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

January 12, 2006

January 12, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 12, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: S. Lee;D. Alexander M. Antonini; S. Bradford Bell; K. Hughes;

W. Lee; C. Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:50 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Planning Director; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; April Hesik, Teresa Ojeda, Lisa Gibson, Sara Vellve, Kate Conner, Tina Tam, Glenn Cabreros, Daniel Sirois, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

  • 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. 2005.0541XCV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

49 KEARNY STREET - west side between Geary and Post Streets, Lot 2, in Assessor's Block 310 - Request for: 1) a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit conversion of an existing office building to approximately 7 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirement; 2) a Conditional Use authorization to exceed the principally permitted dwelling unit density for the subject site; and 3) for the granting by the Zoning Administrator of residential open space and parking variances; for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. The proposal is to convert the existing office use on the top seven floors of the subject building to approximately 7 dwelling units (one per floor at approximately 1,200 square feet, retaining existing ground floor retail use. Some common residential open space would be created on the rooftop of the subject building, but less would be provided than the minimum required by the Planning Code due to roof size and fire code restrictions. No parking would be provided in order to preserve the building's historic façade, to avoid creating automobile/pedestrian conflicts, and also due to the subject lot's narrow width of 20 feet.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 26 19, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to January 26, 2006

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

2. 2005.0816C (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

55 STOCKTON STREET - southwest corner of intersection with O'Farrell Street, Lot 1, in Assessor's Block 327  Request for a Conditional Use authorization to convert three dwelling units to office space, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-R Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert three dwelling units to office space on the top floor of the existing subject eight-story mixed use building, which contains retail use on the first three levels, office use on the fourth through seventh levels, plus the subject three dwelling units occupying the eighth floor. The Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, which currently occupies office space on three floors of the subject building, needs additional office space and plans to occupy the eighth floor of the building where the three dwelling units are currently located.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 19, 2006 Indefinitely)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued indefinitely

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

3a 2004.1160D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2426 GREENWICH STREET - north side between Scott and Pierce Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0512 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.03.10.7193 proposing to demolish a two-story, single-family residence 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.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 19, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3b. 2005.0922D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2426 GREENWICH STREET - north side between Scott and Pierce Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0512 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.03.10.7197 proposing to construct a four-story, two-unit building 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 19, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. POLICY UPDATE (J. Ionin: (415) 558-6309)

Dwelling Unit MergerS - Mandatory Discretionary Review Policy for Dwelling Unit Mergers. The update includes modified criteria and administrative relief for certain types of mergers.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 10, 2005)

NOTE: On November 10, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to January 12, 2006, by a vote +5 –0, Commissioner Hughes and Lee were absent.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2005.1270DDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

4231 & 4234 24TH STREET - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 6505 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.19.9187, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition on a nonconforming mixed-use building, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 10, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 23, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6a. 2005.0480CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2814-2824 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 215(a) to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space into five dwelling units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Conditional Use with modifications and conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6b. 2005.0480CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2814-2824 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Off-street Parking, Open Space and Rear Yard Variances under Planning Code Section 305 to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space into five dwelling units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6c. 2005.0481DV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2826-2838 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Fitzgerald Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Staff-initiated Discretionary Review under Planning Code Section 311, of a building permit to convert approximately 1,200 gross square feet of commercial space to three new dwellings units without access to parking or open space, subject to variance. The site is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the building permit.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6d. 2005.0481DV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2826-2838 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Fitzgerald Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Off-street Parking, Open Space and Rear Yard Variances under Section 305 to allow conversion of approximately 1,200 gross square feet of commercial space to three new dwellings units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Patricia Vaughey

  1. We just received the demolition report last night.

These reports are very detailed and I would like to have a two week continuance.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

7. 2005.0722D (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

2600 CHESTNUT STREET - north side at the corner of Richardson Drive; Lot 005A in Assessor's Block 0932 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.10.26.7675, proposing to build a three-story addition over the existing yard at the east side of the lot, and a two-story addition over the existing one-story garage structure, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for continuance to February 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

8. 2005.0456EC (K. Amdur: (415) 558-6351)

55 Page Street - south side between Franklin and Gough Streets, Lot 9 (formerly Lots 7 and 8) in Assessor's Block 854 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify conditions of approval for a previously approved residential project proposed for the subject site but not yet constructed. That project would remodel an existing building at 49 Page Street demolish an existing building at 53 Page St., and construct an 8-story residential building with 128 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space and 126 parking spaces in a below-grade parking garage. The proposed modifications would change conditions of approval (1) related to the Below Market Rate (BMR) units, to allow them to be sold rather than restricting them to rental tenure only and (2) to "un-bundle" the residential parking spaces (to allow units to be sold without parking spaces). This project is within an NC-3 District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval w/conditions to "un-bundle" parking and Disapproval of ownership tenure for BMR units.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of October 27, 2005)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

