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

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

April 14, 2005

April 14, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, April 14, 2005
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dwight Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:43 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator; Kate Stacey - Deputy City Attorney; Jonathan Purvis; Jim Miller; Craig Nikitas; Michael Li; Marshall Foster; Lisa Gibson; Glenn Cabreros; 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. 2003.1152V (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

        329 BAY - south side between Powell and Mason Streets through to Vandewater Street; Lot 036 Block 0041 - Request for Variance from rear yard requirements, pursuant to a project that would demolish the existing, largely vacant, one-story building with 8,550 square feet of existing retail space to construct a new four-story building approximately 40 feet high, containing 21 dwelling units and 3,100 square feet of retail space. Twenty-one parking spaces would be located below grade, with vehicular access from Vandewater Street. Section 134(a)(1) requires that a building which contains dwellings in this district have a minimum rear yard depth equal to the larger of 25 percent of the lot depth or 15 feet. The subject lot is 120 feet deep and the required rear yard would be 30 feet. The project proposes no rear yard, but substitutes two light courts approximately 25 feet in depth on each side property line at mid-lot. The site is zoned C-2 (Community Business District), in the Northern Waterfront Special Use District #2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 24, 2005)

      (Proposed for Continuance to April 21, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 21, 2005

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

        2. 2004.1311D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

        860 INNES AVENUE - east side between Griffith and Fitch Streets; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 4645 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.26.7273 proposing a vertical addition consisting of 3 additional floors to accommodate 3 dwelling units, to convert the ground floor into a 3-car garage, and to change the ground floor use from business service to retail within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.

              (Proposed for Continuance to April 28, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

        3. 2005.0171D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

              130 TOWNSEND STREET - west corner of Stanford Street, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3788 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Miscellaneous Permit Application Number MB0500372, a Zoning Referral from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The proposal would change the use of a vacant approximately 6,000 square foot ground floor space to a full-service restaurant and bar (DBA "Tres Agaves") which would sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site. The balance of the structure (approximately 3,500 square feet) would be used as an art gallery. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed. Planning Commission Resolution Number 14844 requires a Discretionary Review hearing for all projects which involve a new or relocated liquor license or bar within the proposed Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District (BVSUD). The property is located in an SSO (Service / Secondary Office) District, the proposed BVSUD, the South End Historic District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 24, 2005)

        (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

    4. 2004.0305C (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

        1111 JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD - southeast corner of the intersection Shields Street and Junipero Serra Boulevard, Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 7080 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the installation of six (6) panel antennas concealed into the base of the existing church steeple (Temple Methodist Church), and install three outdoor equipment cabinets located on the south side of the church as part of a wireless telecommunication network, pursuant to Planning Code section 209.6(b), in an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Location Preference 2 (Co-Location Site).

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005)

        (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued indefinitely.

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

        5. 2004.0389D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        684 ARKANSAS STREET - west side between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 4098 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.22.5290 proposing the conversion of a single-family dwelling to a two-family dwelling with vertical and horizontal extensions. The site is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 3, 2004)

          DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

    6. Consideration of Adoption:

          · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 10, 2005

          · Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of February 10, 2005

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved - [One motion and vote for both sets of minutes]

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

      7. Commission Comments/Questions

        Commissioner W. Lee:

        Re: Zoning an Entertainment District

        - Has San Francisco ever considered an entertainment zoning district?

        - He would like staff to investigate where entertainment in the City can be located.

        Commissioner Antonini:

        Re: Notice Processing

        - There has been a lot of discussion about problems in the processing of notices.

        - He believes that part of the conflict with the delays has been seen between the public's ability to comment freely and be heard in full, and the ability to move projects forward. The public should be able to comment for as long as necessary.

        - He believes that noticing should be increased as much as possible to achieve the broadest outreach to the public within their neighborhoods. This should include commercial projects.

        Commissioner S. Lee:

        Re: Status of Various Projects

        - As the Commission begins to review neighborhood plans and adopt the plans, questions from the public comes up regarding the status of these jobs.

        - She asked the City Attorney for a written opinion on the legal entitlements of the projects the Commission approves.

