, Mexican and a Yaki Native.

- She is here to support a great accomplishment.

- The Community in particular the Mission, needs this kind of project.

- It is very important that the Commission support this project.? It is an accomplishment for a non-profit to be able to be involved in community development.

- This is the type of community, human development that is needed.

(+) Did not state name

- She has been in recovery for the past 15 years.? In her recover, she has gone back to work and has received her degree.

- Friendship House has provided recovery services to Indian people in the bay area.

(+) Paul Wagner

- There is a great need for this project to become a reality.

- He has gone through treatment at Friendship House and is grateful for that.

(+) Did Not State His Name - Executive Director of Solidarity of San Mateo County

- He is a Native American.? His encounters with Friendship House and all the residents and graduates have always been welcome at his fellowship.

- He is also the liaison representative of MECA (Mission Economical Cultural Association); he? collaborates with Mitch Salazar who is the Director of the San Francisco District Attorney Community Base Program, his rapport with Friendship House and the people that have come out of there is excellent.

- He is grateful that San Francisco has open arms for Indian people and will continue to do so.

(+) Alvin Ruzo

- He is a graduate and alumni from Friendship House.

- This facility is excellent for Native American men and women since in the area of Fresno, where he is from, there aren?t any treatment facilities for women.

(+) Sharyl Sena

-She is the attorney for Friendship House for at least 10 years.

- This is a wonderful and dynamic organization that has had excellent leadership for many years.

- Friendship House is committed to working with the neighborhood and following all the applicable laws that it will be subject to.

(+) Yule Summers

- He is here to support Friendship House.? He came here with no job and no hope.? Today he has hope and has a job and it?s all because of Friendship House.

(-) Giny Feanester

- She is a tenant at 52 Julian Street.? She is here to express the concerns of the tenants from 50-68 Julian Street.? The demolition of this building will force them to lose their homes.

ACTION: Approved

AYES:??????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

MOTION NO.????? 16006

Adjournment: 4:15 p.m.

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2000

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

?Meeting Minutes

Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 19, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT:??????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Mills, Salinas, Theoharis

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

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Mary Woods; Cecilia Jaroslawsky; Paul Deutsch; Judy Martin; Julian Banales; Andrea Wong; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Isolde Wilson - Acting Secretary Commission Secretary

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

1.???????? 2000.746C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG: 558-6346)

898 STOCKTON STREET, Clay and Sacramento Streets: Lot 17 in Assessor?s Block 0225: -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 812.49 and 812.26 of the Planning Code to convert retail commercial space into a financial service institution at the ground floor and mezzanine level of an existing three-story building with an ATM (automated bank teller machine) walk-up facility at the property line within the CR-NC (Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial District) and 65-A Height and Bulk District.?

WITHDRAWN

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Withdrawn

2.???????? 1999.579E ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NISHIMURA: 558-5967)

301 - 1ST STREET, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ‑ Certification of the 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 342 dwelling units, 454 residential parking spaces and seven retail employee parking spaces, and 10,300 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, Rincon Hill Special Use District ‑Residential Subdistrict, and 200‑R and 250‑R Height and Bulk Districts.? One tower, on the north portion of the building, would be 200 feet high and the other tower on the south side of the building would be 250 feet high.? Parking would be provided from two levels to five levels below ground on the sloping site with the entrance/exit on First Street and an exit on Grote Place off of Folsom Street, where access also would be provided for one off‑street truck loading space.

PLEASE NOTE: The public hearing on the EIR is closed.? The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on August 29, 2000.? The Planning Commission does not conduct public reviews of Final EIRs.? Public comment on the EIR certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation:?? Certify the Environmental Impact Report

(Proposed for Continuance to October 26, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 26, 2000

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

3.???????? 1999.579C ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

301 - 1ST STREET, at the southeast corner of First and Folsom Streets, Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 3748 --?? proposal to develop the site with up to 342 dwelling units in two buildings (one of approximately 200 feet in height, the other of approximately 250 feet in height), approximately 10,300 square feet of ground floor and second floor retail and professional services space, and 342 to 349 independently accessible parking spaces and 113 tandem spaces. Request per Planning Code Section 304 for Conditional Use Authorization under the Planned Unit Development process to allow: (1) a structure over 40 feet in height in an R zoning district per Planning Code Section 253; (2) site coverage at ground level exceeding 80% on a sloping site per Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B); (3) separation between towers, above a height of 150 feet, of 80 feet rather than 150 feet, as required by Planning Code Section 270(e), pursuant to Planning Code 271; (4) exceptions to bulk limits of the "R" bulk district as stated in Planning Code Section 270 (e), pursuant to Planning Code Section 271; (5) parking within 25 feet of the street frontage on the ground floor on a small portion of the site per Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C); (6) a reduction in the loading requirement of Planning Code Section 152 from 2 spaces to 1 space per Planning Code Sections 304; (7) a small portion of the common open space to be provided in solaria (the fitness room and activity room) per Planning Code Sections 135(g)(3), 249.1(c)(4) and 304(d)(3);and (8) up to 1,000 gross square feet of the commercial space to be a small self-service restaurant as required by Planning Code Sections 304(d)(5) and 710.44. The site is within the RC-4 (Residential Commercial High Density) District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District - Residential Subdistrict.? The northern portion of the site is in a 200-R Height and Bulk district; the southern portion of the site is in a 250-R Height and Bulk district.?

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 26, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued to October 26, 2000

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas

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))

Patricia Vaughey

Re: Touchless Car Wash

-? She has been instructed to read a letter from the neighbors of the Touchless Car Wash.? The letter made reference to the fear that neighbors feel since the owners of Touchless Car Wash have created new plans which were submitted without notifying them.

- This violates the trust the neighbors had with the owners of the car wash.

- She will submit the letter to the Department.

John DeCastro - Potrero Hill

Re: Article in the Bay Guardian

- He made reference to an Article in the Bay Guardian of October 18, 2000 regarding Live/Work developments and statistics.

Joe O?Donaghue - Residential Builders

- Last evening, at the Board of Building Appeals meeting, an ally of Mr. de Castro stated he that works as a day laborer occasionally doing handiwork in live/work buildings.? This person sees people sleeping there as opposed to working there.

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

4.???????? Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of 9/28/00 & 10/5/00

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

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

5.???????? Commission Matters

None

6.???????? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE: Consideration of a proposal to amend Article IV, Section 8 of the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission by amending the Order of Business.? The Planning Commission will hear testimony and consider a proposal to amend their Rules and Regulations by altering the location of the? Public Comment category of their Regular Meeting agenda to allow for a more efficient use of the public?s time and participation.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Norman Roff

- He would like to state the fact that the Municipal Transportation Agency, The Public Utilities Commission and Parking and Traffic Commission all hold Public Comment at the beginning.

- Because of the fact that the meetings of the Planning Commission go for such a long time,? and one can never estimate when an item will go on, it is only fair that the Commission allow people to speak at the beginning of the meeting.

