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

February 19, 2004

February 19, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, February 19, 2004
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 1:45 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Jim Miller; Costolino Hogan; Elaine Tope; Michael Li; Dan DiBartolo; Winslow Hastie; Adam Light; Jonas Ionin; 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. 2003.0587HXVLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

            938-942 MARKET STREET - north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets (the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 5, in Assessor's Block 341 -- Request for 1) a Permit to Alter under Article 11 for a substantial increase in height to a Category I Building; 2) a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an one-story vertical addition, historic façade rehabilitation, and conversion of existing office space to approximately 33 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirements; 3) the granting of residential open space, dwelling unit exposure, and parking variances; 4) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional designation as San Francisco Landmark No. 244; and 5) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional approval of a conditional Mills Act Contract; all for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G Zoning District and a 110-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission.

            (Proposed for Continuance to March 18, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

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

        2. 2003.1181KCR (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        801-825 MISSION STREET - the entire block bounded by 4th, Minna, 5th, and Mission Streets, Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 3724 - Request for conditional use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless consisting of one antenna and two equipment cabinets on the 5th & Mission Garage. The antenna will be façade-mounted against an existing elevator penthouse on the roof of the garage, and the equipment cabinets will be located adjacent to the same penthouse. The project site is within a P (Public Use) District and a 90-X/340-I Height and Bulk District. The proposed facility meets Location Preference 1 of the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

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

        3. 2003.1181KCR (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        801-825 MISSION STREET - the entire block bounded by 4th, Minna, 5th, and Mission Streets, Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 3724 - Request for a General Plan Referral to determine if the construction of a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless on the roof of the 5th & Mission Garage is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Determination that the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the General Plan.

          (Proposed for Continuance to March 4, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

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

        4. 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 and third floors of a building 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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 18, 2003)

        (Proposed for Continuance to April 15, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

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

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

        5a. 2003.0295CV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

        899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner at Larkin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0020 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.1 and 228.3 of the Planning Code to construct an approximately 40-foot tall, 4-story, 5-unit residential structure containing 7 off-street parking spaces in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-family) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project site was formerly a service station and is now in use as a parking lot. This proposal requires Conditional Use authorization because 1) it proposes a dwelling unit density of greater than 3 units in an RH-3 District and 2) it proposes to convert a service station use to residential use. This project is also seeking a Variance from the Planning Code, case No. 2003.0295CV.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

      (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

        5b. 2003.0295CV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

      899 NORTH POINT STREET - southeast corner of North Point and Larkin Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0020 - Request for Variance from Section 134 of the Planning Code to construct a 4-story residential building into the required rear yard. Section 134 of the Planning Code states that the minimum rear yard depth in an RH-3 District shall be equal to 25 percent of the total depth of the lot on which the building is situated. Rather than leave a 22' wide gap in the North Point Street frontage, the proposal is to construct an approximately 40' X 22' portion of the project fully into the rear yard along North Point Street, leaving a comparable rear yard to the interior of the lot of approximately 1,480 square feet.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

      (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        6. Consideration of Adoption of draft Minutes of January 22, 2004

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

        7. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner Feldstein:

        Re: SOMA Leadership Council Meeting of February 18, 2004:

        - The council is starting to discuss affordable housing issues in their neighborhood and talk about West SOMA and what they would like to see.

        - Supervisor Daly was in attendance.

        - She was please to be part of this meeting.

        - No decisions were made, just discussions.

        Commission Secretary:

        Re: Vacations

        - She passed out a calendar for 2004 so that Commissioners can jot down when they will be on vacation or when they will miss a meeting.

        Commission Antonini:

        Re: Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods - Monday, February 16, 2004

        - He attended this meeting.

        - Mr. Carruso from the Mayor's Neighborhood Services was in attendance.

        - It was a very good meeting.

        Commissioner Sue Lee:

        Re: Recommendations from SPUR and the AIA for City Planning and Building Inspection

        - She would like all members of the Commission to receive a copy of this report.

        Commissioner Bradford Bell:

        Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

      - She requested that staff provide her with information on the decision she made last week regarding the Eastern Neighborhoods.

      - She wants to review her position on some things.

      - She will not address this issue until staff provides her with this information.