        8. Discussion of the responsibilities assigned to the Zoning Administrator by City Charter and Planning Code.

        Judy Boyagian, Deputy City Attorney, commented:

        The Zoning Administrator is a Charter Official. This position is specifically mentioned in section 4.105 of the Charter. The only power that he has that is expressed in the Charter itself is the authority to determine Variances. Prior to the Charter amendment in 1996, there were other Zoning Administrator powers in the Charter (for example: enforcement of the code) but they were removed in the 1996 revision. Everything except for the Variance power is in the Planning Code. Most of the duties are set out in Section 307.

        Many people are aware that the Zoning Administrator will also issue written interpretations of the Planning Code. These are now on the Planning Department's web site. He has the power to enforce the code through calling on other city officials like the City Attorney, District Attorney and Chief of Police.

        The Zoning Administrator's primary duty is to interpret and enforce the Planning Code. One of the issues that has been contentious recently is when the Planning Commission has approved a project and imposed conditions on it, what is the authority of the Zoning Administrator to modify those decisions when the Commission's decision id appealed to the Board of Appeals or Board of Supervisors and they impose conditions? Basically he has no power to modify or change the decision. What he does have the authority to do is to interpret that decision. Section 174, specifically states that conditions that are prescribed on projects by the Planning Commission, Board of Appeals or Board of Supervisors actually become provisions of the Planning Code. The specific provisions of the Planning Code can be enforced and interpreted by the Zoning Administrator, in the same way as enacted provisions of the Planning Code.

        If there is a question about whether a project modification is consistent with the decision approval action, the Zoning Administrator is the only actual official that has the authority to make the decision, interpret the action. The clearer the action is of course, the easier his job is. If it is a little ambiguous, he has a harder job. Any decision he makes in that regard is appealable to the Board of Appeals.

        SPEAKER(S):

        Bernard Choden

        - Things have gotten worse in the past eight years.

        - The remedy is to realize the needs of the City.

        - Reform is needed to modernize the Planning process.

        Sue Hestor

        - The Zoning Administrator position has a lot of power.

        - It is important that the Zoning Administrator find out what the problems are but not try to solve them himself.

        John Schlesinger

        - He commended the Commission for their comments on this matter. You (the Commission) are concentrating on the position and not on the individual.

        - There is a necessity that the position be an autonomous position.

        - The public may not agree with the decision, and may fight the decision, but the important thing is that the Zoning Administrator does what is stated in the Planning Code.

        - This is a very important issue for neighborhood groups.

        Gerry Crowley - Former President of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers' Association.

        - She is concerned about a particular case where she believes that the Zoning Administer actually changed the law with a determination.

        - The case is a restaurant known as Basta Pasta at 1234 to 1268 Grant Avenue. The space operated as a pasta restaurant from 1986 to 2000. Under plans that were approved under interim controls, the plans were approved one week prior to the North Beach Commercial District legislation being passed. There were extensive negotiations between the neighborhood organization and the project sponsor. Just to the exterior, for example, there were violations of the original CU. In 2000, the restaurant closed and four years later in 2004 the building was sold. The new buyers asked the Zoning Administrator for the abandonment provisions of the code. The Zoning Administrator found that the abandonment did not apply because the original owner had tried to sell the property as a restaurant and didn't intend to abandon it. Now that four years have gone by, the Zoning Administrator says that the code, that the law does not apply.

        - She beleives that the Zonining Administrator has a very dangerous use of power.

        Kepa Askenasy

        - She displayed a flowchart of the development process.

        - She asked that a series of hearings be scheduled in order to understand how the Department is structured.

        - How does the community perceive corruption?

        Arthur Chang - Vice Chair, Park and Recreation Advisory Committee

        - Does the Zoning Administrator have the power to administer a law?

        - What authority does the Zoning Administrator have to encounter mandated law?

        Pat Buscovich

        - He thanked the Commission for explaining why this item was on the agenda.

        - This is one of the most important things that the Commission will be discussing.

        - He knows that the current Zoning Administrators is one of the most ethical people that he knows.

