To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

November 20, 2003

November 20, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, November 20, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon - Acting Zoning Administrator; Diane Lim, Costolino Hogan, Geoffrey Nelson, Tom Wang, Paul Lord, Dario Jones, Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

      1. (J.IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - Consideration of a Policy to create a pre-application process for all new construction and certain expansion applications in RH and RM Districts and to establish criteria for administrative discretionary review.

        (Proposed for Continuance to December 18, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 18, 2003.

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

      2. 2003.0966T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        FORMULA RETAIL USES - Consideration of an Ordinance to amend the Planning Code by adding Section 703.3 and by amending Section 182 to make findings as to the need to regulate formula retail uses, to define formula retail uses, prohibit formula retail uses in the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and in the Neighborhood Commercial Cluster Districts at Cole and Carl Streets and Parnassus and Stanyan Streets, to require any building permit application for formula retail use to comply with the notice and design review procedures of Section 312 of the Planning Code, to provide that the burden to prove that a use is not a formula retail use rests with the building permit applicant or holder, and to provide that nonconforming uses in Residential District which are seeking to change in use to retail sales activity or retail sales establishment which is also a formula retail use must comply with the provisions of Section 703.3 , making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        (Proposed for Continuance to December 18, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 18, 2003.

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

        3. 2003.0860D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

        357 HOWTH STREET - east of Howth Street between Mount Vernon Avenue and Ridge Lane; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 7035 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.21.2744, proposing a one-story (over storage) rear horizontal extension and stairs leading from the new addition to the rear yard, to an existing single family dwelling within an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

        (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.

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

      4a. 2002.0580D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        90 MARS STREET (A.K.A. 26 DEMING STREET) - west side of the street between Corbett and 17th Streets, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 2654 -Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.31.7958, proposing to construct a three-story single-family dwelling at the rear of an existing vacant lot, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Proposed for Continuance to January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 22, 2004.

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

      4b. 2003.1170D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        96 MARS STREET (A.K.A. 300 CORBETT AVENUE)- northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 2654 -Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.21.0319, proposing to construct a four-story over garage single-family dwelling that is one in a pair of side-by-side buildings on the same lot, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Proposed for Continuance to January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 22, 2004.

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

      4c. 2003.1187D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        300 CORBETT AVENUE - northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 2654 -Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.10.9221, proposing to construct a three-story over garage single-family dwelling that is one in a pair of side-by-side buildings on the same lot, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Proposed for Continuance to January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 22, 2004.

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

      4d. 2003.1104D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        300 CORBETT AVENUE - northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 2654 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Application No. 2003.03.10.9220, proposing to demolish an existing two-story single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of two side-by side single-family dwellings on the same lot), located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

      (Proposed for Continuance to January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 22, 2004.

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

      4e. 2003.1186D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        306-308 CORBETT AVENUE (A.K.A. 300 CORBETT AVENUE)- northwest corner of Corbett Avenue and Mars Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2660 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.17.6897, proposing to construct a four-story over garage two-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to January 22, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 22, 2004.

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

      5. 2002.0443D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

        426 31st AVENUE - east side between Clement Street and Geary Boulevard, Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 1462 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.18.3817, proposing to substantially alter an existing two-story single-family house by extending the building to the rear, adding a full third and partial fourth floor, and adding one additional dwelling unit in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The altered building will contain two dwelling units and two off-street parking spaces.

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

        Request for Discretionary Review has been withdrawn.

        ACTION: None. The Discretionary Review request was withdrawn.

      6. 2003.0912D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        1770 33RD AVENUE- east side of the street between Moraga and Noriega Streets, Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 2017 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.10.10.8736, proposing to construct a two-story rear horizontal addition on a single-family dwelling located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

        Request for Discretionary Review has been withdrawn.

        ACTION: None. The Discretionary Review request was withdrawn.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commission Secretary:

        - She stated that her closed-session review is scheduled for December 11, 2003, at noon in room 400.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        - He attended a meeting at St. Brendan's Parish Hall in District 7 under the hospice of Supervisor Hall. The meeting included neighborhood representatives and activists, etc.

        - The main topic of discussion was the Housing Element.

