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

November 29, 2004

November 29, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Monday, November 29, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander; Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell,
Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee; William L. Lee, Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Matt Snyder; Rick Crawford; Joan Kugler; Lea Kienker; Dan DiBartolo; 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. 2004.0649C (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

          601-605 BAKER STREET - northeast corner of Baker and Fulton Streets, Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 1177 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 182(b)(1) and 710.44 to allow a change of use from retail (formerly "Baker's Market") to a Small Self-Service Restaurant ("Green Chili Kitchen") in one of two commercial spaces (classified as Limited Commercial Uses) on the ground floor of a mixed use building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed District, Low Density) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The other space is proposed to remain in retail use.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Proposed for Continuance to December 2, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          2. 2004.0666DD (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)

          37 POWERS STREET - north side between Coleridge and Mission Streets; lot 6 in Assessor's Block 5518 - Neighbor-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.05.0592, proposing to construct vertical and horizontal additions to a single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 7, 2004)

                (Proposed for Continuance to December 2, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to December 2, 2004

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          3. 2004.0393C (G. CABREROS (415) 558-6169)

                2443-2445 CLEMENT STREET - south side between 25th and 26th Avenues; Lots 035 and 036 in Assessor's Block 1457 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 717.11 to allow development of a lot greater than 5,000 square feet in area in the Outer Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project proposes demolition of three non-residential structures and new construction of a 40-foot tall, four-story, mixed-used building with one ground-floor commercial space and nine residential units.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 2, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to January 6, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 6, 2005

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          4. 2003.1110T (C. NIKITAS:(415) 558-6306)

          REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS - Ordinance Amending the San Francisco Planning Code to Allow a Required Second Means of Egress Adoption of an ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding a new section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow certain stairways that are a required second means of egress under the Building Code, as permitted obstructions in the rear yard. The California Building Code no longer allows fire escapes as a second means of egress in most cases. This proposed text amendment provides an exemption to meet the requirements of the Building Code. This ordinance also includes changes to Section 311 and 312 to require neighbor notification for the addition of these stairways.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend approval of the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 23, 2004)

            (Proposed for Continuance to January 20, 2005)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 20, 2005

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          5. (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          NORTH BEACH FORMULA RETAIL PROHIBITION - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 707.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

            Preliminary Recommendation:

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 21, 2004)

          (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

      6. 2004.1033Z (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

          ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 0185 REZONING - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco, Section Map 2, to change the use district designation of Assessor's Block 0185, Lots, 005, 029, 030, 031, 032, 033, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 043, and 048 (mid-block South side of Pacific Street between Hyde Street and Larkin Street) from NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and RH-1 (Residential: One Family) to RM-1 (Residential, Mixed: Low Density, making finding pursuant to Section 302 and, making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

            (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

        7. Commission Comments/Questions

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: 690 Market Street

          - He read in the Chronicle that this project was having some difficulty

          - This is one of his favorite projects because it provides so many good things.

          - He hopes that this project will begin a process of improving the mid-Market area.

          - When the case came before the Commission, the Mills act was not applicable to the project.

          - He hopes that all people involved would work together and make this project happen.

          Commissioner Olague:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue

          - There was some confusion about this project.

          - She wanted to get some clarity.

            Zoning Administrator Badiner Responded:

            - He sent out emails regarding a conversation with Steve Williams.

            - There was a request that if this was still at the Planning Department, it could come back.

            - He felt that certainty was required. He has determined that it was not appropriate to bring the project back since it is not in the Planning Department.

          Commissioner Hughes:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue

          - He would like to know from the City Attorney if whether or not a project is code compliant it takes an affirmative majority vote for it to proceed?

            City Attorney Judy Boyajian Responded:

            - The way the Commission, staff and the City Attorney have interpreted the Commission's procedures is that whoever needs the vote to move forward and they don't get it then they loose.

            - If a Conditional Use approval is needed and it is a failed motion then the CU is not approved.

            - If there is a need to take Discretionary Review over a code complying project and it fails to get four votes, the project moves forward because the Commission has not taken DR.

