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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

December 18, 2003

December 18, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, December 18, 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 1:34 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Jim Nixon - Acting Zoning Administrator; Michael Smith; Michael Li; Mary Woods; Glenn Cabreros; Jonathan Purvis; 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. 1999.233E (B. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

        833 - 881 JAMESTOWN AVENUE - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration The project sponsor proposes construction of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would consist of 198 one-, two- and three-bedroom market-rate condominiums on an approximately 6.9-acre lot, located at 833-881 Jamestown Avenue on Assessor's Block 4991, Lot 277, on the northern slope of Bayview Hill. The site is currently used as an overflow parking lot for events at Candlestick Park, which is approximately one-third of a mile southeast of the project site. The site is bordered by Jamestown Avenue (and single-family homes on the north side of Jamestown) to the north, another vacant lot to the east that also is used for parking for major events at Candlestick Park, the hillside to the south, and single-family housing to the west. Although the area proposed for development is mostly flat, development would require excavation of up to approximately 30 vertical feet at the base of the hill. The project would consist of 11 separate three- and four-story buildings: seven buildings of 12 to 18 units each along Jamestown Avenue and four buildings to the rear, at the base of the hillside. Of these latter four structures, two (36 units each) would be built atop one-story gated parking garages, while smaller buildings (one of eight and one of 10 units) would flank the garages. A total of 216 independently accessible parking spaces would be provided. The proposed project would include landscaping along Jamestown Avenue, construction of a 10-foot-wide sidewalk, two off-street freight loading areas, and about 28,900 sq. ft. of common open space, including two rear yards at the base of the hillside totaling about 7,250 sq. ft. and podium- and ground-level patios. The project also would remedy an existing drainage problem on Bayview Hill above the project site, on Recreation and Park Department land. The project site is located within the South Bayshore Plan area, in an RH-2 (Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As a PUD, the project would require review and approval by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 303 and 304 of the Planning Code.

      (Proposed for Continuance to February 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 5, 2004.

        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.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

      (Proposed for Continuance to January 8, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 8, 2004.

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

        3. 2003.0940C (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)

        1469 18TH STREET - on the corner of 18th Street and Connecticut Street; Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 4036 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to install a Walk-Up Facility, an Automated Teller Machine (ATM), without providing a 3 foot recess from the front property line, located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, per Planning Code Section 711.26.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Continue hearing date to January 15th, 2004.

        (Proposed for Continuance to January 15, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 15, 2004.

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

        4. 2003.1110T (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

        REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS AMENDMENT - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding a new Section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow, as a permitted obstruction, a stairway that is a required Second Means of Egress under the Building Code.

        Preliminary Recommendation:

        (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

        5a. 2002.0605CV (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        4614-4630 CALIFORNIA STREET - "The St. James Episcopal Church and Pre-School"; Lot 049 in Assessor's Block 1368 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.3(f) & (j) of the Planning Code to allow for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new building for the St. James Episcopal Church administrative facilities, offices for non-profit counseling accessory to the church-related services, and a child-care facility providing less than 24-hour care for 13 or more children by licensed personnel within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2003)

        (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

        5b. 2002.0605CV (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        4614-4630 CALIFORNIA STREET - Request for Parking and Rear Yard Variances. Article 1.5 Section 150(b) of the Planning Code requires child care facilities to provide one independently accessible off-street parking space for every 25 children, where the number of such children exceeds 24. Section 150(d) requires that existing parking spaces be retained. The project proposes no new off-street parking spaces and the elimination of one off-street parking space where 1 is required (based on the existing deficiency). Article 1.2 Section 134 of the Planning Code requires a 45 percent rear yard, which can be reduced to 25 percent through averaging or 15 feet whichever is greater. The project proposes a 15 foot rear yard where 25 feet are required.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2003)

        (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

        6. 2003.0724C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        1287-89 11TH AVENUE - west side between Irving Street and Lincoln Way; Lot 19, in Assessor's Block 1739 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 730.39 of the Planning Code to demolish two residential units on the second floor and above on an approximately 2,400 square-foot lot, in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project would demolish the existing two-story over garage, two-family building and construct a new three-story over three-car garage building containing three dwelling units.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Proposed for Continuance to February 19, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 19, 2004.

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        7. Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of November 13 and 20, 2003 and December 4, 2003.