- DBI has two Public Comment periods and the Commission can adopt this system.? If not then Public Comment should be made at a specific time.

(-) Joe Luttrell - Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Dwellers

- The Commissioners have one of the toughest jobs in city government.

- One of the good things about having Public Comment at the beginning, everyone is still fresh since the meeting has just started.

- The other option would be to have Public Comment at a specific time.? That way, people can arrive for a specific time.

(-) Steve Williams

- He opposes the rule change.

- Public Comment serves an education purpose for the Commission.

- The Commission really depends on Public Comment.

- The Rules should encourage public participation.

- To have public comment at the end of the meeting would encourage people not to come to speak.

(-) Aurora Grajeda

- Would like to thank the Commission for approving the project at 2500 Market Street.

- The Commission?s responsibility is to the public.? The Commission should also have the best interest of the public.

- Many people will not be able to come to the meetings if Public Comment is changed.

(-) Eric Quezada - MAC

- The public had to endure years of struggle to try to get the Commission to understand what live/work is all about, they had to endure the lies about dot.coms--that offices weren?t offices, double standards on how developers are treated and how community members are treated, endure hate letters and threatening phone calls because they stepped forward.? There was never any conversation with anyone to say how can this situation be made better.

(-) Jose Morales - Senior Housing Action Collaborative

- Moving Public Comment to the end of the meeting would cause a great problem for seniors.

- Please pay attention to the public and do not make arrangements without consulting the public.

(-) Antonio Diaz - PODER and MAC

- He doesn?t approve of the rule change.

- By moving Public Comment to the end of the hearing, it would shut people?s mouths and the public would not be able to have their voices heard.

- A few months ago, he and other people had to wait for many hours before they were able to speak.

(+) Jeffrey Heller - Heller/Manus Architects

- Public Comment at the end of the meeting would enable people to come to the meetings and not necessarily have to miss time from work.? This would give an opportunity for people?s voices to be heard.

- Public Comment is only for items not on the calendar.

- The public is more hurt by having Public Comment at the beginning.

(-) Mary Ann Miller - San Francisco Tomorrow and SPEAK

- She has been coming to the Commission for many years.

- Public Comment provides opportunity for the public to bring to the Commission and the Planning Department items and concerns that they might not be aware of.

- Keep the 1:30 time for 15 minutes.? Then add some time a few minutes before the end of the meeting for additional public comment.

- Put Public Comment at the beginning and at the end of the meeting.

(-) Dick Millet - Potrero Boosters

- Everyone has spoken quite eloquently.

- This would be a bad move for the Commission since they need the public relations.

(-) Rob Eshelman - Tenant Organizer with the Housing Rights of San Francisco and member of MAC

- Every decision that this Commission make is +7-0 in favor of development.

- It is really bad to make senior folks, disabled folks, and families wait around until 9:00 p.m to comment on issues that affect their neighborhoods.

(-) Christian Parenti - MAC

- He is a Mission District resident.

- He opposes the changes.

- The real issue is that the Commission fears democracy.

- It would be best to just eliminate public comment.

(-) Jeannene Przyblyski - Collingwood Hill Neighborhood Association

- She has concerns about monster homes in neighborhoods in San Francisco

- Please leave the Public Comment at the beginning of Commission meetings.

- This proposal is not regarded as an attempt to facilitate people?s access to the Commission.

(-) Bill Wilson

- Have two public comments at each hearing that would make it more convenient for people.

- There are people that are coming to the Commission to let? Commissioners know that their lives are changing.

- It is important that Public Comment be left where it is.

(-) Christine Linnenbach

- Submitted a Press Release from the Seniors and Veterans for Integrity in Government.

- People who are senior citizens have to take public transportation, if public comment was moved to the end of the hearing, they would either have to go home late on public transportation or not be able to attend at all.

- These are public hearings and public participation requires a process where people can participate.

- Please stop fighting, people want to work with the city.? This idea of changing Public Comment is offensive.

- People from district 7 and all over the City have concerns about these changes.

- She has done statistical research on Planning Commission meetings and there is no evidence for this change to be granted.

(-) John Bardis - Inner Sunset Action Committee and Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

- The Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods voted unanimously to urge the planning Commission to leave public comment where it is.? Fifteen minutes is not an unpredictable amount.

- If public comment is ruining the agenda, the Commission should talk to staff and talk to developers.

- If other commissions have Public Comment at the end, that?s because their meetings run for a maximum of 2 hours.

(-) Chris Daly - MAC

- After mobilizing several hundred people here--like community members of the Mission, neighbors of Bryant Square Project, and other supporters of the Mission District--testifying for several hours which the Commission then later approved the project +7-0 with no changes to the project and not having heard what they said, makes them wonder if the Commission is really listening.

- They protested the Macromedia project and yet the Commission voted again for the project without even a discussion.

- They feel that they are under attack over and over again.

- The actions by Commissioner Theoharis, after removing Jonathan Yutes from the podium, requires her resignation as appointed Commissioner.

(-) Patricia Vaughey

- Someone who represents people that are homeless and people that are very wealthy can meet in a room and compromise on issues provided you give them the chance to vote and to have their voices heard.

- Having public comment two times during the hearing is a good idea.

- San Francisco has always been known for allowing people to speak.

(-) Andrew Wood - MAC

- No matter what the time Public Comment is, they will be here.

- They will not let the Commission do things within closed doors or in the dark.

(-) Bud Wilson - West of Twin Peaks Area

- Back in the mid-80's, public testimony was at the end of the hearings and later it was moved to the beginning of the hearing -- there must have been a good reason for this.

- If Public Comment is moved to the end, there will be few people exercising their rights, particularly senior people.

- Maybe the Commission should consider having Public Comment two times during the hearing.

(-) Quintin Mecke - South of Market Anti-Displacement

- Even though their organization has the word Aanti@ in their name, they are pro-community.

- It?s ironic that Mr. Heller would say that it would make it more democratic to wait until 8 or 9 p.m. so more people would show up.

- Democracy is not something that would be associated with the Commission.

- Two opportunities to speak would be a good idea.

(-) Lisa Russ - South of Market Anti-Displacement

- They are a group of residents, businesses, artists, and non-profits who are coming together in the South of Market who have come together to create a voice and create community-oriented planning and to fight the displacement that is happening in the community.

- Whatever it takes, they will be hear to speak during public comment.

- She supports the idea of having two public comments.

(-) Judy West

- She is against moving public comment to the end of the agenda.

- She understand the concerns that the Commissioners have.

- To change the way business is conducted, because of certain instances which have occurred on certain days, is not good.

(-) Joe Butler - Architect

- He is more often here as pro-bono than as a lobbyist for neighbors.

- Public Comment is an effective way to expeditiously bring matters to the attention of the Commission.

- The order of business is currently quite accurate.

(-) Heather Rogers

- Resident of the Mission District and a member of MAC.

