(+) Supervisor Matt Gonzalez
- He thanked everyone for their suggestions on strengthening this legislation.
- It is worth noting that this legislation will only impact a small group. The existing businesses in this City (24,600); of these (20,900) or 85 percent are single location businesses. Another 15 percent (16,680) are multiple location businesses and of these the vast majority have two locations only. About one percent or less of businesses would be really impacted by this legislation. This ordinance includes impact on neighborhood character, the increase of homogenization of neighborhood commercial districts, etc.
- There are some amendments he would like to address: 1) legislation is being prepared by the City Attorney that would get rid of the duplicative sections of the code related to 312 notice; 2) there would be an amendment on the findings regarding the special circumstances of hardware stores; 3) the City Attorney has offered to change the language regarding the ambiguity of the language: 50 percent or more of the merchandise offered for sale.... to say: 50 percent or more of in stock merchandise from a single distributor... This would help clarify that. 4) regarding Discretionary Reviews: he was trying to give guidance on how this consideration would be taken up by staff. The ordinance is useful because it articulates certain specific concerns to take into account.
- This ordinance is not really a one-size-fits-all that is often seen at the Board of Supervisors.
(-) Jennifer - San Francisco Soup Company
- They have six locations in San Francisco.
- This legislation will hurt small and growing businesses like the San Francisco Soup Company.
- This is really an anti progressive legislation.
(-) Steven Sarver - San Francisco Soup Company
- It would be very difficult for him to sign a lease because of this legislation.
- Some of the best locations would be unavailable to him and his company.
- The larger companies can take risks; smaller businesses cannot take these kinds of risks.
- He and his wife have worked very hard to establish their small business.
(-) Mel Washington - San Francisco Black Chamber of Commerce
- People have the right to small enterprise.
- The customers of San Francisco vote to go or not to small businesses.
- This legislation should not protect a select few and not protect small businesses.
- He owns a small business and is an entrepreneur.
- This legislation will have serious impacts on the people of this city and the cost that it takes for these people to live here.
(-) Linda Magellan - Union Square Merchant's Association
- They have great concerns about this legislation.
- It is very difficult already for a business to establish a location.
- There should be a way to promote small businesses as well as continue to promote all businesses.
(-) Bruce Qualls - Real Estate Manager for Safeway
- The current system and processes for Discretionary Review and Conditional Uses work quite well.
- Grocery stores are quite essential to people.
- This legislation will make it quite difficult for grocery stores to continue to establish locations.
(-) Ana Shimko - Cassidy, Shimko and Dawson - Representing Safeway
- The Commission should advise the Board of Supervisor against this legislation.
- The City is not allowed to regulate competition and that is what this legislation is doing.
- Uses are permitted or essentially not permitted.
- Once a business is open, their permits can be overturned etc.
- The geographic information in the legislation is not clear.
(-) Nathan Nayman - Executive Director on the Committee on Jobs
- This measure is not needed.
- There is no consensus from the small business community.
- There seem to be other motives for trying to pass this legislation.
- There are ways that issues related to businesses can be dealt with without this legislation.
- This legislation would stop visionary entrepreneurs from establishing their headquarters in San Francisco.
(-) Patricia Breslin - Executive Director for the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.
- She urges the Commission to oppose this legislation.
- In this difficult economic time, it is not advisable to allow this type of legislation, which stops progress for small businesses and negatively impacts the economy of San Francisco.
(-) Ken Cleaveland - Building Owners and Managers of San Francisco
- One of the important things to remember is that local people, and many times, immigrants own chain stores. This legislation is discriminatory.
- He urges the Commission to reject this legislation.
(-) Richard Ventura - Executive Director of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
- It is very difficult for small businesses to operate in San Francisco.
- Entrepreneurs should be given the opportunity to open their businesses.
- The chamber opposes this legislation.
(+) Ed Bedard - Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association
- The association is mostly asking for neighborhood identification.
- Why do business owners want to sneak in to neighborhoods?
- Formula Retail uses really cost jobs.
- Locally owned and operated businesses will use other local businesses and provide jobs to more than just their employees.
(-) Matthew Baizer - Zao Noodle Bar
- He is strongly urging the Commission to oppose this legislation.
- Although he is not a destination business, he would like to expand to other neighborhoods.
- He receives many emails requesting that he open restaurants in other neighborhoods.
- He does use local architects, lawyers, etc.
- This legislation will only damage the progress of his business to other neighborhoods.
(-) Marilyn Amini
- There are a lot of issues that really need resolution.
- The Commission can request a continuance of 90 days.
- Seeing the level of controversy of this legislation, Supervisor Gonzalez should agree to this
- It would be to the interest of the Supervisor to grant an extension.
- The Commission should not move it forward.