        Minutes of November 13, 2003

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        EXCUSED: W. Lee

        Minutes of November 20, 2003 and December 4, 2003

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, items continued to January 8, 2004.

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

        8. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Process Problems between Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission

        - It is becoming quite clear that there is a process problem between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on a number of issues.

        - There have been items continued from the Planning Commission agenda because there have been negative declaration appeals at the Board of Supervisors.

        - The process makes it very uncertain for the sponsors and opponents of when items are actually going to be heard and decided upon.

        - There seems to be a lot of appeals going on.

        - He hopes to see in the new year rectification of these problems.

        Commissioner Bill Lee:

        Re: Landmarks Board

        - He requested a presentation/discussion with the Planning Commission by the Landmarks Advisory Board or its Executive Director on their goals and objectives as well as any issues they might have.

          Acting Director Responded:

          - This will be scheduled at the end of February.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

        9. Director's Announcements

        Re: BART Transit Oriented Development Guidelines

        - He recently received this document. It was a two year process lead by Mr. Peter Albert, Manager of Planning for BART for San Francisco and San Mateo. Mr. Albert was formerly a member of our staff.

        - This document is available.

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

        BOS -

        Board of Supervisors Meeting of December 16, 2003:

        701 Lombard Street:

        - This Mitigated Negative Declaration became final on January 15, 2003.

        - The appeal was filed in November of 2003.

        - There was no appeal of the Negative Declaration.

        - The City Attorney ruled that there was not a requirement that the sponsors exhaust their legal remedies by coming to the Commission. The City Attorney also ruled that since there were no timelines, they could not advise the Board that it wasn't timely. That would be a decision that the Board had to make.

        - The Board voted +6-4 that it was timely (Dufty, Gonzalez, Hall and Ma voted No).

        - For the consideration of the full matter, the Board voted +7-3 to require an EIR rather than a Mitigated Negative Declaration. There were concerns about views from the North Beach Playground to Russian and Nob Hill and that the potential historic nature was not considered for the North Beach Playground.

        Re: 937-939 Jackson Street

        - This project had a categorical exemption and a general rule exclusion.

        - The project sponsor met with MUNI and the affected neighbors and ultimately came out with some conditions that everyone was going to be able to live with.

        - For the conditions that staff would have been recommending today, Supervisor Daly felt that he did not trust the majority of the Planning Commissioners to impose the conditions so he required that a Negative Mitigated Declaration be prepared.

        - This was voted +7-3.

        BOA -

        Re: 2545 Greenwich Street

        - This was a merger of three units to two units. The Commission disapproved the merger and the Board of Appeals overturned the Commission's decision.

        Re: 540 8th Avenue

        - This was a demolition and new construction. The Commission disapproved the demolition and the Board of Appeals overturned the Commission's decision.

        Re: 1835 19th Avenue

        - This was a demolition and new construction. The Commission approved the demolition, a neighbor appealed the project. The Board upheld the Commission's decision.

        Re: 660 28th Avenue

        - This was a lot split and two new units being built. The Commission approved the project, a neighbor appealed but the Board upheld the Commission's decision.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

        11. 2003.0242Q (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

        362-366 SANCHEZ STREET - west side of the street between 16th and 17th Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3564 - Public hearing to determine consistency of a proposed five-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval for Finding of Consistency with the General Plan.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) David Gellman - Representing Project Sponsor

        - He is available for questions.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        MOTION: 16701

        12a. 2002.1298EKCDV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        624 and 630-632 Laguna Street - northeast corner at Ivy Street, Lots 012 and 013 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Adopting CEQA findings regarding a request to construct a four-story, 45-foot-high senior care facility with a roof deck for up to 56 residents within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District, the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. An amended Addendum, dated November 21, 2003, was issued to revise the Final Negative Declaration adopted on May 7, 2003 in response to the revised scope of the project.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the CEQA findings

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Steve Vettel - Morrison and Forrester - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This project will be operated by Synergy Living who operates a similar facility at 601 Hayes Street.

        - This project is consistent with the General Plan.

        - Parking is not necessary for this property. This is only a 4,000 square foot site. To provide six parking spaces would take the entire ground floor of the building, if not more.

        - Non of the residents of this facility can drive or will have vehicles. This is a transit rich area.

        - The project has support from the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association as well as other community organizations.