        8. ALTERNATING CASE TYPES - In September, 2003, the Commission instituted a policy, on a trial basis, to alter how project types were to be scheduled on their public hearing calendars. At that time, it was felt that with all case types on the same calendar, some were being heard consistently while others were being continued consistently. In an attempt to address this, it was established that case types would be alternated with Discretionary Review (DR) cases scheduled on one hearing day and other non DR cases on an alternate hearing day. On December 11, 2003 the Commission took an action to continue the alternating schedule subject to review again in approximately 60 days or upon receipt of staff's recommendations to changes in the Discretionary Review process or adoption of policies related to administrative review of the Discretionary Review process.

            At this time, the Commission would like to discuss the effectiveness of alternating case type schedules, and consider maintaining it, modifying it, or abolishing it.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Adam Light

        - It makes it difficult for cases that get continued because it could "bump" the case two weeks instead of one week.

        - He is in favor of mixing the calendar and estimating as best as possible how much time each case will take and try not to extend the calendars so long.

        Patricia Vaughey

        - Is there any possible way that long and complicated cases could be scheduled towards the end of the calendar?

        - This would eliminate the need for those members of the public who are here for shorter cases to wait so long.

        ACTION: Commission adopted the recommendation of Acting Director, Larry Badiner: Mix each calendar by alternating case types and place on the calendar. (i.e. Discretionary Review type cases would be first one week on the calendar and Conditional Uses and other type cases would be first the next week).

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

        9. Director's Announcements

        None

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

        BOS - None

        BOA -

        Re: 111 Lobos Street

        - This case was continued to February 25, 2004. This was a mandatory Discretionary Review under the demolition policy.

        Re: 710 Edinburg Street

        - The Board did hear this case.

        - The case came before the Commission on a Discretionary Review of a building permit.

        - The Commission did not take DR and allowed the construction to go ahead.

        - This case consisted of adding a second story to a garage at the front of the lot and an addition to a non complying building at the rear of the lot.

        - The Board upheld the Commission's decision but did require that no construction be permitted on the second story of the garage building. This consisted of a proposed bathroom and a very large computer room.

        - The Board feared that this could have been converted to an illegal unit.

        Re: 572 San Jose Avenue

        - The Board did hear testimony but continued the matter to March 3, 2004 in order to give the two parties involved (the tenant and the building owner) one more attempt to work out an agreement between them.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Patricia Vaughey

        Re:

        - Last night there was a hearing on 2717 Baker Street.

        - The neighbors appealed it because there was a Variance hearing and at the hearing it was mentioned that this case would be reconvened or continued.

        - The Zoning Administrator made a decision about four months later and the neighbors felt that they did not get a chance to a fair hearing.

        - There have been three meeting with the neighbors and the developers and they said that they were not going to change anything.

        - The neighbors gave a compromise offer.

        - There was a meeting with the developers and they said that thy would take this new idea to their architects.

        - They never replied.

        - The Board of Appeals did give the neighbors a four foot setback.

        - It is important to not give too much power to people. A very good compromise could have come out of this if they would have had direction from staff.

        - A policy needs to be implemented when developers do not want to deal with the public.

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.

      SPEAKER(S):

      Kate White

      Re: Budget

      - She is very happy to see that in the supplemental budget the Balboa Better Neighborhoods and the Central Waterfront Better Neighborhoods EIRs are in there for funding now.

      - She reiterated her commitment to trying to get it into the base budget.

      - She truly supports the base budget and will be rooting for the department.

      Kevin Cashman - Northern Police Station

      Re: 1145 Polk Street

      - As captain of Northern Station has been faced with different challenges.

      - There has been an issue that they have been very frustrated regarding prostitution in the Polk Street area.

      - There have been a series of complaints and petitions against this problem.

      - After reviewing the situation they initiated an aggressive enforcement campaign.

      - They have made hundreds of arrests of prostitutes and Johns.

      - Some of the residents have been so frustrated that they have threatened the policy with lawsuits.

      - The police is not against anyone owning their own business and trying to progress but there is a lot of late night activity in this area.

      Sgt. Marty Layler

      Re: 1145 Polk Street

      - The prostitutes in the area use any open business to hide whenever they see a patrol car.

      - He handed out a map of a quarter mile radius of the problematic area.

      - They have been working very hard to stop all this illegal activity.

      - They are working with the businesses in the area to be able to function in a safe manner.