        - The people in attendance wanted him to convey to the Commission that they want to reopen the public hearing on the amendment process of the Housing Element during the environmental review process. There are still people who are not in support of various parts of the document. There is a fear that if the environmental review is completed and approved, that not enough Commissioner's comments will be incorporated.

        - Would it be appropriate to calendar a session in which the Commission would take up the amendment of the Housing Element?

        - Even though people can still send written comments, the public would still like to state their comments to the Commission.

        Commissioner Bill Lee:

        - He received a commuter profile regarding a Survey of San Francisco Bay Area Commute Patterns in the Bay Area from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Solano and Sonoma. He will be providing a copy of this to the Commission.

        - This is important because it provides updated information regarding transit, the use of public transit, etc.

        - This type of information should be included in the Housing Element.

        - He agrees with Commissioner Antonini about not closing public comment on the Housing Element. It would be helpful to have at least one more haring before having the EIR hearing.

        Commissioner Boyd:

        - He does not agree with Commissioner Antonini about not closing public comment on the Housing Element.

        - He is glad the Commissioner went to the neighborhood meeting and received input from the public.

        - He feels that the process during the Housing Element was done properly and that there was enough information submitted.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        - He requested a discussion on Article 10 of the Planning Code which establishes the Landmark Advisory Board.

        - He would like to have this scheduled some time in February, 2004.

        - The reason for this is because San Francisco, unlike other California localities, has not kept pace with the developments as they relate to preservation under CEQA guidelines.

        -When is the environmental review going to start regarding the Housing Element?

            Acting Director Responded:

          - He feels that within a couple of weeks, staff will determine whether it will be an EIR or a Negative Declaration and what the environmental process will be.

        Commissioner Hughes:

        - He would suggest that the Commission wait to hear from staff on what will be the environmental process regarding the Housing Element before scheduling another public hearing.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        - She feels that there has been enough information submitted on the Housing Element There is still opportunity for the public to submit their comments in writing. She is not in favor of holding another public hearing until the Commission has an environmental document before them.

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        - In preparation for the closed session evaluation of Secretary Avery, she would like to receive a current job description as well as comparable job descriptions within the City and County of San Francisco.

        - She would also prefer to wait to have an environmental document before reopening public hearing on the Housing Element.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        - She feels that the Commission needs to move forward on the Housing Element and is not in favor of holding another public hearing.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

        Director Green:

        - He is glad to be back for this hearing.

        Acting Director Badiner:

        - The Commission requested a quarterly report in regards to finance. This information is in the Commissioner's packets.

        - In terms of expenses, the department is right on target.

        - In terms of revenue, the department is "sort of" on target.

        - The fee increase that the Commission approved has not gone into effect yet. This results in about a $1.6 million shortfall.

        - Although the department is doing better than what was projected, the department is working with the Mayor's office on the $1.6 million shortfall.

        - Staff is also working on obtaining State grants.

        - There are no other unforeseen shortfalls.

        - He does not expect any layoffs or immediate staff impacts.

        Director Green:

        - It is important to clarify that the fee increase did not contribute to the shortfall.

        - $1.6 million dollars is a forecast only.

        Acting Director Badiner:

        RE: Draft Rincon Hill plan from staff.

        - There has been a lot of outreach to the community.

        - There will be a presentation on this subject on December 4, 2003.

        - The process will be to receive input from the Commission, develop the input, respond to concerns and questions and modify the project.

        - There are a series of "kick off" events like: 1) neighborhood meeting in the Sailor's Meeting Hall; 2) Walk through tour scheduled for a Saturday, etc.

        - He is not sure of the dates at this time.

        Re: Landmarks Advisory Board

        - The Landmarks Advisor Board is preparing a document that will discuss how to respond to preservation as we move into the future. This will be scheduled in late February.

        - There is also the issue of the changes in the CEQA laws and the process as staff reviews projects that are either designated under the historic register, could be registered and are likely to be, might be and are unlikely to be. This is an internal staff process.

        - He feels that it is important that the Commission scheduled an informational hearing. He is proposing to scheduled this in January. It is important because it will impact how the department and the Commission works on environmental issues.