        - The Board of Appeals is another autonomous body.

        - The description that the City Attorney mentioned is very well said.

        Teresa Garcia

        - As more projects are approved, it is important to see the check and balances.

        - There have been a lot of businesses that have had to move away because of decisions of the Zoning Administrator.

        Fernando Martin - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - Over the last ten years there have been a lot of changes in various neighborhoods.

        - There are decisions that the Zoning Administrator has made that are kind of "fuzzy."

        - The Zoning Administrator has created policy for certain areas when in fact that was not the intention of the Commission.

        - When the interpretations are added up, they can become actual policy.

        Bob Passmore

        - He was Zoning Administrator for 25 years.

        - This subject is a very difficult one.

        - Previously, the Planning Code was less complex than it is now so there were fewer things to interpret.

        - There are a lot of "grey" areas in the Planning Code.

        - Uses over time have been changed and added to the code.

        Eileen Gold

        - She has been here before in September of 2004 regarding a project on 18th Street.

        - The ZA referenced a motion by the Board of Supervisors. This project has been going on since the 90s. In 2001, the Commission made certain conditions about the project that was appealed to the Board of Supervisors. They added more conditions to the project.

        - Instead of the correct motion, the ZA used the previous motion before the Board of Supervisor's conditions.

        - They have gone through the Board of Appeals but have had no luck.

        Charles Marsteller

        - The Zoning Administrator, as with the Commission, can be removed only if there is a just cause.

        - As a civil servant, the Zoning Administrator is subject to an annual review.

        - There should be some clarification of the structure of his position.

        - The Commission has raised very interesting questions today.

        John Bardis

        - Neither the Commission nor the Zoning Administrator has the ability to change the law.

        - The ZA does interpretations according to the law.

        - There should be questions when the Commission has issued an action and it is not carried out.

        - The question is if the Commission is doing their job and carrying out the will of the public?

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

    9. Director's Announcement

        Dean Macris reported:

        Land Use Committee

        Re: Review of Status of Backlog

        - He appeared before the Land Use Committee. They understand the Planning Department's issues which are the reasons for our delays.

        - There will be a fee analysis to make them consistent; the tracking system will be integrated; and finally, an analysis of procedures and processes will be done.

        - Also, our short-term solution will be to fill the vacancies.

        Alicia John-Baptiste reported

        - The Department has a number of vacant positions which totals about 16% of the total funded positions.

        - There is a hiring program in place for each of the five major areas in the Department.

        - Three positions in the environmental analysis unit, seven in neighborhood planning, seven in city-wide, three in the Director's office and two in administration.

        - There have been two offers to date, both of which have been accepted. Over the next couple of weeks, there will be a number of interviews for Planner II and Planner III positions.

        - At the same time, there is recruitment going on for a number of other positions, those include the higher level planner positions--the Planner IV positions, as well as some classifications that fall outside of the planning series, including a community outreach coordinator.

        - Interviews for these positions will probably start in early to mid May with staff coming on board a month after that process begins.

        - Search for all these position includes internal and external applicants as well as promotions.

        - With all the new staff, there is hope that soon the backfill will become less and less.

        Director Macris reported:

        - The two administrative positions mentioned are for planners for the transportation section of the department.

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

        BOS: The Zoning Administrator reported:

        624 Divisadero

        - This was an appeal of an 18-unit condominium at a location where a church would be demolished. There was very little discussion at the Planning Commission.

        - A neighborhood group indicated that this had been a theatre and felt that it was important to preserve. An environmental analysis of the project was done but did not result in the original negative declaration being withdrawn.

        - Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi lead a negotiation that resulted in the project being revised so that rather than the theater being demolished which fronts on Divisadero, the building fronting on Hayes would be built. The back of the theatre would be demolished but the public spaces of the theatre would be retained.

        - The appellant was not satisfied with this and still had concerns.

        - The project was continued. Perhaps a new CU will be issued and brought back to the Commission.

        Re: One Polk Street

        - There were changes to the design of this project.

        - There were questions of whether these changes were in conformity. After some analysis there was a decision that it was. He will be issuing a letter to this effect.