            - If the project has left the department, does the Commission have the legal ability to call the project back? She cannot say that the Commission cannot call it back. If the permits have already been issued, then the Commission has lost it's jurisdiction. But if it is still not issued and it is over in DBI and the Commission wants to call it back, the Commission has that legal authority.

            - She does not recall a time that the Commission has done this so the Commission would be "breaking ground".

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue

          - If the Commission requests the Building Inspection Commission to return this project are they within the legal parameters to do that?

            City Attorney Judy Boyajian Responded:

            - The Commission would not be asking the Building Inspection Commission, it would be asking the Department of Building Inspection.

          Commissioner W. Lee:

          - He requested to schedule on next week's calendar the project at 755 22nd Avenue to be reconsidered by the Commission and discuss the options.

          Commission Bradford Bell:

          Re: 755 22nd Avenue

          - There is no consensus to bring this project back.

          - There have been several cases similar to this one. The Commission cannot keep bringing back projects.

          - When the case was heard and there was consensus about continuing the project, then it would have been continued.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          - If there were consensus to bring a case back there would be a need for four votes.

          - The only time a case should be brought back is when a case is badly misrepresented or something was not done procedurally.

          Commissioner S. Lee:

          - Bringing cases back would be opening a "Pandora's Box."

          - If something like this is going to keep happening in the future then the Commission needs to be clear on the rules and it should be done in a timely manner.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

      8. Director's Announcements

          Interim Director Macris:

          Re: Supervisor Maxwell's Interim Controls for the Showplace Square

          - Staff has been following this legislation.

          - A hearing was held last week on the value of the interim controls.

          - From the Department's point of view, since the controls do not come back to the Commission, the Department's interests were what the interim controls were tied to in terms of time before the Board of Supervisors considers them again.

          - The interim controls were pending the completion of the Eastern Neighborhoods EIR.

          - By the draft ordinance it would be within one year. This would be impractical.

          - He has offered some alternative ways to the Supervisor and it is under consideration.

          - The Land Use Committee could not act on the matter but it will act on the Interim Controls on December 6 and go to the Full Board.

          - He did not want the Supervisor to think that in any way the interim controls could be extended 6 months. It is not a practical idea to tie this to the EIR.

          Re: Backlogs

          - He is please to say that interviews for the Planner III-Environmental position have been underway.

          - He hopes to make a decision by the end of this year.

          - Interviews were also held for the Chief Financial Officer. He hopes to have someone by the end of the year.

          Re: 2404 Broadway

          - This project is an alteration of an existing building.

          - A few months ago there was an appeal.

          - Staff has been working with the Project Sponsor to understand more of the details of the project.

          - The project Sponsor was to send drawings but they did not reflect what had been discussed.

          - Staff and MEA determined that the Categorical Exemption had some weaknesses.

          - They decided it was best to issue a new Categorical Exception.

          - The actual item then will not go before the Board of Supervisors.

          - There was not any desire to circumvent the project but staff just wanted the best information before appearing at the Board of Supervisors.

          - The Board of Supervisors was upset, but it is best to get the best information.

          - There was no intent to cut anyone out of the process.

          Commissioner Antonini:

          Re: Eastern Neighborhoods

          - It has been presented to him that some projects have not come before the commission because there is no knowledge of whether controls or proposals will be approved.

          - He feels that projects should move forward at whatever speed is normal and they should not be held up pending this decision.

            Interim Director Macris Responded:

            - He agrees that if a project comes legitimately before the Planning Department and meets the environmental clearances then they should be heard.

            - Certain steps should be taken to establish policy and not have to wait two years to have firm ground consensus on how to proceed on this situation.

            - How can interim policy consensus be developed to move forward pending completion of the Eastern Neighborhoods EIR?

            - The City cannot hold out two years.

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

          BOS - See above

          BOA - None

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

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

      Re: 91 Miguel Street

      (-) Kathy Keller

      - The topography of the site, the comparative size of the building and the residential design guidelines are the issues that she has with this project.