9a. 2005.0148DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side north of 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 4211 - Neighbor-Initiated Discretionary Review and Mandatory Discretionary Review under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.23.9619 proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage, three-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove the Replacement Building.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 1, 2005)

NOTE: On December 7, 2005, the Board of Appeals upheld the Planning Commission's decision of July 21, 2005 to take Discretionary Review and deny Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.07.23.9615, which was the subject of Case No. 2004.1234D. Therefore, all matters related to the replacement building, the subject of Case No. 2005.0148DDV are hereby cancelled.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Application canceled. No action required

9b. 2005.0148DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side north of 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 4211 - Front Setback Variance under Section 132 of the Planning Code to construct a three-story-over-garage, three-family dwelling within 6.5 feet of the front property line, whereas a 15-foot setback would be required under Section 132. The property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 1, 2005)

NOTE: On December 7, 2005, the Board of Appeals upheld the Planning Commission's decision of July 21, 2005 to take Discretionary Review and deny Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.07.23.9615, which was the subject of Case No. 2004.1234D. Therefore, all matters related to the replacement building, the subject of Case No. 2005.0148DDV are hereby cancelled.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Application canceled. No action required

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

10. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Olague:

  1. I was wondering if we could include some information from the Back Streets Advisory Group that's been meeting in relationship to the work that they've been doing around Eastern Neighborhoods

  1. 2006.

ACTION: Approved as amended

  1. Reinstated October 12, 2006 as a Regular hearing date.
  2. Establish August 31 and November 30 as Special hearing dates that can be canceled if necessary.

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

NAYES: Olague

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

12. Director's Announcements

Dean Macris – Planning Director

  1. I thought we'd start today by reminding you what our schedules are now for the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  2. We plan a set of workshops in the various neighborhoods that comprise the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  3. I would like to ask Jasper Rubin of our staff to go over that with you --the permanent control program that we are following for the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  4. To repeat one more time, we plan next week to introduce interim controls, which we hope that you will initiate.
  5. I would remind the Commissioners and the public that this is not in your calendar today. It is a non-agenda subject so you may not discuss this today. You can wait until next week for your questions and explanations.


Jasper Rubin, Department staff

  1. Gave a brief outline on the proposal for public outreach of the Eastern Neighborhood planning effort.
  2. The EIR is underway and we are starting workshops as part of our effort.

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

Board of Supervisors – reported by Dan Sider of Department staff

  1. This Tuesday was the first meeting of the Board of Supervisors in 2006.
  2. There are a number of items that I'd like to cover, and will be a succinct as possible
  3. Five decisions made by the Board that we feel might be relevant to this body.
  4. First of all, a moratorium on Pay Day Lenders and check Cashing Establishments has been adopted by the Board.
  5. A 45 days moratorium on any new such establishments. This will become effective upon the Mayor's signature or ten days after the Board adoption Tuesday, whichever comes first.
  6. We look forward to developing criteria with which to implement this and we will report to you as it becomes more concrete.
  7. Second item which you did review, Supervisor Daly's proposal to require Planning Commission hearings of all condominium conversions subject to the condo lottery. This was amended and passed on first reading by the Board 6 to 3, Supervisors Dufty, Elsbernd and Ma voted against.
  8. 901 Bush – tentative, an important project nonetheless, a 38 condominium project.
  9. 723 27th Avenue – a two family dwelling in the Richmond District. This is a project that would have appeared before you in the future. Discretionary Review prior to a ____ before this body. An appeal of the Categorical Exemption was filed.
  10. The Board did review this on Tuesday an it did not uphold the Planning Department's determination that this project was categorically exempt. As such as initial study will be performed or the project will be modified. So, this is something you may see in the future, but under a different set of circumstances.
  11. C-3 Parking, Supervisor Daly's proposal to reduce parking requirements in this area, an appeal of all environmental determinations was filed on this project. The Board 9 to 1 upheld the Department's determination that the project was exempted from environmental review. This piece of legislation will now go ahead in the legislative process and head towards further review by the City.
  12. I'd like to comment on three pieces of legislation the were introduced on Tuesday.The legislation introduced has not been finalized yet, so I have to be brief, but we are aware of three ordinances that would relate to this body.
  13. First, a triling piece of legislation to the Medical Cannabis Dispensary ordinance which was passed last year. This would deal primarily with existing dispensaries and would relax some of the location ____ for dispensaries which wish to relocate. We will report back to you on details.
  14. Also introduced by Supervisor Daly, an amendment to the subject code dealing with condominiums. This is in item of interest to this Commission.
  15. Lastly, introduction by Supervisor Alioto-Pier regarding C-3 Parking and we can speculate at this point as to what that may or may not say, but we will report back to you next week once the formal text is introduced.
  16. 901 Bush Street is an existing building that was burnt out in 1999. It was a rental building with about 38 dwelling units. It was purchased and rehabilitated. This building was essentially gutted and the project came to us primarily as a condominium conversion. Now, the Department of Public Works – Bureau of Maps and Service, made some _____ there can be existing buildings that are heavily damaged and they would consider it new construction.