        BOA: The Zoning Administrator reported:

        Re: 141 Willard North

        - This was a demolition that the Commission disapproved.

        - The Board of Appeals overruled the Planning Commission's disapproval and approved the demolition by a +5-0 vote.

        Re: 555 Buena Vista West

        - This was not before the Commission but he thought it would be important to report.

        - This 1930s art deco apartment building had steel windows that were deteriorating.

        - The project sponsor wanted to replace the windows with vinyl windows. Staff has argued that it is important to maintain the same type of window systems. Staff has not been very successful on this.

        - The Board upheld the Department's position of installing vinyl windows with an aluminum base.

        Re: 3775 21st Street

        - There was some discussion on this Variance. He determined that the Discretionary Review period had expired. Only the Variance only was heard.

        11. 2003.1162EC (J. MILLER 415-558-6344)

        2351 POWELL STREET - Informational item - west side between North Point and Bay Streets, with additional frontage on Stockton and Mason Streets, all of Assessor's Block 31 (Lots 1, 3 and 4) within a C-2 (Community Business) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and all of Assessor's Block 32 (Lots 1 and 2) and Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 33, within an RM-3 Mixed Residential, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and all within the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 2.- Follow-up report to Commission on authorized Conditional Use (Motion No. 16918) regarding dwelling-unit mix and in-lieu payment to Recreation and Park Department in place of on-site usable open space.

    Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Staff gave a report. Informational only. No action.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - 15 MINUTES

    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. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

        Jakkee Bryson

        Re: Planning Commission

        - Her physical condition has deteriorated.

        - The Commission is the first and last line of defense to those citizens that are disabled, financially challenged, etc.

        - There are at least three notices of violation on programs in buildings that were approved by the Commission.

        - There is a disregard for these types of people if they get injured.

        - There should be some sort of monitoring system for the programs that are approved by the Commission.

        Sue Hestor

        Re: Planning Commission Staff

        - There are 28 new staff coming to the Planning Department. They should seriously consider overhauling the Department.

        - It is important to train staff so they can practice discretion.

        - Staff is going to have to be empowered by the Commission and the public.

        - Transparency is very important as well.

        Jim Salinas, Sr.

        Re: Planning Commission

        - The public conception needs to be reinstilled.

        - It is important to the general public to see that the Commission has accepted their responsibly.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

    All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

        12. 2005.0009L (M. LUELLEN: (415) 558-6478)

              1110 TAYLOR STREET - east side of Taylor Street between Sacramento and Clay Streets; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 222 - Request for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the designation of the Glazer-Keating House as Landmark No. 251.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution recommending landmark designation.

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Approved

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

        MOTION: 16982

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

    13. 2004.0945C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

        695 BRYANT - southeast corner at 5th Street; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3777 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 890.50 for the intensification of a homeless shelter from a 205-bed capacity to a 345-bed capacity within an existing two-story-over-basement building. The site is within an SLI (Service/Light Industrial) Mixed Use District, a 50-X Height and Bulk District and is within the Industrial Protection Zone under Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Joyce Krom - Deputy Director of the Homeless Emergency Services - Human Services Agency - Division of Housing and Homelessness

        - They serve 345 clients at the shelter.

        - Housing is most important in the City right now.

        - They did a homeless count and came up with about 6,000 homeless people.

        - There are shelters that provide over 450 bed slots for families.

        - They are asking for the Commission's approval of this proposal.

        (+) Jakkee Bryson

        - If the Commission approves this project, she hopes that the disabled access requirements are added.

        - People are suffering in this building. There is poor ventilation and the disabled shower is not working. The building is absolutely terrible.

        ACTION: Approved with the following additional conditions of approval: Building permit shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building and Fire Departments and must be in compliance.