- The Planning Department should make things easier for the public to comment and have it two times -- one at 1:30 and one at 5:30 p.m.

(-) Terry Milne - Bernal Heights

- He has been coming to the hearings for about 20 years.

- It is easier for him and his neighbors to leave public comment where it is now.

- He has been educated by hearing people?s comments during Public Comment.

- If there is a group that needs to come down, it is easier to schedule a bunch of people at one time like 1:30 p.m.

(-) David Paul Grace

- In a real democracy, everyone has a voice and time for deliberation.

- We can?t make complicated decisions without public input.

- He advocates the proposal of having two times.

- He would also like for people to be able to call during the hearings and state their opinions.

(-) Sue Hestor

- She has been attending Planning Commission meetings even before public comment was introduced.? Public Comment was a reform measure to open things up for the public.

- She sat during the discussion when the Commission moved Public Comment from the end of the calendar to the beginning of the calendar.

- It?s strange to her that all of a sudden there is a rule change.

- It is the responsibility of the chairperson to manage the meeting smoothly.

(+) Alice Barkley

- With the hearings televised, what the opposition has done is play election politics.

- She supports moving public comment to the end of the hearing.

- This Commission has never ignored public comment.

(+) Joe O?Donaghue - Residential Builders

- He is a political groupie.

- Most of the people who have spoken today are political groupies.? These groupies are the ones who generally speak during Public Comment.

- We are not talking about limiting the public to speak.

- He would like a specific time to have public comment at the end.

(-) Jim Rodriguez

- He is not a political groupie.? This is the first time that he has come to one of the meetings.

- Why are people so confused about having Public Comment at the beginning or the end since the Commission doesn?t pay attention anyway?

ACTION:?????????? Approved proposed amendment to Article IV, Section 8 of the Planning Commission?s Rules and Regulations - Order of Business to move the? Public Comment category to the end of Planning Commission hearings.

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

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

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

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

None

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

BOA

Re:? 1552 Polk Street/Blockbuster Video - The Commission voted to take DR.? While he was waiting for this case to come up, it came to his attention that the video legislation had passed which requires video stores to acquire a conditional use permit.? Therefore, the Board of Appeals did not have jurisdiction.? If the owner wants to continue with the project, he will consult the District Attorney and recommend for the owner to apply for a conditional use permit.

Re: 415 Bryant Street - This was an Appeal of a Negative Declaration which the Commission upheld.? The board upheld that decision +4-1, which the Board of Appeals deemed appropriate.

9.???????? Briefing on Jobs, Housing and the Use of Industrial Land.

SPEAKER(S):

Calvin Welsh

- He would like a copy of the presentation.

Sue Hestor

- She was listening for the words of office and multimedia and these words were not mentioned by Mr. Green.

- She displayed maps of areas where there are live/works, offices, etc.

Alice Barkley

- Between now and election there should be no effort by staff to redefine dot.coms.

- Interim Controls have a definite time out of state law.

- Proposition L, requires that the Commission finish it?s work by June of 2001.

- Look at some of the areas in the City that should be industrial and only that.

- Release some of the areas that have gone through tremendous transition.

- This Commission should take bold steps to make housing available quick since this City cannot wait.

Joe O?Donaghue

- Instead of looking for affordable housing, the term needs to be changed to low-cost? housing which can only come by allowing increased densities.

- District elections have defined that they will be the predominant influence in city politics for generations to come.

- Increased densities can only come in the South of Market and the Bay View areas.

John Bardis

- The increase density has been the policy of this City for the past half century.

- This density should have come from the residential areas of the City.

- They would love to have Mr. O?Donaghue build all the residential housing he wishes.

- It?s a disgrace what has been done to sites that could have invited housing in this City.

10.??????? Status Report? -? 1271-79 Lombard Street

- There was a complaint that the owners were not following the conditions of approval.

- All parties involved will come to the department and meet and let us know what the status of this project is.

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

11.??????? 1999.543DD??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS: 558-6315)

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

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

Note: On October 5, 2000, the Commission passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve as agreed with the Discretionary Review Requestor and Sponsor by a vote of +7 -0.?

Note: On October 12, 2000, the Commission passed a vote of +7-0 to keep public comment closed with the exception of testimony regarding the accuracy of new plans.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):

Steve Williams

- Plans were delivered to his office on Monday afternoon.

- The changes have been drawn and signed off.

- The plans that he has signed off on do reflect the decision of the Planning Commission

Alice Barkley

- The plans do reflect the decision of the Commission

ACTION:?????????? Take Discretionary Review and approved with changes agreed to by the sponsor and the DR requestor.

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

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

12.??????? JOBS-HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? (GREEN: 558-6411)

CONSIDERATION OF INITIATING AMENDMENT OF THE PLANNING CODE AND CONSIDERATION OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ORDINANCE NOS. 00276 AND 00277; Sections 313 through 313.14, and by adding 313.15, to rename the AOFFICE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION PROGRAM@ as the AJOBS-HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM,@ to apply the program to all new and expanded hotel space of at least 25,000 square feet, to all new and expanded entertainment space of at least? 50,000 square feet, and to all new and expanded retail space of at lest 100,000 square feet.

Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate

SPEAKER(S):

Calvin Welsh - Council of the Community Housing Organizations

- The report given by the Director is factually incorrect.

- This ordinance is not the ordinance passed in 1999.? It has been amended substantially and significantly amended in a matter that would actually reduce the number of affordable units developed under a certain scenario.

Brother Kelly Cullen - Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation

- This is a very important piece of policy and legislation.

- He has the same concerns as the previous speaker.? As well as cutting the fee for people who donate land.? Many times people want to donate the money directly to the TNDC instead of going through the Planning Department and the Mayor?s Office of Housing.

- Doing deals with the department?s own choice of housing developers could cause a lot of problems including people possibly setting up their own housing development corporations to really go around the department.

- This legislation is much needed and hopes to is initiated.

ACTION:?????????? Initiated

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

MOTION NO.???? 16008

13.??????? 1999.491E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JAROSLAWSKY: 558-5970)

51 - 3RD STREET (THE HEARST GARAGE) ‑ Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. ?The property is on Lot 058 of Assessor?s Block 3707 and is 33,118 square feet.? The proposed project includes the addition of 93,432 square feet onto an existing 408,754 square foot structure in downtown San Francisco, known as the Hearst Parking Garage and currently utilized as retail space on the ground floor and garage use above.? The proposal includes the addition of three stories of parking onto the existing structure.? The total height of the structure would be approximately 123 feet.? The total number of parking spaces in the garage would increase from 801 spaces (existing) to about 1,044 spaces (proposed).? The project site is located within a C‑3‑O (Downtown Commercial Office) District, within the Financial District of the City of San Francisco, where garage uses are conditionally permitted and within the 120‑X Height and Bulk District.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Michael Delehunt - Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May (Legal Counsel for Hearst Corp.)