        - He is not sure if these two topics will come before the Commission together or separate. He feels they should be separate.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        - She thought that there was a budget that included certain assumptions such as fee increases. She understands that these increases have not been implemented. She is having trouble understanding how this is classified as "there are no surprises." She feels that there is a problem. Why was the grant money put in the budget if staff is not surprised we didn't get it.

            Acting Director Badiner:

          - He feels that the amount from the grants budgeted is not something to worry about at this time in the budget process. This does not overly concern him. The Mayor's Office is aware of this and has not raised the "red flag" on the department yet.

          - He is concerned about the $1.6 million dollars. He is pursuing finding a solution and is speaking with the Mayor's Office. There is no need to panic or to start laying people off.

            Director Green:

          - If staff anticipated a change in the State's budget why was this money included in the department's budget? If one looks at the work program for the department, State grants have been the same each year. There is work that was "carried over" from the previous year so there was an assumption that the grants would be allowed. Staff has never gone out to attract new grants with the hope of creating new work. This is work that staff has been doing for a number of years.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        - She wants to know if the department has an alternative budget? Is the department being proactive or reactive?

            Acting Director Badiner:

          - He feels that the department is being proactive. By working with the Mayor's Office and looking at issues that the department can resolve. Because of his confident in these discussions, cutting and slashing things is not appropriate at this time.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        - It would be helpful to tie this information together.

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        - She feels that the department needs to be opportunistic as well.

        - It looks like the department is under spending and behind on the revenues that have come in. This raises a bigger "red flag."

        - If there were more sophisticated financials, it would be easier to determine.

            Acting Director Badiner:

          - He feels that the department needs to continue being proactive and pursue what the department is working on with the City Attorney regarding fee recovery with program EIRs, enforcement citations, etc.

        Commissioner Bill Lee:

        - The budget concerns him because most of the expenses are actually personnel.

        - SB 90 is not a refundable expense from State's requirements.

        - His biggest concern is the fee structure. His understanding is that the Controller's Office and the Budget Analyst feel that the fees the department is charging are not related to the services they will be providing. This is a critical issue because without the support of the Controller or the Budget Analyst, it does not matter what the Mayor's Office asks us to do.

        - He recommends splitting fees: look at Discretionary Reviews since they are not covered by resources; look at staff's time in front of the Board of Supervisors. Reviewing all the projects should be a separate line item.

        - He is not comfortable with the City's budget this year or next year.

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        - The materials for Rincon Hill for the December 4 hearing should include the presentation made to the Board of Supervisors.

        - Since the Commission has concerns about the budget, she would like to have this scheduled so that the Commission can discuss it.

            Director Green:

          - At the next hearing of the Planning Commission the issue of scheduling the quarterly budget information discussion shall be scheduled.

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

        BOA -

        Re: 201 Folsom Street/300 Spear Street and Planning Code Recommendation, Height Map Amendments and General Plan Amendments.

        - The EIRs were appealed and heard at the full Board.

        - It was a three hour hearing.

        - The board upheld the EIRs on a vote of +8-2. There was a lot of discussion regarding the project, the Rincon Hill process, etc.

        - The Board felt that the documents were adequate, complete and accurate.

        - The Planning Code Amendments and the General Plan Amendments will be heard at the Land Use Committee in early December.

        BOA - None

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

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

      There are no closed items on this calendar.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

      10. (L. BADINER/D. LIM: (415) 558-6411/558-6547)

        PLANNING DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT - Review of management audit and recommendation by Planning Commission for follow-up.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Jim Reuben

        - He is a heavy consumer of Planning Department services.

        - He read the budget and he feels that there are basic misunderstandings of the planning process that needs to be corrected.

        - He is glad that the department is looking at the Discretionary Review process.

        - He looks forward to looking at the response.

        ACTION: Hearing held, item continued to January 15, 2004.

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

      11a. 2002.1258DD (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

        1708 ANZA STREET - north side between 8th and 9th Avenues, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1536 - Request for Discretionary Review and Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.01.4436 proposing to demolish a two-story two-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There are related proposals to demolish a single-family dwelling also on the subject lot, and to construct a four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Jason Hoffman - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - He and his father are concerned with a lightwell that provides necessary light and air to the residential and commercial units.