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

        ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

        MOTION: 16983

        14a. 2004.1342EXV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

              693 SUTTER - southeast corner at Taylor Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 0297 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Planning Code Section 309 and Request for Exceptions including an exception to the rear yard requirements as permitted in Section 134(d). The proposal is to convert approximately 7,000 square feet of office space on the fifth and sixth floors of the existing building to six dwelling units. Previously, Section 309 approval was granted for the conversion of the mezzanine and the second through fourth floors from office space to 10 dwelling units. Approval of the current proposal would result in a total of 16 dwelling units, including two BMR units. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The project site lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hold a simultaneous hearing to consider a request for an off-street parking variance.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Simon Quan - Representing Project Sponsor - Project Architect

        - The footprint of the building is very small.

        - The façade cannot be changed because it is a historical building.

        - Three other buildings are on the alley. There is concern about sharing it with this project.

        - The project was split into two phases because there were still tenants occupying the building.

        - The owner prefers to have the BMR units in the mezzanine level.

        (+) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - They are in support of this project.

        - The code should be changed to minimize parking in a CG3 zoning district.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to April 28, 2005 to provide new material that shows equitable distribution of BMR units and their size. Public Comment to Remain Open.

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

    14b. 2004.1342EXV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

        693 SUTTER - southeast corner at Taylor Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 0297 - Off-street parking variance sought. The proposal is to convert approximately 7,000 square feet of office space on the fifth and sixth floors of the existing building to six dwelling units. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The project site lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The parking requirement for the proposed project is two spaces, and the project is proposing zero spaces. The application for variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed in item 14a.

        ACTION: Zoning Administrator continued the Item to April 28, 2005.

        15a. 2002.0805RTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

        MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Assessor's Blocks 0341; 0342; 0350; 0351, lot 035; 0355; 3507, lot 039; 3508; 3509, lots 002, 018, 019, 036, 037, 040, 041, 042, and 043; 3510, lot 001; 3701; 3702, excluding lots 015, 016, 029, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 055, and 056 (eastern portion); 3703, excluding lots 004, 005, 006, 027, 028, and 029; 3704, lots 025, 026, 049, 050, 051, 052, and 053; 3725, lots 078, 082, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, and 093; 3727, lots 001, 091, 094, 096, 097, 101, 102, 103, 109, 117, 118, 120, 130, 134, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and Block 3728, lots 001, 072, 075, 076, 081, 082, 083, 089, and 103. The Commission will consider a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code pursuant to the proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan and Special Use District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) Lisa Zayas Chien - Planner at the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency

        - The agency has been contemplating this area since 1994.

        - They have been working with a citizen's advisory committee.

        - The project area was selected in 1997.

        - The project area committee consists of various neighborhood residents that have an interest in what is happening there.

        - The agency has gone through a lot to listen and gather the resident's comments and issues.

        - This is a very interesting project that brings together various issues.

        (+) Anthony Faber - SOMA Leadership

        - This initiation should be approved to get the "ball rolling" in order to see what the Commission likes and doesn't like.

        (+/-) Susan Bryant

        - She has met with several groups and they feel that it is a bit early for initialization.

        - The community still has concerns like: housing, more Inclusionary housing, transportation, arts, etc.

        - There is a lot more community outreach that should be done.

        (+/-) Jakkee Bryson

        - Her question is: "What is the rush?"

        - Can the arts money be used to expand the building?

        (+) Sam Duke

        - She pleaded with the Commission to start this now.

        - This has been worked on for so long and no one is rushing.

        - The PAC meets every week and the main body meets once a month. This project should start.

        (-) Robert Ingalls

        - He has been living in San Francisco all his life.

        - He wants to continue living here even if he has to live in substandard conditions.

        (-) Bill Murphy

        - He is a third generation San Franciscan living in SOMA.

        - SOMA and the Tenderloin are the most negatively affected by this Mid-Market Plan.

        - 35% of Inclusionary housing should be rental housing.

        - Local businesses and jobs will be lost.

        - Community, cultural and arts should be encouraged in the area.

        - Mid-Market will be turned into a Manhattan with this proposal.

        (-) Bruce Allison

        - He is opposed to this proposal. He is disabled and is currently living in SOMA.

        - Most of the rooms in these buildings are vacant because people cannot afford it.

        - It all started with Moscone when he displaced a lot of people.

        (-) Richard Marquez

        - This proposal is making SOMA into a Manhattan.