      - She requested that the top floor be set back by 10 feet, the next floor by 6 feet, preserve existing trees and apply setbacks.

      (-) Beth Ross

      - She lives behind and to the north of the subject property.

      - She is in support of the Discretionary Review.

      - The topography on the lots is very unusual.

      - Allowing this project will box all of the neighbors behind.

      - Setbacks should be applied to both buildings.

      - There are other architectural changes that could be made to the plans.

      (-) Dick Hague

      - His yard is back to back with the subject property.

      - He will have a limited time of sunlight in his yard.

      - If a taller and larger building is built, he will loose his privacy.

      - He suggests that by stepping back two of the floors his garden would not be overshadow and he will retain privacy from the neighbors.

      - The top floor should be setback 10 feet and the third floor 6 feet.

      (-) Adloph Bremerman

      - He lives behind the subject property.

      - He realizes that the sponsor has the right to build and expand his home, but some expansions do not respect the neighbors.

      - He requested setbacks to the top floors and the rear, preserve the existing trees, and apply the setbacks to both 91 and 89 Miguel Street.

      (+) Cesar Ascarrutz - Project Sponsor

      - If he builds five stories there will not be a shadow casted on any of the neighbors.

      - He submitted various documents of tests.

      (+) Ernestine Weiss

      - There was no shadow produced from the buildings.

      - She requested that this project be approved.

      Re: 150 Otis Street

      Dave Curto (Human Services Agency)

      - He is here to ask for a continuance of the Landmark designation.

      - Since the previous continuance, he has been able to meet with the Planning Department, the Mayor's Office of Housing and the newly formed Citizen's Advisory Committee.

      - The Mayor's Office of Housing is taking a feasibility study on the use of the property and the property goes back to the Citizen's Advisory Committee in December.

      - Making a decision today would be premature.

      Joan MacNamara - Mayor's Office of Housing

      - This project was transferred to MOH in order to look at it in terms of providing housing units for our homeless populations.

      - The citizen's Advisory Committee will be reviewing whether housing can be established there for homeless.

      - The project will be reviewed again on December 20, 2004.

      - Making this project a Landmark would not cause any problems at all.

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

      10. 2002.0271L (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          150 OTIS STREET - The Juvenile Court and Detention Home, north side between McCoppin Street and Duboce Avenue. Lot 7 in Assessor's Block 3513 - Request for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution approving the designation of the Juvenile Court and Detention Home as Landmark 248, and recommending to the Board of Supervisors that they approve the designation of the Juvenile Court and Detention Home as Landmark 248.

                Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

                NOTE: On October 7, 2004, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to November 4, 2004, by a vote +6 -0, in order to discuss future use of the building with the project sponsor.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          RESOLUTION: 16888

          11. 2004.0587D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

91 MIGUEL STREET - north side between Fairmont and Beacon Streets. Assessor's Block 6665, Lot 023C - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 0128 5045, to construct a new two family dwelling, three stories in height in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          NOTE: On October 21, 2004, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the item to November 4, 2004 to allow absent Commissioner the ability to participate in the final action. Commissioner Sue Lee was absent.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: DID not take Discretionary Review and Approved the project

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

          NAYES: Olague and S. Lee

    F. REGULAR CALENDAR

          12. 2000.1081E (J. KUGLER: (415) 558-5983)

          RINCON HILL PLAN - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project is a revised Rincon Hill Plan (an Area Plan of the San Francisco General Plan) and revised planning controls for the Rincon Hill area. The San Francisco Planning Department proposes to replace the Planning Code's existing Rincon Hill Special Use District (SUD), as set out in Planning Code Section 249.1, with a new Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use District (DTR), which would increase height limits, revise the "R" bulk district, amend the Rincon Hill Area Plan, and make other General Plan and zoning changes intended to stimulate additional high-density, residential development in the Rincon Hill area. Improvements to the streetscape, transportation system and open space would result from implementation of the new Plan. Rincon Hill is in the northeast section of San Francisco, south of the Financial District and Transbay Terminal, and north of the South Beach neighborhood. The project area is bounded generally by Folsom Street, Steuart Street, The Embarcadero, Bryant Street, the Bay Bridge approach and the Transbay Terminal ramps and encompasses about 12 city blocks.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Hold Public Hearing. No action required.