        (+) Doris Bersing

        - She supports this project.

        - She represents and is the Director of the Pacific Institute, a non-profit community organization directed towards the elderly.

        - Having this type of project in the neighborhood will enrich their work for the community.

        - The project sponsor really cares for the elderly and the work they do for them.

        (+) Kate White - San Francisco Housing Coalition

        - She is here in support of the project.

        - The Coalition endorsed the project at their November meeting.

        - There are many wonderful merits to this project, including 20 percent of the units will be available to low income seniors.

        - The area is a very transit oriented area and many of the residents will not be driving.

        (-) Christian Matthews

        - There are a few discrepancies with the notification that he received.

        - He is also concerned with the off street parking since there will be people that will visit the residents. This would cause less parking in the neighborhood.

        - He would like the Commission to explain to him if the project will be four stories or more.

        ACTION: Approved CEQA findings

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

        MOTION: 16702

        12b. 2002.1298EKCDV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        624 AND 630-632 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner at Ivy Street, Lots 012 and 013 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Request for conditional use authorization to construct a four-story, 45-foot-high senior care facility with a roof deck for up to 56 residents within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District, the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project requires mandatory discretionary review by the Planning Commission for the demolition of a vacant three-unit residential building on Lot 013. The project is also requesting floor area ratio, rear yard, and off-street parking variances.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 12a.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        MOTION: 16703

        12c. 2002.1298EKCDV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        630-632 LAGUNA STREET - east side between Ivy and Grove Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Mandatory discretionary review of Building Permit Application No. 2003 1119 0544 proposing the demolition of a vacant three-unit residential building at 630-632 Laguna Street within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the demolition

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 12a.

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

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

        12d. 2002.1298EKCDV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        624 AND 630-632 LAGUNA STREET - northeast corner at Ivy Street, Lots 012 and 013 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Floor area ratio, rear yard, and parking variances sought. The proposed project is the construction of a four-story, 45-foot-high senior care facility with a roof deck for up to 56 residents within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District, the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height, and Bulk District. The Planning Code allows a maximum floor area ratio of 3 to 1 on Lot 012 and a maximum floor area ratio of 1.8 to 1 on Lot 013. The project is seeking floor area ratios of up to 3.5 to 1 on Lot 012 and up to 2.4 to 1 on Lot 013. A rear yard of approximately 23' 0" is required for the portion of the project that occupies Lot 013, and the project includes a 34-square-foot stair enclosure (4' 6" by 7' 6") that would encroach into the required rear yard. The project is proposing to provide zero off-street parking spaces where six spaces are required. The variance requests will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 12a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing and will grant the variances subject to: 1) Sponsor is to seek a yellow zone on Ivy Street; and 2) seek a white zone on Laguna Street.

        13. 2003.0881C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

        3119 CLEMENT STREET - south side between 32nd and 33rd Avenues; Lot 26, in Assessor's Block 1464 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 710.48 of the Planning Code to allow live entertainment associated with a ground floor full-service restaurant, the El Mansour Moroccan Restaurant, in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster ) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to add live entertainment (belly dancing) on Tuesday through Sunday evenings. (The El Mansour Moroccan Restaurant is currently located at 3123 Clement Street; the applicant is proposing to relocate the restaurant including the live entertainment to 3119 Clement Street.)

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Hauda Tauverakul - Project Sponsor/Owner

        - She is available for questions.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        MOTION: 16704

        14. 2003.0838C (G.CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        848 COLE STREET - east side between Frederick and Carl Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 1268 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 303 and 710.44 to allow on-site beer and/or wine sales for drinking on the premises at an existing small self-service restaurant known as Reverie Café, located within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.. As the proposal is within the Haight Street Alcohol Moratorium Sub-district, an existing alcohol license (from the now-closed Truly Mediterranean Restaurant at 1724 Haight Street) is to be transferred to Reverie Café. No construction work is proposed as part of this application.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Roger Suda - Project Sponsor

        - He submitted a letter of support from the neighborhood association and signatures of people who are in support of the project.

        - He is available for questions.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        EXCUSED: Feldstein

        MOTION: 16705

        15. 2003.0142C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        3179 23rd STREET - south side between Shotwell Street and South Van Ness Avenue; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 3641 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.3(c), to convert six dwelling units into a 22-bed residential care facility within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Bedroom) Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Steve Vettel - Representing Project Sponsor

        - This application is to legalize the existing application.