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

        11. 2003.1082C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

        1145 POLK STREET - west side between Sutter and Hemlock Streets, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 691 - Request for authorization of a Conditional Use for extension of hours of operation to include the time between 2:00 and 6:00 A.M. ("Polk & Sutter 24 Hour Store & Deli")(Planning Code Section 723.27), in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. No physical expansion or other alteration of the building is proposed.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

            NOTE: On February 5, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote +6 -0 with the following conditions: Project Owner shall 1) enhance interior lighting; 2) install a door buzzer; 3) adhere to approved hours of operation; and 4) host neighborhood watch meetings. The project is to come back for review in 6 months. Final Language: February 19, 2004. Commissioners Boyd was absent

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        MOTION: 16729

        12. (C. HOGAN: (415) 558-6610)

            PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 - Presentation of the San Francisco Planning Department Work Program and Budget, and consideration of approval of a draft resolution adopting the Planning Department's proposed work program and budget for fiscal year 2004-2005.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

            NOTE: On February 12, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote +7 -0. Final Language scheduled for February 19, 2004.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved as Amended: Add $50,000 for national search for Director of Planning position.

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

        MOTION: 16730

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

        13. (D. ALUMBAUGH/J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6601/558-6310)

        CENTRAL WATERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN - Informational presentation on the draft Central Waterfront Neighborhood Plan, a part of the Better Neighborhoods Program. The purpose is to presents staff's suggested amendments to the draft plan and to clarify the plan's proposals for housing. No action is requested.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004.

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

        14. 2003.1077C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

        1970 McALLISTER STREET - north side between Central Avenue and Lyon Street, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1159 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 185 to indefinitely extend the operation of an existing nonconforming automobile repair garage (Carlos Exclusive Auto Service) in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed District, Low Density) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Carlos Martin - Project Sponsor

        - He is confident that he is compliant with the codes and the motion from the Department.

        - He is not requesting conditions that are hazardous or offensive to the neighborhood.

        - Two complaints were related to the extension. He is confident that the Department will agree that the complaints are based on misinformation. The shop has more than plenty of space to store the vehicles. Excessive noise is eliminated because all of the work is done inside the shop. The business hours are from 8 to 6 p.m. Monday thru Friday when most residents are away from home.

        - He insists that every customer park inside the shop so there will not be traffic problems related to double parking. If there are people who double park, they are not related to the his shop.

        - The daily stream of cars range from 7 to 15 cars so there is no need for street parking.

        - He has asked various neighbors to sign petitions in support of the shop.

        - One of the neighbors has brought up the issue that the shop is not in the best interest of the neighborhood, but there have been many, many neighbors who have signed this petition in support.

        ACTION: Approved with the following modified conditions: 1) Condition No. 6 should be corrected to read: building shall be maintained in a sound and attractive condition consistent with the general appearance of the neighborhood; 2) number of cars on the premises should be no more than 50 cars; 3) parking be available for employees; 4) condition No. 10 be amended to include a time limit of 30 days to resolve issues brought up by neighbors; 5) delivery trucks should pull fully into the garage for deliveries.

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

        MOTION: 16731

Item 15 was called out of order and followed item 17.

        15. 2003.1314C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        900-916 GRANT AVENUE - northeast corner at Washington Street, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0194 - Request for conditional use authorization to establish a small self-service restaurant (an ice cream parlor) of approximately 1000 square feet within the Chinatown Visitor Retail District and a 50-N Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The name of the business is not known at this time.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Kong Ki Chu - Structural Engineer

        -

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item continued to February 26, 2004 (Public Comment remains open).

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

        16. 2003.1258C (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

        444 PRESIDIO AVENUE - east side between Sacramento and California Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 1022 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 711.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility as part of the Sprint Wireless telecommunications network within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk district, upon the roof of an approximately 46' 4" tall hotel building (Laurel Inn). As per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4, as the project site is a wholly commercial structure within an NC-2 District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Jennifer Estes - Representing Sprint PCS

        - This application complies with the WTS Siting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.

        - The antennas will operate 750 times below the Federal Communication's Radiation Guidelines.

        - They have received the support of the neighborhood for this application.

        - They conducted neighborhood meetings and only six people were in attendance.

        - Sprint offered to take the neighbors to other Sprint sites to familiarize themselves with a Sprint antenna site.

        - Sprint has been in contact with the JCC (Jewish Community Center) regarding the issues and questions.

        - This site is necessary for Sprint to address the insufficient coverage in the neighborhood.

        - The site will be visually unobtrusive.

        (-) Doug Lorringer

        - He lives about three blocks from the site.