          NOTE: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on November 29, 2004.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Ken Werner - Trinity Plaza Tenants Association

          - He asked the Commission to reconsider this plan because it does not offer low income housing.

          - This is unacceptable to the people of SOMA.

          James Collins

          - He asked the Commission to reconsider this proposal.

          - This project does not have low income housing.

          - It is unfair for the community to look elsewhere to find a house.

          Richard Marquez - Mission Agenda

          - Rincon Hill is returning to its roots of exclusivity of class and social segregation.

          - What other project will accompany this type of project?

          - Why is the Department "Vancouverizing" San Francisco?

          - This project puts affordable housing "out of sight."

          - He requested that the Commission fight for San Francisco's affordable future.

          Dustin Dun - Mission Agenda

          - Forcing people out of housing that they can afford is terrible.

          - There is too much disparity here.

          Stephen Wilson - Archdiocese of San Francisco

          - This DEIR fails on various counts: 1) it limits the Commission's range of actions; 2) it is inadequate because the alternative selected and analyzed limits the range of actions and decisions possible by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors; 3) it limits housing production; 4) it does not meet Proposition M; 5) there has been a defacto moratorium and this should be stopped; 6) there is a more aggressive and better way to develop projects.

          - The Planning Commission should direct staff to develop and analyze an alternative project that fits within the proposed Rincon Hill height limits.

          Lucian Blazej

          - The draft EIR only provides for 2,100 units and there could be more.

          - This draft EIR should provide the community the information to broadly evaluate the various plans and zoning controls to optimize housing. It does not do this.

          - The EIR does not have an economic analysis.

          Maurice Healy - Archdiocese of San Francisco

          - There is a loss of housing with this project.

          - Under current zoning this project could provide more housing units.

          - Taller buildings would be more expensive to build.

          - An alternative should be proposed that optimizes housing.

          Bob Meyers

          - Staff's preferred option is flawed in this EIR.

          - The plan does not increase housing production.

          - Most Rincon Heights are already built.

          - The few remaining housing sites are not much.

          - Housing is more important than tower separation.

          - An addendum can be issued for public comment.

          Alison Poole

          - The DEIR does not contain any information that super housing could be afforded by real people.

          - This draft EIR is defective.

          - Almost every EIR has an economic analysis and this one does not have it.

          - A comprehensive study should be made before building these fantasy towers.

          Aaron Poser

          - The Draft EIR is based on false assumptions.

          - He strongly urges the Commission to require that the EIR be rewritten in order to have site specific solutions.

          Debra Stein

          - Preservation of views and blue sky seems to be more important than housing in this EIR.

          - The maximum housing option should be the preferred option and not the option that the department suggests.

          - It is important that this EIR acknowledge that there are projects that are moving forward.

          - This current building is not a historic resource as the EIR states.

          Collin Mazza

          - 375 Fremont should be evaluated as proposed under current zoning.

          - There are various projects that have been in the pipeline.

          - 375 Fremont is consistent with the Rincon Hill Plan.

          Eleanor Killebrew - BrownBrew

          - The Rincon Hill area is within walking distance of downtown and public transportation.

          - None of the proposed plans include open space areas.

          - Proposed high-rise projects would not displace anyone.

          - Maximizing the number of high-rises and housing is a good idea.

          Theodore Brown - BrownBrew

          - He is for the tower separation in order to optimize housing.

          - Rincon Hill is a good place for housing because it is close to the proposed Transbay Terminal.

          - Density optimizes fiscal efficiency and utilization of expensive infrastructure.

          - The proposed project would not have any negative effect on current utilities.

          Calvin Welsh - Council for Community Housing Organizations

          - The Draft EIR is in need of amendments because it is incomplete and fails to address the range of environmental impacts of the proposed project.