        - The City is in great need of this kind of use.

        - The Department of Public Health is in support of this project.

        - Many of the people who would benefit from this project are people who are homeless and are in great need of shelter and meals. A member of the Department of Health will monitor all the meals.

        - Because the building has undergone the Ellis Act procedures, the building cannot be used as dwelling units for the next 10 years.

        - They regret the displacement of the two tenants.

        (+) Ernie Bonner, MD

        - He practices internal medicine. He provides health services to people who reside in residential facilities.

        - He is in support of the project.

        - There is an increasing crisis related to mental health in San Francisco.

        - There is a lack of beds to house people who are mentally ill.

        - These people are the most needy and are least capable of taking care of themselves.

        (+) Sydney Lam

        - He works for the Department of Public Health.

        - This is the most cost-effective structure to house mental health patients.

        - All the patients cannot live independently.

        - There will be three meals daily, 24-7, with monitoring and constant medication supervision.

        - If these types of facilities were not available, these patients would have to go back to hospitals or be homeless.

        - Ms. Jacobs is a compassionate person.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        NAYES: Feldstein and Hughes

        MOTION: 16706

        16a. 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 20, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 26, 2004.

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

        16b. 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.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 26, 2004.

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

        16c. 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 20, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 26, 2004.

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

6:00 p.m.

        17. 2003.1049T (J.IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - Consideration of adoption 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.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)

          Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Continuance

        Judy Berkowitz

        - She met with Mr. Ionin in November and has made suggestions to the draft document.

        - They have not had time to present these suggestions. Also because of the holidays, she is in agreement with continuing this item.

        Marilyn Amini

        - She is in agreement with continuing this item at least 60 to 90 days.

        - There has been inadequate notice.

        - She submitted letters and documentation from neighborhood groups who are in agreement with the continuance.

        Richie Hart

        - This is a very important process and there are a lot of things to review.

        - Please keep the Pre-Application process separate.

        Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Association

        - Zoning = location, location, location.

        - He has not had enough time to look over all the information.

        - He is in agreement with a continuance.

        Bruce Bonnacker

        - He would like to start the pre-application aspect of this proposal in order to give it a "test run".

        - He is a little bit confused on a few items. The continuance would allow for time to have some items explained.

        ACTION: Without hearing the merits of the issue, the item was continued to February 5, 2004.

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

        18. (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 20, 2003)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Curtis Eisenberger - Coalition of Economic Justice and Jobs

        - He received the document about two days ago. It is very long and it is very complex.

        - It is really not fair for the Commission to take action this evening.

        - It is important for neighborhood groups to respond to what was presented today.

        - There has been a negative absorption regarding PDR space.

        Mary Murphy - Forella, Braun and Martel for Bay West

        - She is representing the Bay West Group which owns property in the Showplace Square area.

        - There is an issue about policies or controls. She is in support of adopting policies and not controls.

        Charlie Sciammas

        - Moving forward with this process is very important.

        - They have organized a community process and have established stakeholders. The present process is much different than a couple of years ago.

        - It is important to support interim controls instead of policies.

        - With controls there would be a standard set of rules for developers instead of policies that would be based on a case-by-case basis.

        - He emphasized that controls are really important.

        Emmanuel Zuniga

        - He has lived in the Mission for 16 years and used to live in very crowded conditions.

        - Now, thanks to affordable housing, he is able to have his own room.

        - It is important to have interim controls and not policies.

        Kyle Fiore

        - She is in support to having interim controls and not policies.

        - As an educator, she realizes that it takes a village to make a home.

        - Families, youth and community members need to be able to live in a place they can call home.

        Fred Snyder

        - He is a resident of the NEMIZ.

        - He is not in support of policies or controls. The controls meant no development. In his neighborhood, everything has become so political that it has become a "war zone." He needs a stable environment for everyone in the community.

        - It is important to look at this information and [continuing for] two weeks is fair.

        - He showed a map of the NEMIZ pointing out that in the core PDR areas, housing has been introduced.

        - The definition of Core PDR in the information presented to the Commission is misleading.

        Robert Meyers

        - He is in support of policies and not controls. If controls are adopted, control will be lost.

        - There have been controls for two years already. Policies will give flexibility on what should be approved or not.