        - He displayed shadow analysis photographs to prove how much impact the new construction will cause.

        - There is also an issue of a fire escape stairwell that will be impacted.

        - The project will also be inconsistent with the other properties in the neighborhood.

        - He has worked hard to provide an affordable apartment complex for the residents.

        - If the project were to be approved, he would like to have some modifications: remove the stairwell penthouse, paint the building in a light reflective color and install a half garage that is below grade.

        (-) Michael Morris

        - He lives on Anza Street.

        - This project would affect the light coming into his kitchen.

        - The air coming through his windows would also be compromised.

        (-) Pat Burns

        - She is the rental agent for the building next to the proposed project.

        - If this project is approved, it would be very devastating to two particular units.

        - She has no problem with the building being built, just do it with a few modifications.

        (+) David Silverman - Reuben and Alter - Representing Project Sponsor

        - The DR requestor is a landlord of a non-conforming building, which contains 6 apartment units and commercial units.

        - The DR requestor will still enjoy light and air to the west and the east.

        - The project will increase the light and air because it will have a rear yard.

        - There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to this case.

        (+) Pat Buscovitch - Project Engineer

        - He tried to address his soundness report to respond to the demolition guidelines recently presented to the Commission.

        - There are major fundamental problems with the [existing] building.

        - The ceiling heights are off.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

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

      11b. 2002.1259DD (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

        1708 ANZA STREET - north side between 8th and 9th Avenues, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1536 - Request for Discretionary Review and Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.01.5440 proposing to demolish a one-story single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There are related proposals to demolish a two-family dwelling also on the subject lot, and to construct a four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 11a.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

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

      11c. 2002.0345D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)

        1708 ANZA STREET - north side between 8th and 9th Avenues, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1536 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.05.01.5442 proposing to construct a four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There are related proposals to demolish a single-family dwelling and a two-family dwelling on the subject lot.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 10, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 11a.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with the following amendments:

            · The ground floor rooms currently shown as containing residential occupancy are to be for storage or other non-occupied use ONLY. No portion of the ground floor shall contain toilet, lavatory, or bathing facilities unless specifically allowed within a `secondary' or `accessory' unit as described below.

            · A Notice of Special Restrictions (NSR) shall be recorded against the deed of the property with the Recorder's office stating the nature of this approval and the specifics of the approved structure. This NSR shall include language that would allow the conversion of a portion of the ground floor (exclusive of space needed for required off-street parking and maneuvering) to residential occupancy as a single unit (not attached to another unit in the building), should `secondary' or `accessory' units, at a density exceeding three units on the lot, become allowed under the Planning Code, or at such time as other Planning Code or Zoning changes allow a unit density greater than three units on the lot.

            · All exposed building elevations, even those facing into lightwells on neighboring properties, are to be clad in finished materials and painted in a light-reflective shade to maximize indirect light to adjacent lightwells and windows.

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

        12. 2003.0827D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        9 SCOTT STREET - west side between Duboce Avenue and Waller Street, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1260 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.03.27.0834, proposing to merge a studio apartment and a two-bedroom unit within a two-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the studio into two bedrooms to become part of the remaining dwelling unit. The converted structure will contain one dwelling unit and one off-street parking space.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Johan Racey

        - He and his wife purchased the house before they had children.

        - The space is getting very limited.

        - The empty area has been vacant for about two years.

        - The project will create two additional units. One of the bedrooms will be converted into a home office for his wife to work from and spend more time at home.

        - The house will be brought back to its original structure.

        (+) Cevan Whitney - Project Architect

        - The second unit was an illegal unit. From a Variance it was converted into a legal unit.

        - The unit was never really integrated into the rest of the home.

        - Returning this project to its original plan would restore its historical integrity.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the merger.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, W. Lee

        ABSENT: S. Lee

      13a. 2003.0900D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        42 BEAUMONT AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 1086 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2002.11.01.0541, proposing to demolish a two-story building containing one dwelling unit. The subject property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 22, 2004.