        - He is asking for a continuance for about one month so that the six thousand members of the Jewish Community Center can receive more information and discuss it more.

        - He spoke to the Director of the JCC and he was concerned that the members of the JCC have not been individually notified and have not had a chance to take a stand on this issue.

        ACTION: Approved with the additional conditions: 1) setback to the greatest extent possible the two (2) antennas located at the corner of California and Presidio; 2) Project Sponsor to work with staff to find the least intrusive color.

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

        MOTION: 16732

        17. 2003.1296C (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)

        3198 16TH STREET (A.K.A. 389 GUERRERO) - north side on the corner of 16th and Guerrero Streets; Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 3555 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to permit alcoholic beverage service (with Alcohol Beverage Control Liquor License type 47) in conjunction with the permitted full-service restaurant on the subject property, "Andalu Restaurant," pursuant to Planning Code Sections 726.41 and 790.22. The property is located within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, within a 40-X Height and Bulk limit, and is subject to the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Howard Westel - Farella, Baun and Martel

        - He is not aware of any opposition.

        - He is available for questions.

        ACTION: Approved

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

        MOTION: 16733

        18a. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

            690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of CEQA findings and a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to 1) a finding that a net new shadow impact on Union Square Park is not adverse; 2) a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an eight-story vertical addition, historic façade restoration, and conversion of an existing office building to a mixed-use project for up to 64 residential dwelling units, up to 73 hotel time-share units, approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, and a sub grade parking garage (capable of accommodating up to 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces with the capability of accommodating up to 100 vehicles through the use of valet services and vehicle stacking), with exceptions to the Planning Code for the separation of towers requirement, residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, dwelling unit exposure requirements, ground-level wind currents, independently-accessible parking, sunlight access to sidewalks, and an upper tower extension; 3) a Conditional Use application to allow a hotel in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District; 4) a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for a General Plan amendment to change the height and bulk district of the existing site; 5) a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the creation of the Downtown Housing Demonstration Special Use District encompassing and comprised of the subject property and allowing, among other items, exceptions under Section 309 for residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, and dwelling unit exposure; 6) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional designation as San Francisco Landmark No. 243 (to be heard at a subsequent Planning Commission hearing date); and 7) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional approval of a Mills Act Contract (also to be heard at a subsequent Planning Commission hearing date) ; all for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to:

        1) Seismically upgrade the subject 16-story office building (The Old Chronicle Building), which would include infilling a large light well at the rear of the building that is not visible from any public right-of-way;

        2) Restore the historic building façade by removing a non-historic metal, glass and marble cladding system installed in 1962 and rehabilitating/restoring/reconstructing intact, damaged and missing historic façade features;

        3) Construct an eight-story vertical addition that will result in a building height of approximately 312 feet, and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 19.68 if the residential floor space were to be counted toward the FAR calculation as currently required by the Planning Code (see item No. 5 below);

        4) Convert the existing office building use to a mixed-use project that would have at least 40, but up to 64 residential dwelling units, at least 49, but up to 73 hotel time-share units (for a combined total of 113 hotel and residential units), approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, replacing an existing retail bank, and creating a sub grade parking structure, that given the irregular floor plate shape and placement of support columns would yield a maximum of 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces on the project site with the capability of providing up to 100 valet and vehicle-stacking spaces in place of the independently-accessible spaces. The new parking facility would be accessed through an existing sub grade garage facility at the adjacent 88 Kearny Street property, thereby not requiring a garage entrance at the ground level of the subject 690 Market Street property;

        5) In order to construct the addition; infill the light well; implement the proposed change of use; grant exceptions for residential open space, publicly-accessible open space, and dwelling unit exposure under the procedures of Section 309, a new Special Use District is proposed to change the existing height district to a 285-S Height and Bulk District (the Planning Code allows for a 10% increase in height over the height limit under certain criteria, in this case up to 313.5 feet), eliminate residential uses from Floor Area Ratio calculations, and allow said exceptions under Section 309 instead of requiring variances. The Special Use District would also require a minimum of 15% on-site or 17% off-site Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The Downtown Element of the General Plan must also be amended as it specifies the height and bulk districts as currently designated within the C-3 zoning districts;

        6) The Project Sponsor is proposing to meet the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirement by constructing the required BMR units off-site at 938 Market Street, a project that is seeking authorization concurrently with the subject application (2003.0587HXVLU);