        - Who lives there? People who deserve community based services, affordability, etc.

        (-) Casey Mills - Center City SRO Collaborative

        - There has been a lack of community involvement with this proposal.

        - The people that will be most affected were not involved in this proposal.

        - Now they are forced to approve a plan that is totally against them.

        - This plan will increase subsidized gentrification.

        (-) April Veneracion - South of Market Community Action Network

        - More can be done at Mid-Market in regards to jobs and community based services.

        - She urges the Commission not to initiate this plan until further discussions have been done.

        (+) Byron Yee - Member of the Mid-Market PAC

        - They have done extensive outreach in the area and everyone has to be heard.

        - This plan has nine to ten years in the works. No one is rushing.

        - The community is representative of the PAC and vice-versa.

        (+) C.J. Higley - Reuben and Junius

        - They do think that the time has come to initiate this plan.

        - After ten years, the time has come.

        (-) David Wilbur

        - He is a recent PAC member.

        - He is one of two people that voted against this plan.

        - This was not a very open process. Most of the meetings were held at the Flood building in back rooms.

        - Most of the powerful land use attorneys have developed this plan.

        - It is important that there is review of all the community impacts.

        (-) Carolyn Blair - SF Tree Council and the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition

        - The coalition is concerned. This will generate increased automobile traffic and be hazardous for bicycle riders.

        - Market Street is the busiest bicycle corridor.

        - There are existing heavily used bicycle lanes on 7th and 9th streets.

        - The Transportation Authority Market Street study calls for decreasing car traffic and increasing pedestrian and bicycle riders' safety.

        - They oppose residential parking in areas that are rich in public transportation.

        - Cars can live underground but not people.

        - This plan should be amended.

        (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - There are outstanding concerns with this plan.

        - The mid-market area has one of the lowest ownership of cars in the City.

        - Despite having low ownership of cars, the area has high transit of cars.

        - There are high statistics of people getting killed by cars.

        - They oppose one to one parking, allowing three stories of aboveground parking, etc.

        - This plan is not ready for "prime time."

        ACTION: Initiated

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        NAYES: Bradford Bell and Olague

        ABSENT: Alexander

        MOTION: 16984

        15b. 2002.0805RTZ (M. FOSTER (415) 558-6362)

        MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SPECIAL USE DISTRICT - Assessor's Blocks 0341; 0342; 0350; 0351, lot 035; 0355; 3507, lot 039; 3508; 3509, lots 002, 018, 019, 036, 037, 040, 041, 042, and 043; 3510, lot 001; 3701; 3702, excluding lots 015, 016, 029, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 055, and 056 (eastern portion); 3703, excluding lots 004, 005, 006, 027, 028, and 029; 3704, lots 025, 026, 049, 050, 051, 052, and 053; 3725, lots 078, 082, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, and 093; 3727, lots 001, 091, 094, 096, 097, 101, 102, 103, 109, 117, 118, 120, 130, 134, 168, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, and Block 3728, lots 001, 072, 075, 076, 081, 082, 083, 089, and 103. The Commission will consider a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Zoning Map pursuant to the proposed Mid-Market Redevelopment Plan and Special Use District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Zoning Map.

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 15a.

        ACTION: Initiated

        AYES: Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

        NAYES: Bradford Bell and Olague

        ABSENT: Alexander

        MOTION: 16985

        16. 2005.0076T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

        ESTABLISHING ADDITIONAL AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SRO UNITS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending Planning Code Section 890.88 to define a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) unit as a unit that is affordable to very low income or extremely low income households and making findings of consistency with Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 24, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Sue Hestor

        - She would like to have this case continued a few weeks out.