- He represents the Hearst Corporation.

- The Hearst Corporation is willing to submit this matter on the staff recommendation and letter they previously provided to the Commission.

ACTION:?????????? Negative Declaration Upheld

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Baltimore, Salinas, Fay

EXCUSED:??????? Chinchilla

MOTION NO.???? 16009

14.??????? 1998.898E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????? (DEUTSCH: 558-5965)

HETCH HETCHY WATER TREATMENT CHLORAMINE CONVERSION PROJECT? - Certification of Final Environmental Impact (EIR).? The project is the proposed conversion of the disinfectant for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) drinking water supply from chlorine to chloramine, to improve reliability of the system to meet water quality requirements of the federal Stage 1 Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Rule, promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1998.? The project would involve construction of chlorine and ammonia feed systems; dechlorination and dechloramination facilities; chemical storage systems; and ancillary roadways and pipelines, mostly at existing SFPUC facilities in four locations: Tesla Portal off of Vernalis Road near Tracy in San Joaquin County; San Antonio Pump Station on Calaveras Road in Sunol Valley, Alameda County; Pulgas Water Temple vicinity on Ca?ada Road, San Mateo County; and Harry W. Tracy Water Treatment Plant off of Crystal Springs Road in San Mateo County.

Note:? The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed.? The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on July 19, 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:?????????? Final Environmental Impact Report Certified

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

MOTION NO.???? 16010

15.??????? 1997.433A ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000)

SPEAKER(S):?? None

ACTION:?????????? Continued Without Hearing to November 16, 2000

AYES:????????????? Theoharis, Mills, Joe, Baltimore, Chinchilla, Salinas, Fay

16.??????? 2000.554C ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MARTIN: 558-6616)

??????????????????????? 3999 MISSION STREET, at the northeast corner of Mission Street and Murray Street, Lot 020, Assessor?s Block 5802 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Section 710.83 of the Planning Code to install a total of three (3) antennae on the roof of the existing building, with the base transceiver station to be located on the ground, as part of a wireless communication network in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Robert Crebs

- Notices were provided in English, Spanish and Cantonese

- A total of 7 people attended community meetings and their questions and issues were addressed.

- Residents within 300 feet were notified.

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

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

ABSENT:????????? Fay

MOTION NO.???? 16011

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

At Approximately 5:20 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

17.??????? 2000.315D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BANALES: 558-6339)

358 SAN CARLOS STREET, Lot 94 in Assessor's Block 3609, west side between 20th and 21st Streets. Staff-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 200006072064, proposing the merger of a three-family dwelling to a one-family dwelling.? The subject property is in a RH-2, (Residential-House, Two-Family) Zoning District and? a 50-X Height-Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Tod Carter - Project Sponsor

- He and his wife are owners of the property.

- He only became aware of the proceedings for Discretionary Reviews only one business day before his deadline to submit a response.

- He doesn?t know the identity or the concerns of the requestor.? He can only speculate that requestor fears that he and his wife are engaging in socially-insensitive speculation in the midst of a housing crisis and requires assurance to the contrary.

-This is not business, this is personal.

- He only wants to set down roots and settle in this house with his family.? He and his family intend to make this their permanent home and not sell it.

- With sadness they served eviction notices when they closed escrow, exercising the Ellis Act.

- They plan to restore the building since it?s a Victorian.? None of the restoration or work done to the house will affect the facade.

- He would like the Commission to approve their project.

ACTION:?????????? Take DR and Disapprove Project

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

NAYES:??????????? Baltimore

ABSENT:????????? Fay

18.??????? 2000.959D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WONG: 558-6381)

1420 DeHARO STREET, west side, between 25th and 26th Streets, Lot 034 & 035 in Assessor's Block 4282A -- Request for Discretionary Review of BPA no. 200006142648, proposing a rear extension at the second floor with roof deck at third floor and a new fire escape from the third to second floor for a two-unit building in a RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.????????

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

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Vice Hanson

- He lives on 25th Street.? He filed DR because this building is massive and out of character with the neighborhood.

- If this project is going to be Arubber stamped,@ he would like to have all rules and regulations followed.

(-) John Seaman

- According to the DR analysis summary, 1420 DeHaro is oversized in it?s relationship to the buildings around it.? The problem with its size relative to the rest of the neighborhood is compounded by its typography.

- He would like to know what variances, easement or special conditions were required in the DR hearing of 1989 that allowed the construction of 1420 DeHaro in the first place, and what bearing that might have on the expansion of this building.

(+) Joe Sun - Sun Architecture

- Prior to this meeting, he attempted several times to contact Mr. Hanson to resolve issues.? The only compromise was to not go forward with the project.

- There are a few neighbors who contacted him and he was able to resolve their issues.

- He doesn?t believe that the construction would block Mr. Hansen?s view .

- He would like the Commission to approve the project.

ACTION:?????????????????????? Do not take DR and approved project as submitted.

AMENDED MOTION:???? Take DR and approve project as submitted, and Issue a Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR).

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

NAYES:??????????????????????? Chinchilla

ABSENT:????????????????????? Fay

Adjournment: 5:41 p.m.

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2000.

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

?Meeting Minutes

Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 26, 2000

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

PRESENT:?????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????? Mills

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT THEOHARIS AT 1:37 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald G. Green - Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Isolde Wilson, Hillary Gitelman; Lesley Buford; Bill Wycko; Tina Tam; Dario Jones; Tony Kim;? Patricia Gerber - Transcription Secretary; Andrea Green - Acting Commission Secretary

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

1.???????? 1999.579E ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (NISHIMURA: 558-5967)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 19, 2000)

NOTE: PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE PERMITTED ON CERTIFICATION ISSUES ONLY.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):?? ????????????? None

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

2.???????? 1999.579C ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

301? -? 1ST STREET, at the southeast corner of First and Folsom Streets, Lot 32 in Assessor's Block 3748 --? A proposal to develop the site with up to 342 dwelling units? in two buildings (one of approximately 200 feet in height, the other of approximately 250 feet in height),? approximately 10,300 square feet of ground floor and second floor retail and professional services space, and 342 to 349 independently accessible parking spaces and 113 tandem spaces. Request per Planning Code Section 304 for Conditional Use Authorization under the Planned Unit Development process to allow: (1) a structure over 40 feet in height in an R zoning district per Planning Code Section 253; (2) site coverage at ground level exceeding 80% on a sloping site per Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B); (3) separation between towers, above a height of 150 feet, of 80 feet rather than 150 feet, as required by Planning Code Section 270(e), pursuant to Planning Code 271; (4) exceptions to bulk limits of the "R" bulk district as stated in Planning Code Section 270 (e), pursuant to Planning Code Section 271; (5) parking within 25 feet of the street frontage on the ground floor on a small portion of the site per Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(5)(C); (6) a reduction in the loading requirement of Planning Code Section 152 from 2 spaces to 1 space per Planning Code Sections 304; (7) a small portion of the common open space to be provided in solaria (the fitness room and activity room) per Planning Code Sections 135(g)(3), 249.1(c)(4) and 304(d)(3);and (8) up to 1,000 gross square feet of the commercial space to be a small self-service restaurant as required by Planning Code Sections 304(d)(5) and 710.44. The site is within the RC-4 (Residential Commercial High Density) District and the Rincon Hill Special Use District - Residential Subdistrict.? The northern portion of the site is in a 200-R Height and Bulk district; the southern portion of the site is in a 250-R Height and Bulk district.?