          - The EIR draws too narrow a focus.

          - It fails to look at the SOMA community in both housing and traffic, especially for families and seniors.

          - The definition of the setting of the plan tends to ignore the impact of dismissing the recently approved Housing Element.

          Chris Durazo - South of Market Community Action Network

          - The EIR should be amended.

          - She feels that the scope is inaccurate. It looks like spot zoning.

          - This is an EIR for rezoning and not for a specific project.

          - The Housing Element that was approved should be included.

          April Veneracion - South of Market Community Action Network

          - The Draft EIR is inaccurate and does not effectively address the long-range impacts of maximum density on the socio economic well being of the South of Market residents and workers.

          - The Draft EIR is incomplete in scope.

          Rajiv Bhatia - San Francisco DPH

          - There are ways that the EIR can fully analyze the impacts.

          - People have spoken about increased density so more housing should be built.

          - There are imbalances between jobs and housing.

          - There is no school plans on the site.

          - The new workers would not be able to live at this location.

          - Also, there is an assumption that lower income people drive less.

          - There are too many assumptions in the EIR.

          - The plan needs a more complete analysis of jobs and housing.

          - The Metropolitan Commission could provide more ideas.

          - This project needs to be looked at in a citywide perspective.

          Julia Dimaio - Senior Action Network and Senior Housing Action

          - Seniors are in desperate need of housing but they are concerned about the amounts the units would be sold for.

          - The Rincon Hill Plan does not attend the needs of the community, families with children or seniors.

          Charles Stewart - SOMECAN

          - He does not support the DEIR for the Rincon Hill Plan. It is very unreasonable.

          - This project is wiping the residents of the south of market out of the area.

          - The Rincon Hill plan will not be community friendly.

          - He requests that the EIR be redone to focus more on the community.

          Angelica Cabande - SOMECAN

          - Every day she speaks to tenants in the South of Market area and they are concerned with the difficulty of displacement, affordability, etc.

          - How will the Rincon Hill plan focus on the community?

          - An EIR should be done that mitigates the negative impacts the zoning changes will create.

          Ron Calson

          - The preferred option has many negative aspects. It is not community focused and should not include the projects that are in the pipeline.

          - The Planning Commission should be informed on the economic impacts of the housing costs, neighborhood parking, and the housing markets likely to be served when major zoning changes are proposed.

          Azalia Merrel - Carpenter's Union

          - She is concerned over her "cozzy" rent controlled apartment of seven years.

          - She would not be able to afford the million dollar condos that are on the market.

          - This is another project that started under one set of rules and has continued with another set of rules.

          - She is not opposed to the super towers but has concerns about their affordability.

          Robert McCarthy - McCarthy and Swartz

          - The preferred choice of staff would result in less units, less tax revenues, eliminate construction jobs, etc.

          - This plan is the greatest "power grab" in history.

          - The Commission needs to preserve their discretion.

          ACTION: Meeting Held. No Action at this time. Written comments accepted until 5:00 p.m. on December 10, 2004.

      13. 2003.0109E (L. KIENKER: (415) 558-5970)

          988 HOWARD STREET - AKA PLAZA APARTMENTS - northeast corner of Howard and Sixth Streets on Assessors Block 3725, Lot 025 - Substitution of Mitigation Measures and amendment of Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The approved project, now under construction, is the demolition of two-story 37-room single-resident occupancy (SRO) hotel, retail, and performing arts space and construction of an approximately 68,400 gsf, 9-story, structure containing 106 SRO units, with 700 gross square feet (gsf) of second-story social service space, 2,100 gsf of ground level retail space, and 4,200 gsf of performing arts space. The site is located in the South of Market Redevelopment Plan Area, SOMA Earthquake Recovery Special Use District, RSD (Residential / Service) Mixed-Use Zoning District and 85-X height and bulk district.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approve finding of no significant impact with substitution of wind and archeology mitigation measures and amendment of Final Mitigated Negative Declaration.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Erin Carson - San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

          - She works for the Public Initiatives Development Corporation, which is a subsidiary of the Redevelopment Agency and sponsors of the project.