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.

None

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.

14a. 2005.0955CV (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

1684-1698 Market Street - northeast corner at Gough Street, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0854 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to expand an existing full-service restaurant (dba  Espetus Churrascaria ) from 1,949 gross square feet to 9,990 gross square feet. The proposed use is not formula retail as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. The existing restaurant is proposing to expand laterally into adjacent vacant commercial space that was previously occupied by an office use (dba  Rent Tech ) and vertically into vacant commercial space in the second story and basement. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and an 80-A 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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as amended:

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17170

14b. 2005.0955CV (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

1684-1698 Market Street - northeast corner at Gough Street, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0854 - Off-street parking variance sought. The proposal is to expand an existing full-service restaurant (dba  Espetus Churrascaria ) from 1,949 gross square feet to 9,990 gross square feet. The existing restaurant is proposing to expand laterally into adjacent vacant commercial space that was previously occupied by an office use (dba  Rent Tech ) and vertically into vacant commercial space in the second story and basement. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District. The parking requirement for the proposed project is 23 spaces, and the project is proposing zero spaces. The application for variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND GRANTED THE VARIANCE.

  • F.REGULAR CALENDAR

15. 2005.1036ET: (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)

Consideration of an ordinance initiated by Supervisor Jake McGoldrick on October 11, 2005 which would amend Planning Code Sections 315.2 and 315.3 to expand application of the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program from proposed residential projects of 10 or more units to proposed residential projects of five or more units and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. The City Planning Commission held an informational hearing on this matter on December 8, 2005.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: After public testimony, staff will present its recommendation to the Commission.

SPEAKERS:

Rosario Ramirez

  1. My concern is a lot of the families here in San Francisco are actually living in very small units.
  2. Asked Commission for their support, because there are thousands of families living here in the Tenderloin and don't have nice units to live.
Sally Magnussen
  1. I am here before you as a parent, as a person who found it very difficult to live in San Francis because of the increasingly expensive rent.
  2. Practically everybody I know leaves the City because it's not family friendly at all.
Ruby Harris, Mission Anti Displacement Coalition
  1. I am here today to recommend that you recommend d adoption of this amendment and move it forward to the Board of Supervisors.
  2. As you know, the Mission District has been under severe development pressure for the last many years.
  3. This has had direct effect on the quality of life for our low-income residents and businesses alike.
Nick (unclear last name), Mission Anti Displacement Coalition
  1. Supports the McGoldrick amendment.
  2. Also requested that there be no study conducted on this.
  3. There has been an ongoing planning process in the Eastern Neighborhoods now for the past five years.
  4. We have enough information to know what's needed out there. To say that at this late stage of the game we need another study is outrageous.
Tracy Parent
  1. Strongly support this amendement.
Bruce Allison
  1. In favor of this amendement.
Jose Morales
  1. In favor of this amendement.
Jessie Araguen
  1. In favor of this amendement.
Brett Gladstone
  1. Against the amendment.
Lu Blazej
  1. It is again a question of how you do the percentages and whether you make your affordable housing requirement a function of the percentage of the number of units of a project.
  2. Supervisor McGoldrick recognized the problem with if you have a five unit project, let's use 10% as an example to make the math easy. You are required half of unit. You can't build half of unit. If you build14 units, 10% of 14 is 1.4. You round won, you build one unit, so in essence, the math turns out if you make someone round up with a five unit project, they are doing 20% affordable, while a 14 unit project is doing 7% affordable. There is an inequity there.
  3. Section 315.4A2 which has the requirement in the code, basically right now reads that 12% of the units hsall be affordable to qualifying households
  4. If you strike the work units and substitute it with a phrase that 12% of the gross floor area of the residential project shall be affordable to qualifying households, you simplified this process incredibly, and you also have made it very equitable for everyone involve.