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 19, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):?? ??????????? None

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

AYES:?????????????? ??????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

3.???????? 2000.290C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BRESSANUTTI: 575-6892)

370-398? - 10TH STREET, northwest corner of Harrison Street; Lots 11, 12 and 13 in Assessor?s Block 3520 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to construct a? four story (plus mezzanines), 50-foot-high, mixed use building with commercial space and off street parking on the ground floor and 30 live/work units on the upper floors, requiring Conditional Use Authorization to allow construction of new live/work units in the Industrial Protection Zone, across the street from the Mixed Use Housing Zone, per the Interim Zoning Controls established by Planning Commission Resolution No. 14861, in an SLR (Service/Light/Industrial/Residential) District and a 50-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

4a.??????? 1999.821BDVC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

178 TOWNSEND STREET, on the southeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788 -- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow up to 49,999 square feet of office space within a building in the SLI (Service/Light-Industrial) Zoning District that is also a Contributory structure to the South End Historic District, pursuant to Planning Code Section 803.5(b).? 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 Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District and is a Contributory building to the South End Historic District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

4b.??????? 1999.821VCDB? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

178 TOWNSEND STREET, on the southeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788 --? Request under Planning Code Section 321(b) (4) for authorization to add the approximately 49,002 square feet of office space to the City's Office Development Annual Limit Reserve for Smaller Buildings. 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 Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District, and is a Contributory building to the South End Historic District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

4c.??????? 1999.821BVCD ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

178 TOWNSEND STREET, on the southeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788 -- Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of a project proposing renovation of an existing three-story building from auto repair to office use.? Approximately 49,002 square feet of office use is proposed?? The proposal would develop a new fourth floor to the existing structure to make the building four-stories and 50-feet tall. 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 Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District, and is a Contributory building to the South End Historic District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):?? ????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

4d.??????? 1999.821BCDV????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)

178 TOWNSEND STREET, on the southeast corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place, Lot 13 in Assessor's Block 3788.? The proposal is renovation of an existing three-story building from auto repair to office use.? Approximately 49,002 total gross square feet of office use is proposed, approximately 45,000 square feet of that as occupied floor area.?? The proposal would develop a new fourth floor to the existing structure to make the building four-stories and 50-feet tall.? Request for an off-street parking waiver pursuant to Planning Code Sections 161(m) and 307(g) to reduce the Planning Code required parking of 90 spaces, to 18 legally independently accessible off-street parking spaces, but 35 tandem/valet spaces in total.? 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 Zone, the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District's South End Service District, and is a Contributory building to the South End Historic District.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

5.???????? 2000.052E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????? (JAROSLAWSKY: 558‑5970)

Arco Way ‑Appeal of a Preliminary Negative Declaration. ?The vacant project site is located on lots 024 through 028, lot 032,? lots 037 through 039 and lot 051 located on block 3154 within the Outer Mission District of the City of San Francisco.? The proposed project includes the rezoning of the ten legal lots from Public (P) to Residential House‑One Family (RH‑1) with a 40‑X Height and Bulk Designation and the construction of one, single‑family structure on each legal lot.? Each structure would be approximately 2,000 square feet, contain a two‑car garage and be a maximum of 30 feet in height.? Nine lots would contain 25 feet of frontage along Arco Way and one lot would be a flag lot.? The lots are along the northern side of Arco Way and range from 1,973 square feet to 9,900 square feet and abut the Bay Area Rapid Transit tracks to the north.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to November 9, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe,? Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

6.???????? 2000.052EZ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BORDEN: 558-6321)

14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 50, and 56 ARCO WAY and Three Additional Vacant Lots, north side of Arco Way, abutting the Bay Area Rapid Transit tracks; Lots 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 032, 037, 038, 039, and 051 in Assessor's Block 3154 -- Request to reclassify the subject property from P (Public District) to RH-1(Residential, House, One-Family District) with a 40-X Height and Bulk District designation. The rezoning of these parcels is related to building permit applications on file with the Department? to construct ten single-family structures on the ten existing vacant lots. Each single-family dwelling will require separate approval under the building permit application process.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to November 9, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

7.???????? 2000.1018D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (MILLER: 558-6344)

1 LA AVANZADA STREET ("Sutro Tower") -- Commission-initiated Discretionary review of Building Permit Application No. 2000-08-18-8285 for installation of a 5'-11" diameter satellite dish antenna on the roof of the existing transmitter building, a transmission line from the antenna into the building, digital audio broadcast equipment in existing transmitter building, and interior partitions in the building, in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application with staff modification.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

8.???????? 2000.291CZ ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS: 558-6315)

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of the Draft Resolution for Reclassification.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

9.???????? 2000.291CZ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WOODS: 558-6315)

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2000)???????????????????

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?????????????

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

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

B.???????? COMMISSIONERS? QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

10.????? Commission Matters

None

Theoharis: Staff to research and provide status report on? 1652 - 16th Avenue Discretionary Review

C.???????? DIRECTOR?S REPORT

11.????? Director?s Announcements.

None

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

None

13.????? Status Report - 123-127 Collingwood Street (LYRIC).

Situation improving but still are some concerns regarding littering and loitering immediately adjacent LYRIC facility.? In general doing excellent job, needs a little more work but they are really attempting to work with neighborhood.

D.???????? CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION

14.????? 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.

NOTE: PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RE-OPENED TO ADDRESS MOST RECENT REVISIONS ONLY.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 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.

Note: On August 3, 2000,? a motion to take Discretionary Review and remove the 4th floor failed to carry by a vote of +3 -3.? The matter was continued? to August 17, 2000.? Commissioners Mills, Chinchilla and Richardson voted no.? Commissioner Salinas was excused.

Note: On August 17, 2000, the Commission passed the following motions:

1st. 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 of + 3 -3.? Commissioners Chinchilla, Mills and Salinas voted no.

2nd Motion: Take Discretionary Review with the following changes: 1) set back 8 feet further on the 4th floor; 2) modify the front facade to fit into the character of the neighborhood.? Vote of +3 -3.? Commissioners Theoharis, Antenore and Joe voted no.

?SPEAKER(s):

(-) Andrea Wurland, Discretionary Review Requestor

- Most recent revisions does not address the main issue, which are the height and bulk of this building.?????????