        - If PDR is promoted, there will be more PDR space and less housing.

        Chris Selig - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - She is in support of controls.

        - In the Mission, specifically, it is very imperative to have controls.

        - It is important to maintain the PDR space.

        - Control will not be lost with controls. This is a total fallacy.

        - Guidelines seem to be like "anything goes."

        - They are not against development; just that development should be built intelligently.

        Alex Hernandez

        - She is a youth project coordinator and affordable housing tenant.

        - She is here in support of affordable housing.

        - Interim controls promote affordable housing and protect jobs. Interim controls are important because the Planning Department will be adopting this.

        - Interim controls will protect the community.

        - Interim controls allows the public to be involved in the decision-making process.

        Antonio Diaz - PODER/MAC

        - He is in support of adopting interim controls.

        - It is important to consider the fact that no one knows how the economy is going to be in two or three years. It is important now to have protection in place for neighborhoods.

        - The need for protecting PDR spaces has been continually reiterated.

        - MAC has done focus groups as well as community meetings and the outcome of all this is that housing and jobs are the most important issues.

        - Controls will help allow for these things.

        Teresa Garcia - Mission Economic Association

        - She is here to advocate for interim controls and not policies.

        - It doesn't make sense to have a neighborhood based on a location-by-location basis.

        - The decisions being made will be affecting people.

        Joaquin Turner

        - He supports interim controls.

        - Proponents of interim controls state that this will protect businesses but don't state exactly how.

        - Interim policies will push [out] PDR and threaten San Francisco's diverse economy.

        - Planning for the future is important.

        Jeffrey Leibovitz

        - Interim policies are the way to go.

        - Flexibility is important because the economy is not stable.

        - The reality of two years ago is not the reality of today.

        - There are some legal ramifications because [some feel that] under interim controls there is no need for approval of the Board. This is false.

        - He urges the Commission to put entertainment language in the policies section.

        - The public benefits are extremely important and no one has talked about it.

        Maria Hernandez

        - She has been living 18 years in the Mission District.

        - It is unfair that poor people have had to pay high rent.

        - It is important to have rent controls.

        - She urged the Commission to do something to help the people who are paying such high rents.

        - Low-income people cannot afford to have a decent meal because they have to save the money for the high rents.

        Jose Morales

        - He is willing to continue to work for housing justice and peace.

        - He is here in support of interim controls because without that there is no way to control the situation.

        - There are people who want more and more money.

        - He has lived in his home for 38 years.

        - He is willing to fight for his neighbors. It is important to preserve affordable housing.

        Judy West

        - She lives and works in the Northeast Mission area.

        - It is confusing the way things are presented.

        - South of Mariposa there are numerous blocks designated as PDR that have a lot of housing. It is misleading to designate areas as core PDR that contain housing.

        - She displayed photographs of buildings that desperately need upgrading.

        - There are a lot of people who are testifying today representing low income residents that have been mislead thinking that controls will promote low income housing.

        - Core PDR is not the solution and certainly not controls.

        Milton Gaines

        - He has been living in the Mission District for 34 years.

        - The need for flexibility is important.

        - If controls are set, it would limit opportunities.

        - The word controls--in the eyes of non profit housing--is an effort to shut down all development on a footprint larger than 15,000 square feet.

        - Policies are what is important.

        Steve Vettel

        - The public benefit zoning should focus on open space and the streetscape (things that haven't been able to be paid for from property taxes).

        - He would be very cautious about putting the very number one item in the public benefit--zoning additional affordable housing--above the inclusionary ratio that there is now. The inclusionary ordinance was just adopted two years ago and is working well.

        - If all of a sudden after two years, the 12 percent/10 percent standards is thrown out, this would cause an impact on the pro-formas.

        - The Rincon Hill Draft Plan talks about the mellarouse district and he recommends that this discussion be extended to the rest of the Eastern Neighborhoods.

        Luis Granados

        - He is disappointed that the full Commission is not present to take a vote on this matter.

        - He does have to take issue with a couple of Commissioners and the factual evidence being presented. They dismiss this information because they don't like it. Decisions cannot be made this way.

        - This is about creating and sustaining PDR areas.

        - He encourages the Commission to adopt controls and adopt the public benefit. It is important to focus on the socio economic impacts.