Robert McCarthy

  1. First, commended the staff for recommending that we actually have facts before you before you make a decision.
  2. It is not because anybody here debates the fact that those who are working class and below are having difficulty finding housing in San Francisco.
  3. The question is are there unintended consequences from this and the next legislation that might in fact have a negative impact on the generation of affordable housing?
  4. The significant amount of affordable housing that is generated in this City is generated out of by inclusionary housing or it's generated by in-lieu fees.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

NAYES: S. Lee, Bradford-Bell, Olague

MOTION: 17171

16. 2005.1116ET (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)

Consideration of an ordinance initiated by Supervisor Chris Daly on November 22, 2005 which would amend Planning Code Sections 315.1, 315.2, 315.4 and 315.5 to increase inclusionary affordable housing requirements for all proposed residential developments of 10 units or more; adjust the income calculation methods to reflect City and County of San Francisco median income calculations; and make environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. The City Planning Commission held an informational hearing on this matter on December 8, 2005. Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: After public testimony, staff will present its recommendation to the Commission.

SPEAKERS:

Unclear name

  1. The ___ requirements should be adjusted to the 80% HUD ___.
  2. This is equivalent to one person making approsimately$53,000 or three person household earning $68,000 which is I think some of the questions Commissioner Antonini had.
  3. Dropping the AMI will help the San Francisco household who earn less than 80% AMI.
  4. The 80% AMI income bracket represents the salaries of most our public service jobs.
Dan Zymanic
  1. We are in one of the highest land cost areas in North America.
  2. We see construction prices rising at approximately 1% a month.
  3. To have this change to the inclusionary housing, this represents a major change to our pro forma, a major change to how we would do business.

Hoi Yee Chun

  1. I theory, we believe that the proposed legislation can increase the number of inclusionary housing units and make truly affordable housing for amiliesliving in single room occupancies.
  2. Urged the Commission to support the legislation and think about, what are the more sustainable ways to help families.
Jane Cam
  1. We've decided that affordable housing an anti-gentrification is going ot be one our our top issues in the following years.
  2. We strongle support this legislation because it will benefit the communities.
Unclear name
  1. We strongly believe that many families, inmigrants families will benefit from this amendment, and will also help many neighborhoods in the City.

Sarah Carlinski, San Francisco Planning Urban Research Association

  1. It is irrefutable fact there is an enormous need for the construction of affordable housing in the City of San Francisco.
  2. We know that there is a crisis.
  3. It is equally irrefutable that there is also an enormous need for the construction of market reate housing.
  4. The inclusionary housing ordinance should be structured to maximize the production of affordable housing while still encouraging the production of market rate housing.
Jazzy Collins, Community Action Network
  1. Supports Supervisor's Daly amendment to the inclusionary housing.
Angelica Cabrandi, South of Market Community Action Network
  1. We demand to put a top in asking San Francisco families to compete against the income of Marin and San Mateo families for basic access to housing.
  2. Also, the concern is to provide housing for commuters.
  3. San Francisco should expand their AMI to include all counties supported by BART, including the Alameda County AMI.
Barbara (unclear last name) Senior Action Housing Network
  1. We need to know how much people are earning and where they are living and how they are living and if, they are living 9 to an apartment or 12 to an apartment.
  2. Because it is the fact at we have – this a volatile situation and we have only been hearing one side of the story for many years.
Tim Coleman, Housing Action Coalition
  1. The Housing Action Coalition favor a price point on inclusionary housing that produces the maximum amount of affordable housing of below market rate units.
  2. We are concerned that by raising the inclusionary housing, it may cause fewer below market rate units to be produced, and some projects will become infeasible.
  3. Strongly urge the Commission to go with the study.

Brett Gladstone, representing the Mission Preservarion Partners, the Owners of the Mission Armory.