- Proposed project is a two-family

- Home need to be turned down, opposed to dimensions, modifications have not amounted to? much of anything

- It will affect my quality of life

- It is not affordable housing

- 4th floor should be eliminated, this project should be scaled down

- Crowded street, there is a school on the corner

- Asked not to build a parapet around the top, going beyond what the plans showed

(-) Paul Curtis

-Revised plans are showing the current make of the street, and reflect a 4-story, 4,300 square foot bldg.

- In the neighborhood the square footage of each house is about 1500 to 1600 square feet

- This project is going to be larger than any other houses in the neighborhood

-? Top floor should be removed

- The accuracy of the new revised plans is questionable

-? Most houses in the neighborhood are two story height, it will be out of character?

(-) Paul Travis????????????????

- Owner does not agree to put a parapet on the building

- Building is two to three feet taller than everything that has been shown in the plans

(+) John O?Reilly, Sponsor

- Revised plans are accurate

- Portrait of bulk is inaccurate, overstated?

- There won?t be a parapet, ?????????

- Building won?t be out of scale, it is appropriate for the neighborhood

- Project does not make economic sense without the top floor

- Made substantial changes?????????????????????

(+) Brett Gladstone

- Revisions showed building as stated 5 feet below the height limit, in compliance with some legislation pending before the Board of Supervisors, proposed by Sup. Leno

- Adding as a condition of approval that there will not be a parapet in the building

- Our building is under the lower height required,

- Single family home unit

ACTION:??????????????????????? Approved???????????????????? AYES:?????????????? ??????????? Baltimore, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

NAYES:????????????????????????? Chinchilla

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

15.??????????? 1999.639D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (ARCE: 558-5986)

Preliminary Recommendation: No recommendation at this time.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2000).

The vote was +7 -0.

Note: On October 12, 2000, the Commission passed a vote of +7 -0 to keep public comment closed with the exception of testimony regarding the transportation report and the accuracy of revised? plans.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):?????????????????

(-) Veronica Sanchez

- Driveway is different from other homes in the neighborhood

- Traffic mitigation to our concerns about excess speeding.

- Suggested to the Department of Parking and Traffic to be a one way street, they recommended against that

- It is an unsafe intersection

- DPT coalitions records and they have been 16 collisions

(-) J. Cantou

- Revised plans showed some changes on the structure, including some planting that will take place on San Jose Avenue,

- Opposed to having? any vegetation planned on San Jose Avenue

- Further reduction of visibility on San Jose Avenue

- Where construction trucks would be able to park

- Create shading in the adjacent housing

- A lots of? issues have not been addressed

- Safety issues that are going to be created once the structure is built,? along with the fact it that would block the natural light and ventilation from the adjoining house

(-)Thomas Luchini??????????

- Extremely dangerous intersection, people drive too fast

- His car has been marked about four times on that busy intersection/corner

(-) John Horton

- Side window, putting the proposed? light well would block sun light

- Can not put a three story house on a very small piece of property

(-) Valery Storey

- Presented a petition from neighborhood

- Without character in this neighborhood

- Property is very small lot

(-)Bruce Hoffman

-Not for residential, it is a very small lot

-Dangerous traffic intersection

(-) Gene Kaplan

- Historical dangerous intersection

- It would be a death trap with all traffic modifications

(-) Tony Sarcos

- Strongly reject this proposal

(+) Steve Vettel - representative, project sponsor

- Legal buildable? lot

- Safer driveway situation compared to other driveways in the City

- 6 months of discussion with Department of Parking and Traffic to see if there is a way to improve the traffic situation

(+) Jonathan Pearlman

- Trees are not necessary

- Size of the house, there are some 2 story houses in the neighbhorhod- Light and air makes almost impossible to block the sunlight of the adjacent neighbor

- 1100 square feet of living space over the garage level, due to the strange shape of the lot it is kind tricky to get living space on that level

-? Added light well

- House generally, try to make it fitted to the neighborhood

- It is different from any other house in the City

ACTION:??????????????????????? Do not take Discretionary Review and approve project as proposed

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore,? Fay, Joe, Salinas

NAYES:????????????????????????? Chinchilla, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

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

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

Planning Commission consideration and recommendation regarding proposed revisions to Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, containing procedures for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend Adoption by the Board of Supervisors

SPEAKER (s):??

Sue Hestor

- Conflict on the appeal of EIR, the way the process is been drafted

- EIR and project approval are two different tracks a lot time, there are not certified in ????????????????????? the same meeting

- Page 18 there is rule regarding timing, where it says A you have to appeal on 20 calendar days after certification of EIR.@

- The only way that make sense, CU and EIR have to be appeal to Board of Supervisor, if like they have the same period of appeal

- Appeal process does not make sense??

Alice Barkley

- Appeal process for Environmental Impact Report to Board of Supervisors is very simple, there is no reason why a legislation can be drafted to accommodate both ends.

- Appeal period should what is now 7 days

- Board of Supervisors had to do is to consolidate the appeal period with the Conditional Use hearing if it is appeal, if the Conditional Use hearing is not appeal, then the Board of Supervisors, simple dismissed the appeal, because they won?t have jurisdiction.

- Language should be clarified, that an appeal of an EIR, to the Board of Supervisors should be only on project where the Board of Supervisors have jurisdiction.? There is not reason for them to review it if they don?t have jurisdiction.

ACTION:??????????????????????? Adopted

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

MOTION No.????????????????? 16012

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (RICH: 558-6345)

17.??????? General Plan Referral for Urban Design aspects of the Third Street Light Rail Project, including, station platforms, street lighting, trackway paving, and other urban design elements.

Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of conformance with the General Plan.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):???????????????? None?

ACTION:??????????????????????? Continued to 11/9/00

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

18.??????? 1999.377E????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BUFORD: 558-5973)

SOUTHERN WATERFRONT LEASING AND DEVELOPMENT: Public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Port of San Francisco is considering proposals for interim uses, long term uses, and capital improvements that were not included in the Waterfront Land Use Plan EIR analysis (Case No. 94.155E, State Clearinghouse No. 94123007, certified January 9, 1997).? All of these proposed uses and future development assumptions, as summarized below, constitute Athe project@ proposed for analysis in a Supplemental EIR:? Coach USA (bus storage and repair) at a Pier? 96 location; British Pacific Aggregates (bulk cargo and potential concrete and asphalt batching plant uses) at a Pier 94 location; Bode Gravel/Mission Valley Rock (concrete ready-mix facility and bulk cargo use) proposed for relocation from Mission Bay to Pier 92 and potential new asphalt plant; ISG Resources (import, storage, and transloading of fly ash, slag, and other constituent elements for concrete) proposed at the Pier 90 grain silos; Waste Resources Technologies ?(construction material recycling) proposed for relocation from Candlestick Point to a warehouse at Pier 70;? RMC Lonestar (concrete ready-mix facility, including bulk cargo barge and rail transport), proposed for relocation from Mission Bay to a Pier 80 location; construction of a lift-segment Illinois Street bridge between Piers 80 and 90-92 to allow rail and truck transport between Port facilities on either side of Islais Creek; dredge material handling at Pier 94; cargo shipping contracts (containerized and non-containerized cargo shipping) on Piers 80 and 94-96; development of approximately 40 acres of Pier 90-94 Backlands for mixed light industrial and commercial uses; Pier 70 Maritime Reserve (unspecified general industrial and maritime industrial uses); and Pier 70 Opportunity Area ( development of about 16 acres for mixed-use commercial, public access and recreational maritime uses).?