        7) The project sponsors are seeking to avail themselves of the Mills Act, which allows local governments to grant property tax relief benefits in exchange for the guaranteed preservation of a historic property. In order to qualify under the San Francisco Administrative Code, the property must either be designated as a San Francisco Landmark or listed separately on the National Register. As neither condition is the case with the subject property, the project sponsor is seeking conditional San Francisco landmark status. The proposed Landmark Designation would become final upon the completion of the proposed project consistent with the Rehabilitation Program set forth by the proposed Mills Act contract.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA findings and mitigated negative declaration.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Re: Request for Continuance

        (+) Mary Murphy - Farella, Braun and Martel

        - She would rather not have this case continued.

        - She apologized to the Commissioners who did not receive their case material on time.

        - She would request that the Commission hear the project sponsor and then decide if they need more information.

        - They have done an extensive public outreach.

        - Yesterday, the Landmarks Board unanimously approved this project.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

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

        NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

        18b. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

            690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a finding that a net new shadow impact on Union Square Park is not adverse for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt finding.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

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

        NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

        18c. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

            690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an eight-story vertical addition, historic façade restoration, and conversion of an existing office building to a mixed-use project for up to 64 residential dwelling units, up to 73 hotel time-share units, approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, and a sub grade parking garage (capable of accommodating up to 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces with the capability of accommodating up to 100 vehicles through the use of valet services and vehicle stacking), with exceptions to the Planning Code for the separation of towers requirement, residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, dwelling unit exposure requirements, ground-level wind currents, independently-accessible parking, sunlight access to sidewalks, and an upper tower extension, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Determination of Compliance with Exceptions Motion with Conditions.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

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

        NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

        18d. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

            690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a Conditional Use application to allow a hotel in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Conditional Use Motion with Conditions.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

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

        NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

        18e. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

            690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors a General Plan amendment to change the height and bulk district of the existing site, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

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

        NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

        18f. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

            690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the creation of the Downtown Housing Demonstration Special Use District encompassing and comprised of the subject property, requiring a Planning Code Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

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

        NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

        19. 2003.1049T (J.IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - Consideration of a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisor's amend Planning Code Sections 311 and 312 to establish an Administrative Discretionary Review Policy, and creating a Pre-Application process for new construction and certain alterations in RH and RM districts.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Paul Wermer - Pacific Heights Residents Association

        - He represents the Pacific Residents Association.

        - He is in favor of the pre-application process. However there are two areas where improvement is possible: 1) how to address the initiation of plans after the pre- application process, and 2) there is too much of a restricted notification process to the abutting neighbors.

        - It is better to err in the process of advising more neighbors than necessary.

        - The Residential Design Guidelines are not applied consistently.

        - He has full confidence that with the proper guidance [staff] will be able to manage the various Discretionary Review areas.

        Eileen Boken

        - Much of the reason that the Planning Commission meetings go for so long is because many of the Discretionary Reviews could be avoided.

        - Administrative Discretionary Reviews and the pre-application process are two separate issues and should be not be grouped together.

        - She supports the pre-application process if it were broadened to include all residential alternations and permit applications and if it were implemented for a 12 month period.

        - She believes that the Budget Analyst's audit proposed a very good solution. The City's Planning and Administrative Code allows for the extensive use of Conditional Use and Discretionary Reviews in San Francisco compared to other California cities and counties.

        - Because of the frequent use of Conditional Use or Discretionary Review approval of many projects is uncertain, the most important thing to do is to find a solution that results in a reduction of Discretionary Review applications.

        - Better neighborhood plans would drastically reduce the number of Discretionary Reviews.

        Ron Miguel - Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR)

        - He acknowledged the work of Jonas Ionin.

        - PAR is concerned with clarity and consistency.

        - The concept of a pre-application process is an excellent one.

        - There has to be some consistency and training for the planners.

        - It is essential that the Residential Design Guidelines are being followed for this process.

        - He agrees that the notification process should be expanded.

        - He would propose a six-month [review] of this policy.

        - He would like to see this go ahead.

        Bob Klausner - Volunteer Mediator for Community Boards

        - He complimented staff on implementing what the desires of the Commission are.

        - His organization is interested in conflict resolution.

        - The pre-application will cut out a lot of the problems that end up in Discretionary Reviews.

        - He thinks that with minimal tweaking, a reduction of projects can be accomplished.