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

      13b. 2003.0866V (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        42 BEAUMONT AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 1086 - Request for Variance to Rear Yard requirements to allow construction of a new four-story building, a portion of which would be located in the required rear yard. The first, second and third floors of the four-story building would extend 5 feet 9 inches into the required rear yard, and exterior stairs to the third floor level would extend an additional 6 feet 8 inches into the required rear yard. The building would contain two dwelling units. The subject property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 22, 2004.

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

Item 14 below contains an additional DR that was noticed on an Addendum (14b). These minutes show all three components of the case-two DRs and one Variance, where the original calendar only showed one DR and a Variance.

        14a. 2003.0904D (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        937 - 939 JACKSON STREET - south side between Powell and Mason; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0191 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.24.0318 proposing the demolition of a two-family dwelling and its replacement with a new building containing nine dwelling units. The subject property is located in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the Demolition Permit.

              (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 6, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 18, 2003.

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

      14b. 2003.0535EDV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        937 - 939 JACKSON STREET - south side between Powell and Mason Streets, Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0191, in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application 2003.05.20.5122 to construct a new four-story, nine-unit residential building approximately 40 feet in height.

        Preliminary recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the permit with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 18, 2003.

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

        14c. 2003.0535DV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        937 - 939 JACKSON STREET - south side between Powell and Mason Streets, Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0191, in an RM-3 (Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. Rear yard variance requested for a proposal to construct a new four-story residential building containing nine dwelling units with a ground-floor garage containing nine off-street parking spaces, after demolition of the existing two-family dwelling. A portion of the garage level (only) is proposed to project approximately 19 feet five inches into the otherwise-required rear-yard area, leaving an area open and clear (from the ground up) of 15 feet behind it. This proposed space would be devoted to three additional bedrooms and bathrooms, as parts of two units above providing a four-bedroom unit and a three-bedroom unit. The upper surface of this rear projection would be developed as a usable open space. The application requesting a Variance will be heard by the Acting Zoning Administrator.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 6, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 18, 2003.

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

      15a. 2003.0399D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

        474 MAGELLAN AVENUE - north side between Cortez and Montalvo Avenues; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 2926 - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.30.4339, proposing to construct a three-story rear and side addition and a new rear exterior stairway connecting all levels of the existing single-family to the rear yard. The proposed rear exterior stairway requires a rear yard variance (Case No. 2002.1307V). The Zoning Administrator held and closed a public hearing on the variance on March 26,2003, a decision was not made. The subject property is in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Bruce Bonacker - Project Architect

        - He submitted documentation that included the Assessor's block and pinpointed the project sponsor and Discretionary Review requestor's homes.

        - The proposed building will be very large as compared to the other homes in the neighborhood.

        - There have been two alternatives offered: the first was proposed and was rejected by the project sponsor. The second alternative would be the issues resolved by both parties. Those issues consist of eliminating an interior corridor and moving the side addition to the south.

        (-) Ed Koblowitz

        - If the project sponsor had done what they said they were going to do -- be willing to speak to the neighbors, etc. -- then he would not be here.

        - This is a project that can be done. But it is important to respect the rights of the neighbors.

        - He has 15 letters objecting this project.

        (-) Diane Sampson

        - She lives on Magellan Street.

        - She is very sad to be here because she does not want to have an adversarial relationship with the project sponsor.

        - She works at home so the impact from the construction will be tremendous.

        - The light, air, and pleasantness of her home will be gone if this project is approved as proposed.

        - She feels that a compromise will be possible if everyone works together.

        (-) Grace Shanahan

        - She lives in the neighborhood.

        - A compromise is very important here.

        (-) Harold Wright

        - There is some room for reduction in this expansion.

        - He visited the neighbors to see the negative impact.

        - The proposed project would cast a shadow on the adjacent home.

        (+) Jim Reuben - Reuben and Alter - Representing the Project Sponsor

        - He did not receive a copy of whatever materials were handed to the Commission and he has been at the hearing today for a few hours.

        - The threshold is extraordinary and exceptional circumstances. This case is about a single site line from one northwest window of the DR requestor's house. The complaint from the DR requestor is very minimal.

        - He displayed a lot map displaying how many households support the project sponsor.

        - The claim that this house is huge is outrageous because the lot coverage is smaller than the ones on the same block.