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department?s offices until the close of business on November 7, 2000.

SPEAKER (s):????????????????

(-) Toby Levine, Co-Chair, Pier 70 Advisory Board

- Have a number of concerns about it

- See benefit adding the proposed changes to the Waterfront

- Pier 70 a very complex area, have some environmental hazards

-EIR needs to be analyzed very careful????????????????

(-) Alex Lantsberry

- Pier 70 is a gateway to Hunter?s Point Neighborhood

- Existing open space, project of this magnitude, would affect the quality of their life

- Project is near housing the southeast section

- Hunter?s Point neighbors have respiratory problems

- 30% of school kids have asthma

- Over 2000 tons of pollution a day

- Improve the status of the gateway, make sure that this thing does not serve as the ugly entrance to the neighborhood

- Eliminate the boats and rail

(-) Juan Barragan

- Southeast of SF take a lot of the burden of the factory in the City

- Trucks constantly driving back and forth thru the community

- A lot of people opposed

- It won?t bring any job to the community, majority of neighborhood are low-income

(-) Patrick Rump

- Neighbors of Bay View Hunters Point deserve clean air, open space

- There are about 80 species of birds every year using the site

- Not ecologically ideal

(-) Dana Lanzas

- A lot of school kids? in the southeast have been marginalized from open space,

- There should be another way to utilize the site

- Encourage to revisit this proposal

- Minimum environmental impact at Pier 70

(-) Lynn Saxton

- No set controls over the amount of asphalt that they would be producing

- How much pollution? is going to be put in the area

- Neighborhood don?t have any information

- Mitigation should be adopted, significant impact regarding pollution

- Insufficient information

- Polluting the area from the rest of the City

ACTION:??????????????????????? No action required

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

19.??????????? 2000.009E????????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BUFORD 558-5973)

1800 MISSION STREET (STATE ARMORY),- Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project site? occupies the northern half of a block bordered by Fourteenth Street to the north, Mission Street to the east, Fifteenth Street to the south, and Julian Street to the west.? The proposed project involves the rehabilitation of? the existing four-level (plus basement) State Armory building and conversion of? the use from vacant to a telecommunications facility.? The project would provide approximately 240,000 gsf of space devoted to telecommunication tenants (including co-location companies, web hosting companies, and/or telecommunication switching firms) and parking. The proposed project includes 32 off-street (self-park) parking spaces and a loading area that could accommodate at least two trucks. The site is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and the 50-X and 65-B Height and Bulk Districts and is within the Mission District neighborhood. The building is listed in Appendix A of Article 10 of the Planning Code as City Landmark #108 and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.? A variance would be required to provide fewer than the Planning Code-required amount of parking spaces.?

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

SPEAKER (s):?????????????? None???????????????????????????? ACTION:?????????????????????? Continued to 11/2/00

AYES:?????????????? ????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:??????????????????????? Mills

20.??????????? 1997.478E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WYCKO: 558-5972)

525 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE/CITY ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project? involves demolition of an existing, vacant State of California office building and construction of a new building for City offices on City-owned property at the southwest corner of Polk Street and Golden Gate Avenue on Lot 1 of Assessor's Block 766 in the San Francisco Civic Center area.? Option A would be a 14-story, 181-foot-tall building with about 255,000 square feet of office space; Option B would be a 12-story, 156-foot-tall building with about 215,000 square feet of office space.? Each option would include 100 parking spaces (140 with valet operations) and would seek a Variance from the Planning Code for on-site parking and loading.

Preliminary Recommendation:? No Action Required

Note: Written Comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on November 7, 2000.

SPEAKER (s):??????????????

(-)Michael Levin

- Action A would be too intrusive in the WIC Center

- City deserve to have the finest architecture

- This new building should have the finest possible design, make more like the new ??????????????????????? State Building if possible

Jim Haas

- Height has been informally suggested, that the shoulder of the State building should be the mark? of the height of the building; the 14 story pushes that? too much, 13 story alternative should be look at.

ACTION:?????????????????????? No Action Required???????????????????

21.?????????? 2000.817B ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (WONG: 558-6381)

2550 CESAR CHAVEZ STREET, north side, near the intersection of Vermont Street; Lot 016 in Assessor?s block 4329 - Request under Planning Code Section 321 for authorization to convert 33,500 gross square feet in the building from industrial use to office use and to create an additional 10,000 gross square feet of office use for a total of 43,500 gross square feet.? The subject property falls within? a M-1(Light Industrial) Zoning District and a 50-X/65-J Height and Bulk District.? It also lies in the Industrial Protection Zone of the Industrial Land Interim Zoning Controls.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Recommendation

SPEAKER (s):?????????????? None??????? ???????????????????? ACTION:?????????????????????? Continued to 11/16/00

AYES:?????????????? ??????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

22.??????????? 2000.824C??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG: 558-6346)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 12, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):?????????????? None???? ??????????????????????? ACTION:?????????????????????? Continued to 12/7/00

AYES:?????????????? ??????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

23.?????????? 2000.467C???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (TAM: 558-6325)

2362 MARKET STREET, north side of Market Street between Castro Street and 16th Street; Lot 11 in Assessor's Block 3562 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 721.21 and 721.42, to allow the establishment of a full-service restaurant, approximately 3,200 square feet in size, in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District.? The proposal is to establish the Long Life Noodle Company and Jook Joint, providing? approximately 87 seats and operating between 11:30 am to 11:00 pm. The proposal will include minor interior and exterior alterations that will not result in expansion of the building envelope.????

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 28, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):?????????????

(+) Hahn Phan - Ruben & Alter, representing project sponsor

- Agreed to conditions of approval regarding validate parking

ACTION:???????????????????????????????? Approval

AYES: ??????????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Theoharis

NAYES:?????????????????????????????????? Salinas

ABSENT:???????????????????????????????? Mills

MOTION No.?????????????????????????? 16013

F.???? ????? SPECIAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At Approximately 4:16 P.M. the Planning Commission convened into a Special Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing.

24.??????? 2000.884D ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (PURVIS: 558-6354)

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 5, 2000)

SPEAKER (s):?????????????? None??????????????????????????? ACTION:?????????????????????? Continued to 11/9/00

AYES:?????????????? ??????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

25.??????????? 2000.773D??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (YOUNG: 558-6346)

317 RUTLEDGE STREET, south side between Peralta Avenue and Alabama Street, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 5541, proposing to construct a two-story rear addition, approximately 278 square feet in floor area in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

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

SPEAKER (s):??????????????