        - It is important to include as many people as possible in the 311 notices.

        - Staff always takes a "bad wrap," but part of the problem is that staff does not receive all the information they need.

        - There should be a form filled out in the pre-application so that planners understand exactly what the concerns of the community are.

        Bruce Bonacker - San Francisco Neighborhood Network

        - He supports this policy.

        - He would like to have officers that are knowledgeable and neutral.

        - He is very much in favor of giving this a beta test for a year in order to come back to the Commission and tweak it a bit.

        - He is very happy with the pre-application concept.

        - He would like to have this "put into effect now!"

        - This process will result in fewer Discretionary Reviews. But it is important to do it cautiously.

        John Schlesinger - American Institute of Architects

        - The time to start this process is now.

        - It is important to start administrative discretionary right away.

        - He is proposing not having a hearing but having a more informal process.

        - He recommends allowing these cases to be reported to the Commission prior to being heard by a staff person. If there is a problem with the project then the Commission could request to have it heard. There should be a review in six months to see how things are working.

        Hiroshi Fukuda - Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods

        - He supports the pre-application process.

        - He is neutral regarding the Administrative Discretionary Reviews.

        - He believes that some planners are better trained than others.

        - Many do not bring information regarding surrounding neighborhoods.

        - If the pre-application process is done early enough it would help.

        Judy Berkowitz - Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods

        - She understands that about two days ago the document was changed and she has not seen that document.

        - She understands that there will be several meetings in the future.

        - She proposes a review of this policy after 12 months.

        - If the pre-application process is successful then the Administrative Discretionary Reviews would be unnecessary.

        - She suggests that the Residential Design Guidelines and the codes be followed closely.

        Anita Theoharis - Vice President of the Westwood Park Neighborhood Association

        - She served for five years as a Planning Commissioner and knows that Discretionary Reviews add to the already heavy workload.

        - She urges the Commission not to take any steps to limit the community in making their case before the them.

        - The Planning Commission specializes in neighborhood planning issues. The Board of Appeals does not.

        - As a concerned citizen she realized that Discretionary Reviews was her single most important tool to provide input to the Commission.

        Terry Milne - Bernal Heights East Slope Design Review Board

        - The citizens voted for proposition D for a more transparent and open Planning Commission and to have a voice at City Hall.

        - Restrictions to the public's right to petition this Commission is in opposition to Proposition D.

        - Only Discretionary Reviews allow the Commission to oversee and manage planning staff.

        - Discretionary Reviews allow the Commission to understand the trouble spots in the code through citizens' voices at the meetings.

        - One of the reasons that not many Discretionary Reviews come from their neighborhood is because they have two design review boards.

        Karen Wood - Miraloma Park Improvement Club

        - They have a good record of working with various City agencies.

        - She supports the position of the San Francisco Coalition of Neighborhoods.

        - She supports the pre-application process and feels this would avoid Administrative Discretionary Reviews.

        - This is not to say that staff is not capable of making decision, it is just that people have the right to express their opinions.

        Marilyn Amini

        - She asked the Commission to take no decision on this matter.

        - This issue is extremely important to the community.

        - San Francisco's unique character and charm has been preserved by the right of have Discretionary Reviews.

        - It has been inadequate the way noticing has been done regarding the proposed DR policy change.

        MOTION: Approve and amend various criteria and lower threshold

        AYES: Feldstein and Hughes

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

        RESULT: Motion Failed

        ACTION: Item continued to April 1, 2004 with instructions to staff to explore criteria for simple Discretionary Reviews vs. complex Discretionary Reviews.

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

        NAYES: Feldstein and Hughes

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

        PLANNING DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT - Review of Budget Analyst's management audit of June 2002 and Commission consideration of recommendations/ implementation by Planning Commission for follow-up.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Hearing held. No action taken by the Commission.

G. 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))

        Emeric Kalman

        Re: Item 20 - Management Audit

        - There was no presentation on this item.

        - Will the audit be presented to the Board of Supervisors?

          Acting Director Badiner responded:

          - The Board of Supervisors has already considered this audit. It was presented by the Budget Analyst in 2002.

          - Staff has incorporated many of the recommendations.

          - Supervisor Daly has called for a formation of an Audit Committee to review the progress, but this has not yet been formed.

          - It is up to the Board of Supervisors to determine whether they want staff to come back to them on this audit.

Adjournment: 9:02 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 18, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Boyd

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:13 PM