        - The staff has done site visits and has noted that there have been a lot of improvements done by the project sponsor to be good neighbors like, building a lot line fence, relocating a third floor window, use of dual glaze exterior windows and a shadow study.

        - The architect is here to answer any questions.

        ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed

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

      15b. 2002.1307V (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

        474 MAGELLAN AVENUE - north side between Cortez and Montalvo Avenues; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 2926 - Rear yard Variance Sought - Section 136(c)(14) of the Planning Code permits uncovered stairways and landings not extending higher than the floor level of the adjacent first floor of occupancy above the ground story, and, in the case of yards and usable open space, extending no more than six feet into the open area for any portion that is more than three feet above the grade. The proposed rear exterior stairway described under 2003.0399D would be one floor level higher than the first floor of occupancy above the ground story and would extend nine feet into the 25-foot required rear yard for the portion that is more than three feet above grade. The subject property is in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator held and closed a public hearing on the variance on March 26, 2003 and will issue a variance decision after the Discretionary Review hearing

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 15a.

        ACTION: The Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and has taken matter under advisement with conditions: 1) there will be no direct access from the ground floor au pair room except through the sliding doors; 2) the project sponsor will pay up to $3,000 dollars to the Discretionary Review requestor for them to install a skylight at their option.

Items 16 & 17 were called and heard together.

      16. 2003.0832T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT FOR RETAIL USES OF 50,000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER - Consideration of an Ordinance adding Section 121.5 of the Planning Code and amending Sections 218, 814.31, 815.31, 816.31, 817.31, and 818.31 of the Planning Code to require that all retail uses, for which permit applications are submitted after the effective date of this ordinance, C-2, C-M, M-1, M-2, RSD, SLR, SLI, SSO, and SPD zoning districts, which are 50,000 square feet or larger may only be permitted as a conditional use, providing additional criteria for the Planning Commission's review of such conditional use applications, providing that these provisions shall apply only to building permit applications received after the date of introduction of this ordinance, and making finding of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 16, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: The Commission passed a motion to recommend that the Board of Supervisors re-draft the proposed legislation identified in items 16 and 17 as stated by Commissioner Feldstein.

      • ORIGINAL - Prohibit new retail uses that exceed 120,000 gross square feet.

      • AMENDED - Require Conditional Use authorization for retail uses that exceed 50,000 gross square feet citywide. The original staff draft ordinance recommended CUs for retail uses that exceed 90,000 gross square feet.

      • AMENDED - Consider the potential impact of such legislation on:

                o Large-scale retail uses in the downtown C-3 Zoning districts in the vicinity of Union Square, and

                o On large-scale wholesale uses, such as the Gift Center, if their market needs require opening up for retail sales.

      • ORIGINAL - Require all project parking to be structured in a manner that creates or maintains active street frontage patterns.

      • ORIGINAL - New findings for large retail use CUs should pertain only to encouraging mixed-use building opportunities.

      • AMENDED - Consider extending the Child Care Ordinance and Transit Development Impact Fee Ordinance to capture retail uses citywide that exceed 50,000 square feet of gross floor area.

        AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

        RESOLUTION: 16689

      17. 2003.0801TZ (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

        CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT FOR RETAIL USES OF AT LEAST 90,000 SQUARE FEET - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Planning Code to add Section 121.6 to impose a conditional use requirement and other specified procedures for certain large-scale retail uses in excess of 90,000 square feet to prohibit such uses if they are in excess of 120,000 square feet.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Same as Item 16.

        AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

        RESOLUTION: 16690

      18. 2003.01025D (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

        1748 CLAY STREET - north side between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street, Lots 7 and 8 in Block 619 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application 2003.07.18.9858/R1 to convert approximately 3,000 square feet of vacant ground floor office space in a 2-story building to a childcare center for up to 40 children dba "Tiny Giants" in the Polk Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The center would utilize an existing outdoor area to the east of the building.

        Preliminary recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the permit with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: The Discretionary Review request was withdrawn prior to the hearing.

      19. 2003.0753D (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

        2371 44TH AVENUE - west side of 44th Avenue between Santiago and Taraval Streets., Lot 015 in Block 2373 - Discretionary Review request, for a building permit (No. 2003/03/05/8857) to allow the construction of a one-story, rear horizontal extension to an existing two-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit as modified.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Ann Tileman - Discretionary Review Requestor

        - She is opposed to the project because it will cause an impact to her rose garden.