          - She is available for questions.

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          MOTION: 16889

      14. 2004.0660C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

          55 FARALLONES STREET - south side between Plymouth and San Jose Avenues, Assessor's Block 7108 Lot 054 (St. Michael's Church & School). Request for Conditional Use authorization under, Planning Code Section 209.3.j, to expand an Adult Day Care facility, as part of the existing religious institutional use, up to 35 adults. The project will add 960 square feet to an existing 2,160 square foot modular building currently used for adult day care purposes in an RH-1, Residential House, One Family, and RH-2, Residential House, Two Family District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Patty Clement

          - The program has been overseen by Catholic Charities.

          - They are the only program that offers extended care and a Saturday program.

          - They have the funding to expand but there is a time limit and are afraid of loosing it.

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          MOTION: 16890

          15. 2004.0831C (D. DIBARTOLO: 415) 558-6291)

          532-536 GREEN STREET - north side between Stockton Street and Grant Avenue; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0116 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish, pursuant to Planning Code Section 722.44, a small self-service restaurant ("Tom's Sausage & BBQ"). The restaurant would be less than 1,000 square feet in size, and would occupy an existing ground-floor vacant commercial space within the three story mixed-use structure. No expansion of the building is proposed. The site is in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Marsha Garland - North Beach Chamber of Commerce

          - She introduced the project sponsor.

          (+) Richard Tom

          - He has owned the building for about 25 years.

          - His parents purchased the building as a residence and to open a business.

          - For the last 10 years he worked on the family business.

          - He is interested in attracting eating customers.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve the project.

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          MOTION: 16891

          16. 2004.0915C (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

          1598 DOLORES STREET - northwest corner of 29th Street; Lots 40 through 52, inclusive, in Assessor's Block 6618 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify conditions of approval set forth in Planning Commission Motion Number 16445 as modified by Board of Supervisors Motion Number M02-163 and relating to Planning Department Case Number 2000.1058C to allow payment of an in-lieu affordable housing fee rather than provide on-site affordable housing, pursuant to inclusionary housing policies set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16350. In September of 2002, the City authorized construction of two 4-story buildings on the subject property containing a total of 13 units and up to 26 independently accessible off-street parking spaces; both buildings are now complete. Conditions of approval require one of the proposed units to be provided as a Below Market Rate (BMR) unit. This proposal would modify previous conditions of approval to allow the payment of an in-lieu fee to the Mayor's Office of Housing rather than provide the required BMR unit on-site. No physical work is proposed. The property is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): None

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 20, 2005

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

      17. 2002.1305C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          1096 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - previously Driscoll's Mortuary Chapel, northwest corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 22nd Street, Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 3615 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a full service restaurant and a place of entertainment that would be open until 2:00 am within a building that was previously used as a mortuary. Conditional Use authorization is required for (1) hours of operation between 11:00 pm and 2:00 am pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.27 and 790.48; (2) the establishment of other entertainment pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.48 and 790.38; (3) the establishment of a full service restaurant on a lot within ¼ mile of the 24th Street - Mission Neighborhood Commercial District Pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.42 and 727.42; and (4) the establishment of a restaurant use on the second floor of a building designed for a single tenant pursuant to Planning Code Section 186.1(b) and 186.2(a). No exterior alteration is proposed. The project is within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and the Mission Alcoholic Restricted Special Use District.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          Re: Continuance

          Lou Blazej

          - He would like this item continued because the project was not advertised as a full service restaurant.

          - There is a need to work more with the neighborhood and the continuance would allow this to happen.

          - They are flexible on the day.

          ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to January 20, 2005

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

      18a. 2004.0234CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          2917-2919 24TH STREET - south side between Florida and Alabama Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 426 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j) to add five dwelling units (including one pre-existing unit to be restored) to a commercial building without providing off-street parking. Two units would be converted from existing office/warehouse space on the second floor, and the other three units would be provided through a vertical addition, adding a third floor plus mezzanine above the existing two-story building with a six- and ten-foot setback from the existing front building wall. A Rear Yard Modification and a Dwelling Unit Exposre Variance will be heard by the Zoning Administrator immediately following the hearing on the Conditional Use. The site is within the 24th Street-Mission Neighborhood Commercial Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Warner Oneisky

          - He purchased the building this year.

          - He will be adding three units on the third floor.

          - They had a discussion with the mural people.

          - He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.

          (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

          - He supports this project because it is near 24th Street, which is a very transit rich street.

          ACTION: Approved

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

          MOTION: 16892

      18b. 2004.0234CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          2917-2919 24TH STREET - south side between Florida and Alabama Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 426 - Request for Rear Yard Modification under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space for five dwelling units within front and rear setbacks and for Dwelling Unit Exposure Variance under Section 140. The Zoning Administrator will hear the Rear Yard Modification and Exposure Variance at the time the Planning Commission hears the Conditional Use. The site is within the 24th Street-Mission Neighborhood Commercial Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

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

          ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and Granted the Modifications and the Variance.

      19a. 2004.0356D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          477 HARKNESS AVENUE - south side east of Delta Street; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 6178 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all housing demolition permits, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.11.19.0549 proposing the demolition of a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) James Li - Project Engineer

          - This house is not too big.

          - He is available for questions.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

          NAYES: Hughes, S. Lee and Olague

      19b. 2004.0357D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          477 HARKNESS AVENUE - south side east of Delta Street; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 6178 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.19.0552 proposing the construction of a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the project.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 19a.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified: 1) Reduce the width of the garage door to a maximum of eight feet; 2) Redesign the front entry to restrict access to the main level. Access to habitable space on the ground floor must be restricted to interior stairs directly connecting it to the main floor; 3) Eliminate one of the bathrooms on the ground floor; 4) Record a Notice of Special Restriction on the property restricting its use to a single-family dwelling.

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

          NAYES: Hughes, S. Lee and Olague

      19c. 2004.0358D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          477 HARKNESS AVENUE - south side east of Delta Street; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 6178 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.11.19.0551 proposing the construction of a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the project.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 19a.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified: 1) Reduce the width of the garage door to a maximum of eight feet; 2) Redesign the front entry to restrict access to the main level. Access to habitable space on the ground floor must be restricted to interior stairs directly connecting it to the main floor; 3) Eliminate one of the bathrooms on the ground floor; 4) Record a Notice of Special Restriction on the property restricting its use to a single-family dwelling.

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee

          NAYES: Hughes, S. Lee and Olague

          20. 2004.1032DDDDDD (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          2428 BAYSHORE BOULEVARD - Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6249, northwest side between Leland Avenue and Visitacion Avenue - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.16.2457 proposing to construct a new four-story, twelve-unit residential structure with a small commercial unit, on a vacant lot. The property is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications.

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (-) Bill Dodson - Representing All Discretionary Review Requestors

          - They do not object to the construction but the building will be too large.

          - There is already a parking problem in the neighborhood.

          - Sometime residents have to park on the street parallel to the cars parked on the curb.

          - When the light rail is built it will take a lot of the parking spaces.

          - Twelve units are too much for the area.

          - There are two empty buildings next door. If someone develops that then the residents will really be in trouble.

          - Traffic is very hectic in the area. People living on the peninsula and people going to events at the Cow Palace use the traffic going south.

          - Maybe the Discretionary Review requestors agreed to six units and a storefront. Also, the entrance to the garage should be in the back.

          - If the Commission would make a site visit, they would see that there are no parking spaces.

          (-) Teng Chi Yeh - Discretionary Review Requestor

          - He lives near the project.

          - He is opposed to the location of the project.

          - The project is too large.

          - The project will reduce air, privacy, views and property values.

          - The building will contain twelve units and if three people occupy each unit, there will be at least 30 cars in the neighborhood.

          - The developer does not live there so this person is only interested in their profit.