(+) Peter Cohen - Hayes Valley
- He was impressed when the Commission deliberated long and hard over the Starbucks project.
- He was very impressed from by the comments of the Commissioners.
- Hayes Valley requested a prohibition to these types of uses but this would probably be an exception to the rule.
- Many residents will probably be happy with the notification requirements.
MOTION: Motion to approve with modifications.
AYES: Hughes and S. Lee
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee
RESULT: Motion Failed. There was no substitute motion. The Legislation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors without Planning Commission Action.
15. 2004.0055M (S. SHOTLAND: 415-558-6308)
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO INITIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN SO THAT IT CONFORMS WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR THE TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Initiation of a General Plan Amendment - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, consideration of a Resolution of Intent to Initiate map and text amendments to elements of the General Plan, including: the Urban Design, Transportation, Recreation and Open Space Elements, and the Downtown, South of Market, and Rincon Hill Area Plans to bring them into conformity with the Redevelopment Plan for the Transbay Redevelopment Project, the Transbay Redevelopment Project Area Design for Development, and the Development Controls and Design Guidelines for the Transbay Redevelopment Project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of Intent to Initiate General Plan Amendments.
(-) Marilyn Amini
- She is amazed at the intent expressed in the wording on the agenda.
- Law requires that projects be in conformity with the San Francisco General Plan.
- This initiation was not noticed as required.
- She is curious to know why this was not properly noticed.
ACTION: Approved intent to initiate General Plan Amendments.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
16a. 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: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 20, 2003)
(-) Victor Reda - Discretionary Review Requestor
- His concerns are the negative effects on his living environment, safety and quality of life.
- This proposal is a major change from the original proposal exposed at a Variance hearing.
- It is important that no resident owner was represented at any of the deliberations when the changes were made.
- As per the Residential Design Guidelines, the proposed building is not in harmony with the patterns of the surrounding buildings. There is no respect for the pattern of building entrances. There is no respect for rear yard patterns. The project does not lessen the potential impact on light and air or lessen the potential impact on privacy. Buildings should be similar in scale and roof forms should be compatible to adjacent buildings.
(-) Todd Olsen
- The street access to the subject proposal is one foot short of code requirement.
- The garage would cause a lot of traffic and major safety issue problems.
- Many of the occupants in the adjacent homes are senior citizens.
- The building will be overwhelming for the entire neighborhood.
(-) Ursula Eglund
- Because of it's unusual narrowness, having a garage on Deming Street would be quite dangerous.
- It is difficult for her to understand why there would be an allowance for this type of project.
- She urged the Commission to vote down this project.
(-) Richard McKray - EVPA
- He has lived in Eureka Valley for 35 years.
- He displayed a map of the Eureka Valley watershed pointing out that the property in question should allow more curbside parking. There are many neighbors who have done constructions very creatively and have less of an impact.
- Eureka Valley has many beautiful rock formations.
(-) Richard Kaprowski
- Although his lot is adjacent to the project site, he was never notified of this project.
- The wall that will be built will block the light to his garden and affect the quality of life to his home.
- The project will also break the pattern of the back yards on the block.
- He urged the Commission to take a close look at these plans.
(-) Tom Archer
- He is opposed to the Variance and the setback.
- He is in favor of the green open space corridor that will be affected by this project.
- He feels that encroaching little by little and squeezing in this project will affect the serenity and bird life of the area.
- There are beautiful rock formations in the area that should be protected.
(-) Shana Tafilla
- There are many people who were here opposed to the project but had to leave.
- It is quite impossible to find parking on the street where the proposed project will be.
- She implored the Commission to review this closely.
(-) Rob Kosten
- He is a tenant at a structure near the proposed project.
- His unit is in the back of the proposed project. This project will negatively impact the quality of his life.
- He supports taking Discretionary Review.
(+) Alice Barkley - Representing the Project Sponsor
- She displayed the original proposal that the Discretionary Review requestor had supported.
- The new plans are the result of various conversations with neighbors. It is unfortunate that many of the neighbors are split in their support of this project.
- The new building is no different than what the DR requestor had supported.
- There has been already a Discretionary Review requestor that has withdrawn their request.
(+) Lisa Burke
- She lives adjacent to the proposed building.
- She will also loose light in her back yard and live next to this big building.
- She supports this project because the project sponsor has deal with many of the issues she had.
(+) Martin Dean
- He represents 18 households who support this project.
- The developer has met with the neighborhood many times; the neighbors were able to agree on many of the revisions made.
- He feels that they have reached reasonable accommodations by the developer.
(+) Joseph Schatz
- He is representing two property owners.
- The developer has been the most accommodating developer he has ever worked with.
- The housing is very desperately needed.
- He urges the Commission to approve the project without further delay.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
16b. 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 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction in conjunction with housing demolition for 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: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.