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 19, 2005

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

        17. 2003.0029E (C. ROOS (415) 558-5981)

        ONE RINCON HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (425 FIRST STREET) - Public Hearing On Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project would demolish the former Bank of America three-story office building, clock tower, and two-story parking garage, and construct a 720-unit development as follows: a 450-ft.-tall, 45-story north tower with about 312 units; a 550-ft.-tall. 54-story south tower with about 354 units; about 14 stacked townhouses, 45-ft.-tall fronting Harrison Street and First Street; lobbies, management office, fitness center; about 3, 220 gross square feet (gsf) of retail; accommodation for 720 parking spaces with attendants and lifts, accessible on First Street; four loading spaces accessible on Harrison Street; about 49,000 gsf of residential open space; and an additional 19,000 gsf of publicly accessible open space along Harrison Street and in the First Street public right-of-way. The project would total about 1,217,315 gsf, a net increase on the site of about 1,133,399 gsf. The site includes Lots 1, 9, and 15, in Assessor's Block 3765, on the block bounded by Harrison, First and Fremont Streets and the Bay Bridge West approach. The north part of the site is in an RC-4 Use district, and Residential Subdistrict of the Rincon Hill Special Use District (SUD). The south part is zoned M-1, and is in the Commercial/Industrial Subdistrict of the Rincon Hill SUD. The north part of the site is zoned 200-R, and the south part is zoned 84-X for Height and Bulk. The project requires the following approvals: 1) rezoning (including Height/Bulk and Use district reclassification for the site), if the proposed Rincon Hill Plan and Downtown Residential (DTR) Use District and proposed Height and Bulk districts were not adopted and/or proceed as scheduled; 2) Conditional Use authorization should the proposed Rincon Hill Plan and Downtown Residential (DTR) Use District not be adopted and/or proceed as scheduled, or proposed Section 309.1 authorization should the Rincon Hill Plan and DTR Use District be approved; 3) demolition and building permits from the Department of Building Inspection; 4) a revocable encroachment permit or street improvement permit from the Department of Public Works (DPW), approval from DPW and the Department of Parking and Traffic for street improvements; and 5) approval from DPW and coordination with Caltrans for use of the First Street right-of-way, and a lot merger, approvable by DPW.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Public Hearing to Receive Comments. No Action Required.

        NOTE: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5 pm, April 19, 2005.

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Dick Millet

        - He lives in Potrero Hill.

        - He is opposed to the tall walls, the large towers, and land used for storage.

        - Demolition of an architecturally significant building is not acceptable.

        - Affordable Housing should not be excluded.

        - High rises on the waterfront are an abuse that should not be tolerated.

        (-) John Carney

        - He lives on Rhode Island.

        - He is appalled at this plan.

        - There is a one-inch thick volume of paper that emits a lot of things.

        - No one has spoken about the historical significance of the building that will be demolished.

        ACTION: Hearing held. Public hearing closed. No action required at this time.

        18. 2005.0226DDDD (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        60 CLARENDON AVENUE - north side between the Stanyan Street right-of-way and Twin Peaks Boulevard; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 2688 - Requests for Discretionary Review and staff-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.22.2053 proposing to construct a new single-family dwelling on a steeply down-sloping vacant lot. The house would be two stories at the street frontage and five stories at the rear in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family (Detached Dwelling)) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 28, 2005

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

    Items 19 and 20 were called and heard together.

    19a. 2004.1332D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        1539 LINCOLN WAY - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 1734 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.07.18.9867, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (+) C.J. Higley

        - This project presents an excellent opportunity for housing.

        - This is exactly the kind of project that the City should be encouraging because it is right across the street from Golden Gate Park and public transportation.

        - The project will improve the land use pattern on Lincoln Street.

        - There is no opposition to this demolition or to the new construction.

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

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

    19b. 2004.1333D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        1539 LINCOLN WAY - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 1734 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.18.9863, proposing to construct a new four-story, three-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not take Discretionary Review and approve.

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 19a.

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

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

    20a. 2004.1334D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        1545-1547 LINCOLN WAY - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1734 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.07.18.9872, proposing to demolish an existing two-unit dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 19a.

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

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

    20b. 2004.1335D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

        1545-1547 LINCOLN WAY - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 1734 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.18.9869, proposing to construct a new four-story, three-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

              Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not take Discretionary Review and approve.

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 7, 2005)

        SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 19a.

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

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

        ABSENT: Alexander

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))

None

Adjournment: 6:47 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Alexander

Last updated: 10/22/2010 8:21:56 AM