          - The neighbors are worried about their quality of life.

          (-) Charlie Seto

          - The building is too high.

          - There is no parking in the neighborhood.

          - If a building is to be built it should be with half the number of units.

          (-) Mabel Seto

          - The houses in the neighborhood are only two levels.

          - This construction will be four levels, which is too high.

          (-) Zi Sek Chen

          - The building will be too large.

          - There are a lot of problems with parking in the area.

          (-) Russel Morine

          - His issue is the off-site inclusionary housing.

          - This building is 100% affordable so it should be discussed further.

          - A lot of the neighbors have not met with the project sponsor.

          - Not everyone will agree but everyone should meet.

          (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

          - He does not agree to reduce the units

          - Light rail will be built soon so there is no need to reduce density.

          - No one supports parking on sidewalks or parking in bike lanes.

          - He urges the Commission to take Discretionary Review and work with the parking situation.

          - The units could be deed restricted so that tenants would know that they would not be allowed to own a car.

          (-) name unclear

          - The building is too large.

          - The houses in the neighborhood are only two levels.

          (-) Shawn Lee Paul

          - He lives in the rear of the proposed project.

          - The building will be too large with no parking. This makes it quite dangerous.

          (+) Matthew Brennan

          - The standard for granting Discretionary Review is extraordinary circumstances. That is not the case here.

          - This project will provide twelve residential units.

          - These are off-site affordable units that provide affordable units to the City.

          - There will be a small commercial space in keeping with the design of the other buildings in the neighborhood.

          (+) Marge Vincent

          - There have been efforts by the project sponsor to meet with Discretionary Review requestors and the members of the Visitation Valley Planning Alliance.

          - There were several people who attended the meeting.

          - The people in attendance requested various information, which they provided to them.

          - Plans were revised to reflect the concerns of the neighbors who attended the meeting.

          - They provided translated letters and provide a translator.

          (+) James Nunnemacher - Project Sponsor

          - This project is a fully affordable project.

          - At least 90% of the properties have illegal units.

          - Most of the mid-block is being used by parking, he imagines that this is illegal.

          - The units will be sold.

          - Shadows will be cast only to the north of the building.

          (+) Toby Morris - Project Architect

          - He showed a rendering and gave a general review of the architectural aspects of the project.

          - They made many changes to deal with the issues the neighbors had.

          - The access to the parking is completely conventional.

          (+) Phil Donahue

          - There are various buildings in the city that tower over other buildings.

          - The site allows for affordability.

          - The sponsor did have a neighborhood meeting.

          - Housing should be built near transit corridors.

          - If housing will be reduced in transit corridors, there will be no standards set for those areas.

          ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified: consisting of incorporating horizontal siding on the north side and incorporating more trim detail at the fourth floor at the front.

                The Commission also required the project sponsor to have any proposal to use the subject project at 2428 Bayshore Boulevard in meeting the off-site affordable housing requirement of another project be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission either through an entitlement already required for the other project, or through staff initiated Discretionary Review.

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

          ABSENT: W. Lee

      21a. 2004.0526D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          785 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - east side between 19th Street and 20th Street, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 4075 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.10.29.8857, proposing to demolish a single story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S):

          (+) Joseph Bradford

          - He has six letters of support and one letter of withdrawal.

          - He is available for questions.

          (+) Regan Carroll

          - He and his wife live on San Bruno Avenue.

          - He submitted a letter stating their approval of the project.

          - This is an ideal spot for the dwellings proposed.

          - He commended the project sponsor for quickly responding to his requests.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

          ABSENT: W. Lee

          21b. 2004.0923D (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

          785 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - east side between 19th Street and 20th Street, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 4075 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.29.8854, proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage two-unit building, in an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 4, 2004)

          SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 21a.

          ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

          AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

          ABSENT: W. Lee

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))

Russell Moreen

      - Visitation Valley is an active neighborhood.

      - Neighbors just want to have dialogs with developers.

      - He thanked the Commission for their time.

Adjournment: 9:23 p.m.

      THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:15 PM