(-) Neil Gibbs

-Majority of homes were built long time ago

-Unit is the lower part - there is no view

-Objections are not to do with view , it is strictly a privacy issue

-Glass wall design peers? into our property

-If something like this is built it will set bad precedents

-Reduce the amount of glass

-Equalize the size of windows

- Will increase height of the fence

- Will plant some shrub bering????????????????????????????????????????????????????

(+) Katherine Conway

-Reduce the amount of window glass

- Out of character

(+) Nina Menzo - representing Project Sponsor

- Keeping the character of the neighborhood

- Privacy issue rather unfair

- Proposed addition is 278 square feet????

- Proposed addition meet Bernal Heights Design Guidelines

- Distance between the proposed addition and the existing house for the DR?s requestor is ? about 61 feet at the rear yard

(+) Peter Strauss, Property Owner

- Good neighbor gesture, by no building all the way up

- Have been through a year and half in meetings

- ?????????????????????????????????

ACTION:?????????????????????? Do not take DR and approve project

AYES:?? ??????????? ??????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

26.??????? 2000.409D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (JONES: 558-6477)

579 - 41ST AVENUE, between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1503 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 9925783 proposing the demolition of an existing two-story single-family dwelling, and Building Permit Application No. 9925782S proposing the construction of a new four-story two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER (s):??????????????

Irene Kazamiski, DR Requestor

- Project negatively affect her property from all aspects

- Block view from? light well

- There will diminution of values for her property

- Safety concern

- Buildings are adjacent both in foundation and adjoining walls

- No plans for fire scape

- Does not oppose neighbor from improving property

- Project will make her living space dark

- Concerned whether this building is planned as a two unit or multi-residential unit with three or more apartments in it

Benjamin Kong - Son of Project Sponsor

-House was built on 1912, no improvement has been done in the last 30 years.

- Existing conditions are bad

- Not seismic work has been done to the structure and the foundation is below grade

-There is fungus and dryrot through out the sewer line, sewer line is crack

-Department of Building Inspection has told us that is qualified for demolition??????????????????????????????????

-New building plans has been submitted and meet all standards, codes and ordinances

- We reviewed our plans concerning adequate light for our neighbors to suit their request

ACTION:?????????????????????? Take DR with staff recommendations

AYES:?????????????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

27.??????? 2000.578D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KIM: 558-6290)

1401 DOUGLASS STREET, southeast corner at Duncan Street, Lot No.020 in Assessor?s Block 6605 -- Request? for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 200002252837, 200002252844 and 200002252847 for demolition of an existing one-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling.? The proposal includes the subdivision of the subject lot into two legal lots and construction of a new single-family dwelling unit on each new parcel.? The subject lot is zoned RH-1 (House, One-Family) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER (s):??????????????

Nancy Polly- Community Manager, Village Square Apartment? (will be out of town on 11/9/00)

- Read a letter from Robert F. Schmidt

- Lived in the community for 20 years

- 6 of their view apartments will be affected with this project

ACTION:?????????????????????? Continued to 11/9/00

AYES:?????????????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

28.??????????? 2000.029D???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)

2044 BRYANT STREET, west side between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot No. 3 in Assessor's Block 4022 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2000/06/28/3939 proposing to construct a 2nd floor in an existing structure and to convert approximately 13,000 of square feet of light industrial use into approximately 14,500 square feet of office use and 17 off-street parking spaces, in an M-1 (Light Industrial) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and an IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone) Buffer.? In addition, the project includes providing three additional parking spaces off site.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed

SPEAKER (s):??????????????

(-) Sue Hestor - DR Requestor

- No plans on file, very little to go on

- There is no notice of 2nd phase of the project

- Page 2 on parking the project Sponsor proposed to building 17 spaces on 1685 Florida? which is an unsafe parcel

- Where is the categorical exemption dealing with the entirety of the conversion of this project?

- Where is 1685 Florida Street building? going to be built,? What is it size?

-? Is the developer doing multiple projects on the same site?

- MEA has to look at the Environmental Analysis

- What is the entirety of this building?????????????????????????????? - Staff was aware of the subdivision, creation of a new bldg.

- Nothing on map that indicates it is a new building.????????????????????????????????? (+) Kirk Miller - Architect

-Regarding the? issue of displacement, occupants of the building are looking for other site to continue their business ??????????? -

(+) David Levy

- CEQA issue, this project is separately categorically exempt

- There will be 17? off street parking?????????????????????????????????

ACTION:?????????????????????? Take Discretionary Review with staff recommendations

AYES:?????????????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

29.??????????? 2000.573D????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KIM: 558-6290)

141 JUANITA WAY, east side between Evelyn Way and Del Sur Avenue, Lot No. 028 in Assessor?s Block 2958 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application NO. 20000125174S, proposing to construct for a second-story vertical addition.? The subject property is an existing one-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (House, One-Family, Detached) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER (s):??????????????

(-) Mark Debbitt

-Public has been misinformed

-Vertical addition there are about 16 on the neighborhood.

-Concern regarding sunlight

-Property would be seriously impacted

-Guidelines should be implemented

-This is a unique neighborhood (Miraloma Park)

-Would damage the whole character of the neighborhood

(-) Daniel J. Michalske ???????????????????????????????????????????????

-Lived in neighborhood for 19 years

-Project will impact the neighborhood

(-) Sharon McChaslky

- Lived 27 year in neighborhood

- Formally informed of the project two weeks ago by the Commission

- Owner of proposed project have not been truthful about their project

- Oppose project

(-) Elizabeth Collier

-Impact of the proposed addition would block their view

-There are small lots

-Violate the Miraloma Park guidelines

(-) Page Hersey??????????????????????????

- Changing the neighborhood character

- Sunlight will be blocked totally

- It is a huge addition

(-) John Treuthick

- Loss of light, view

- Decks in the back yard makes project looks even larger

(-) David Smith

- Sunlight is the most precious thing in the neighborhood

- 15 feet above his property

- Lose his privacy

(+) Debbie McGraff - project sponsor

- Design would affect the character of the neighborhood

- This is a very charming neighborhood

- Wants no confrontation with neighbors

- Needs more space for her growing children

- Not trying to make her project to look smaller than what it is

(+) Donna Warrenton, Project Architect

- Project meets the Miraloma design guidelines

- Square footage of the house there are not limits. What you can build within the set height?

- Existing 2nd floor, will make 8 foot ceiling, it won?t be as high as you expect

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

AYES:?????????????????????????? Baltimore, Chinchilla, Fay, Joe, Salinas, Theoharis

ABSENT:????????????????????? Mills

G.??? 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))

None

Adjournment: 6:06

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

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

San Francisco City and County Links