        - It would make more sense to build an addition to the top of the house.

        - The project sponsor does not want to speak to her.

        - She deserves the same consideration as the project sponsor.

        - She believes that the project should be denied.

        (+) Tom Sherutti - Project Sponsor

        - He and his wife purchased the home about 6 years ago.

        - His family is growing. They just had a son and plan to have more children in the future.

        - They really enjoy the neighborhood and that is why they don't want to leave. It is more feasible to build an addition.

        - He has letters of support for his project.

        - He displayed a shadow analysis proving that there will be little impact on the DR requestor's garden.

        (+) Connie Sirie

        - Her neighbors were not able to attend the hearing but she read two letters of neighbors who are in support.

        (+) Joyce Chan

        - This is a very small addition.

        - She has lived at the subject property for 20 years.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the Project with Modifications: seal off second entry from ground floor.

        AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Antonini and Bradford Bell

6:00 P.M.

        20. (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6411)

        EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS COMMUNITY PLANNING - The Planning Commission will discuss and possibly adopt Interim Policies and/or discuss and direct staff to prepare a resolution for initiation of Interim Controls. Planning Department staff will provide a status report on the Environmental Review process for the Rezoning of the Eastern Neighborhoods. The Planning Commission will also schedule a subsequent hearing to review and discuss the work scope of Public Benefit Zoning and Community Impact Report (Socio-Economic Analysis) and to discuss non-conforming uses.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Interim Policies

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 13, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        My Do - Mission Economic Development Association

        - She presented some data regarding PDR businesses particularly--those in the Northeast Mission.

        - In 2002, MEDA worked with the Planning Department to survey PDR businesses. For the Northeast Mission there were a total of 39 respondents. Roughly half of these respondents had been at their location 10 years or more and 44 percent had been at their location 4 to 10 years, indicating that these businesses are relatively stable.

        - In the survey, half as many businesses were planning to expand. Forty-two percent of the businesses indicated they were considering relocation.

        - The primary reasons for relocation were: lack of space, high rents, payroll taxes and incompatible neighbors.

        - One can infer that the PDR businesses are relatively stable but found themselves in a less than friendly environment due to previous land use decisions.

        Jim Meko - SOMA Leadership Council

        - He passed up sign-in sheets that cover a 2 ½ year period of events that the SOMA leadership council has sponsored. This represents the outreach that they tried to really involve the community in talking about Planning in the SOMA.

        - He is not here to speak of all of SOMA.

        - There is a general satisfaction with the current zoning in SOMA.

        - The 1990 zoning is good zoning, although everyone does not agree with all of the zoning.

        - The loop holes have been closed up.

        - It is time for everyone to get over it and move forward on this.

        Curtis Eisenberger - Mission Coalition for Economic Justice and Jobs

        - He tanked the planning staff for being more open and inclusive recently and start to listen to concerns of property owners and businesses in the Northeast Mission.

        - He thanked planning staff for not taking a precipitous action last week on interim policies or interim controls because these need more work and more studies.

        - Regarding policies vs. controls, the Coalition does not see the need for either of these. But if one had to make a choice, it would be policies instead of controls.

        - The proposed controls categorizes PDR by size and not by use. This is a mistake. He has concerns over properties that would become non-conforming under the new proposed zoning. He wants to encourage more flexibility in PDR.

        - He does not agree with the 1 to 4 ratio of PDR replacement.

        - He urges that the Commission not take action this evening.

        Thomas Shuen - Asian/Mission Business Association

        - He urges the Commission not to make a rushed decision.

        - When a policy is adopted it should be citywide and not just from one district to another.

        - He urges the Commission to analyze all aspects of the question.

        Milton Gaines

        - Last week Commissioner Antonini asked for specific examples of PDR uses leaving the City due to Planning and Zoning policies. During the last 60 days, Margery Baer, costume jewelry with 20 employees quietly sold her building and moved to South San Francisco.