        My Do - Mission Economic Development Association

        - The important thing about PDR businesses is that they are a balanced approach to economic development. Yes, people need places to live but they also need jobs.

        - These businesses also provide goods and services to other sectors of the economy and contribute to a diverse economic base. This is very important when there is an economic downturn.

        - PDR jobs and businesses need to be projected.

        - She urges the Commission to adopt interim controls instead of policies.

        Sue Hestor

        - The developers want flexibility, the people that are concerned about the future in the area being proposed would rather have options preserved rather than options foreclosed.

        - The land values should not go so high because the public interest would not be well served.

        - People still have to come here and fight project by project and lose project by project.

        - Since 1996, all the housing built in the Mission and industrial areas have been market rate. This is not healthy.

        Shawn Gorman

        - The showplace square workshop process had an unusual amount of consensus for a neighborhood process.

        - The mixed use alternative which is used in Exhibit B was the basis for option B of Potrero Hill/Showplace Square.

        - The exhibit clearly states that there will be no net PDR loss, then Exhibit A is trying to retain PDR in an area that is NC (neighborhood serving businesses).

        - There has been a lot of work done over the years to try to find something that will meet the PDR needs and meet the evolutionary needs that are going to have to occur in this area.

        Ada Chan - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - When she received the packet she did like everyone else and looked lot by lot and street by street. Then she decided not to continue and just be excited to be at this meeting.

        - A decision needs to be made sooner or later.

        - Although there are disagreements with various groups, she believes that controls are the best decision.

        - There are also speculations on all sides so everyone just needs to trust staff.

        Richie Hart - Residential Builders Association and Potrero Boosters

        - Staff needs to check their facts more closely.

        - He believes that one can get the names and addresses of new businesses from the Tax Collector. The only thing that one cannot obtain is the amount of tax that these businesses pay.

        - Interim controls do not work and do not make any sense at all.

        - There is a major shortage of housing in the City.

        - No one has thought of UCSF at Mission Bay.

        - He would like Commissioners to vote no on Interim Controls.

        Joe O'Donoghue - Residential Builders

        - Builders are in favor of jobs.

        - Before the Commission makes a decision, there is a need for more data.

        - Information on the breakdown of the loss of PDR over the 10 years to know what the trend has been.

        - This information is not before the public.

        - Someone from the Controller's office needs to come to the Commission to answer questions and provide information.

        Alice Barkley

        - She is in agreement with the comments made by Ms. Murphy, Mr. Leibovitz, and Mr. Vettel.

        - She prefers the policy of interim policies.

        - If the Board of Supervisors decided to create a special affordable use district, which there are plenty in the Planning Code, the Commission would then have to impose the 4:1 requirement or whatever is in the interim controls. So there is no flexibility. That is why she prefers policy and not interim controls.

        Chris Durazo

        - There is no consensus in the South of Market. There is a lot of poverty in that area and this is going to grow.

        - Although there is West SOMA, which will be taken out of this process, controls are important.

        - There are going to be a lot of projects coming before the Commission in the future so she is concerned about all this.

        - There are issues about decent jobs with residents of SOMA. Areas around the bridge are being ignored.

        - Public benefit zoning is very important although there are a lot of different levels.

        ACTION: Public Hearing Closed. Following Commission deliberation, this item was continued to February 12, 2004, to allow the absent commissioner to participate in the final action..

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

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))

    Joe O'Donaghue

    Re: Actions at the Board of Supervisors

    - At the Tuesday Board of Supervisors' meeting, $20,000 per unit was added on to a potential 18 units of housing. This was the result of a state law which now allows negative declarations to be appealed at the Board of Supervisors. Unfortunately, the Supervisors spent about 4+ hours on what was surreal discussions because the vote was already predetermined.

    - He is looking seriously at filing protests on every single negative declaration that comes out of every project to the Board of Supervisors.

    - He is probably going to do this beginning in January.

    - Last year City workers suffered from the deficit.

    - This year labor will have to take cuts which they are not willing to do.

    - There is a need to understand that jobs are leaving this City as a results of dumb decisions, and housing is becoming more and more expensive.

    Alice Barkley:

        Ms Barkley's comments were on an item listed on today's calendar. She was reminded that her opportunity to speak on that item was at the time it was considered on the calendar--but not at this time.

Adjournment: 9:40 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, January 15, 2004.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

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