        - The Mission Interim Controls passed by Supervisor Amiano in 2001 actually implemented a moratorium on new housing in the Mission.

        - He believes that policies should be passed instead of controls.

        Jeffrey Leibovitz

        - He urges the Commission not to put forward interim controls.

        - Interim Controls require additional public hearings.

        - He urges the Commission to adopt policies.

        Fred Snyder

        - He thanked the Commission for giving the public another week to look at the document.

        - He realizes that things are being rushed but this is very important in order to get everything on the table.

        - He showed a map of the Mission/MEMIZ and how it is a core PDR area.

        Phillip Lesser - Mission Merchant's Association

        - He concurs with the earlier speakers that there should be policies and not controls, specifically for the shopping corridor of Mission/Valencia, 16th Street, 24th Street, etc.

        - This is a very transit rich area in San Francisco and it is important to know how to encourage development.

        - It would be horrific to do something to downzone density.

        - He implores the Commission not to discriminate against the Mission again.

        - Parking should be "unbundled."

        Shawn Gorman

        - He lives in Potrero Hill.

        - The current map that is being proposed for the controls or policies is very wrong.

        - He displayed a revised map which identified the areas that are not going to change--17th Street, and option B.

        Alice Barkley

        - She has written a letter to the Commission which states a lot of the points that have been addressed by other.

        - This Commission needs to adopt interim policies and not controls. Policies will allow staff to evaluate each case.

        - The major objection she has is the November 13, 2003 map which is totally contrary to the community consensus of the 17th Street area.

        - One cannot measure PDR by size.

        - Putting core PDR across a park can cause a lot of problems.

        Shawn Keighran

        - He is about to purchase a property on 17th and Carolina Streets.

        - The process has been in place for 14 months. Plan B called very clearly and very specifically for a pedestrian friendly atmosphere on 17th Street.

        - Last Thursday, Mr. Ghosh of the Planning staff came up with a plan that is contrary to what was being presented before. If there were going to be meetings, why were the public not listened to.

        - He feels he is owed an explanation. He feels that it is cowardly that Mr. Ghosh is not here this evening.

        Luis Granados

        - He is here to remind the Commission about the decision they will be making in a few weeks.

        - This is not something that the public hopes to get. The decision of the Commission can either strengthen businesses or destroy them.

        - There is a sense of unreliability with the numbers in the document.

        - There have been a lot of PDR spaces that have been converted to business services.

        - Some of the spaces are being purposely kept off the market because they are waiting for the office market to pick them up.

        - Focus groups, surveys, and interviews have been done to get information on PDR businesses.

        - He encouraged the Commission to think of the alternative 2 benefits and think about who benefits from this?

        - He urged the Commission to adopt interim controls.

        Emeric Kalman

        - About 42 days ago, since the October 9, 2003 hearing, he raised a few points--mainly that the department violated the provision of due process of the Sunshine Ordinance.

        - He also mentioned the sections which were not followed.

        - He is here to ask again if the issues which he raised were taken care off. The Ethics Commission can only investigate violations of the Sunshine Ordinance if one notifies the respondent of the alleged violation within 40 days before filing a complaint. The respondent did not get the alleged violation.

        - The Commission is doing spot zoning. This is out of control.

        Tai Via - Cobletz, Patch, Duffy and Bass

        - She was here last week urging the Commission to leave West of SOMA out of these policies.

        - Since that time it has come to the attention of the Leadership Council and it is their consensus that they agree with leaving West SOMA out of the controls.

        Michael Halprun

        - Housing is what this City needs.

        - If is very clear that people who have spoken are not looking at housing. They are looking at protecting jobs, and developments.

        - It is important to create opportunities for young people to live here.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Comment Closed for Tonight. No Action at this Time. However, it was requested that streets be identified on the maps. Next hearing is scheduled for December 18, 2003.

E. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

    SPEAKERS:

    Emeric Kalman

    - He spoke on the previous item because his name was called but he actually wanted to speak during general public comment.

    - He would like to get his questions answered-the ones he raised at the October 9, 2003 hearing.

      Commission Secretary:

        - She requested that Mr. Kalman call her tomorrow so that she can assist him.

Adjournment: 9:03 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 8, 2004.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:07 PM