  1. We would like to support the staff recommendation for a study, but, to ask very specifically that the study also include a study of preservation costs of the City Landmarks and that those be taken into account when setting an increased affordable housing percentage, and specifically the study look at whether perhaps if the percentage does go up, it not go up for landmarks.
Robert McCarthy
  1. Mayor Newsom has made several comments recently, and I was recently as a meeting conducted by Director Macris, about the need to improve the quality of the architecture in town.
  2. I would like to make sure you put in the study, if that in fact becomes the City's policy, what is the cost of that?
  3. Because if you are going to ask us to increase the affordable levels, it is going to come our to something.
Unclear name, Chair, Mid-Market PAC
  1. I would recommend we take a study and take a good look at it until anybody decides on where to go forward.
  2. I wish we can if nothing else have an exemption for redevelopment area like Mid-Market that we can actually have some time to actually get us back on our feet.
Sue Hestor
  1. What you have right now is the worse of all possible worlds.
  2. If projects going through every week before you have information and your are saying you don't want legislation before you have information, but you don't fee compelled to stop approving projects.
  3. My gust is that if I asked staff and the Commissioner how many units you have approved, a what income level, and what their sales prices are for the past year, the stuff that's opened in the past year, you wouldn't have any information. You may not even be in the ballpark. Why? Because the City does not bother tracking that information. They track permits.
  4. No one what to say that maybe one of the problems is that the land values are crazy in this City and we need some deflation, and maybe if we change some of these policies the values will come down.

Steve (unclear last name)

  1. I would support the staff recommendation that you urge the Board of Supervisors not to take action until your study is done.
  2. I also would recommend that you take the full 90 tdays that you are entitled to, if Supervisor Daly or Supervisor Maxell introduce the amendments that are described in their memos to you today. Bradford-Bell

ACTION: Continued to February 2, 2006. Public Hearing Open.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17170

17. 2002.1129E (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

San Francisco Marina Renovation Project- Informational presentation by the project sponsor to address comments regarding the scope of the proposed project raised by the public and the Planning Commission at the October 6, 2005 hearing on the Draft EIR for the project - The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina at 3950 Scott Street (Assessor's Block 900, Lot 003). Water-side improvements would include installation and removal of breakwater structures; reconstruction of degraded rip-rap shoreline slopes; maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation and refurbishment of oily water and sewage pumpout facilities; and upgrade of electrical, water, and lighting services on the docks. Land-side improvements would include renovation of marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of the vacant former Navy Degaussing Station into office space; construction of a new 1,000-square-foot maintenance building; and restriping of existing parking lots. The project site is within a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required. Information presentation only.

Note: This is not a hearing on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR hearing follows as a separate item on the Planning Commission agenda.

SPEAKERS:

____, General Manager for the Recreation and Park Department.

  1. Gave a brief about some of reasons why they are doing the project and the funding for the project.
Frank Rolo, Engineer
  1. Gave a summary of the results of sub-service investigation and analysis that indicate how the Marina will behave specifically in the area of the Marina Seawall.
Joan Girardo, Appeal of Negative Declaration Requestor
  1. I feel that this is a legal point. The Board of Supervisors by Resolution 450-94, passed a resolution which is still City policy, which says, without the Board of Supervisors of the City and the County of San Francisco urges the Mayor to pppose the construction of any additional break water in the outer west harbor. So, why has staff designed break waters for the outer west harbor?
Ray Latto
  1. It is true that the docks are in such poor condition, I really do urge that the Commission take action on getting something passed.
Phil Palmer
  1. I think that the fact this whole process has been abused in the case of bringing this draft before you, when there is – it's a draft.
  2. We've already spent – I believe the Marina has spent something like a third of its annual budget.
  3. I think you will ultimately that there is no negative impact and that it goes on into the next phase.
  4. The Marina provides about a million dollars to the Rec. and Park, DPW.
  5. So there is a million dollars of benefit that is Marina money paid that offsets the City fund.
Ron Mulcare
  1. In support for the seawalls retrofitted.
Michael Spiegel
  1. I wanted to address the fact that seems to be overlooked here is the fact that the $40 million loan for this proposed project is going to be financed by revenue bonds.
  2. There is not an underwriter in his right mind, that is going to underwrite these revenue bonds, unless there is a guarantee stream of income that is going to pay to supply the revenue to payoff these bonds.

Alan Silver, Marina Community Association

  1. The point that Mr. Rolo made but this will do nothing to protect the houses in the Marina seems to lose the point.
  2. The point is that it protect the seismic retrofitting, protect the $40 million that you are putting into this project when the seawall and the spit are the northern and southern boundaries of the project.
Dick Robinson
  1. I think we all agree that eh harbor is in disrepair and needs a major overhaul.
  2. I am in favor of processing this EIR as it is currently being presented to you.
Unclear name
  1. I am concerned about the lack – when we talk about lack of public benefits, the pathways, for the most part, after the $40 million project is done, the layperson that is not a boater that goes to this park, on the hundreds of thousands of people that use this park, probably won't even notice much which I think is sad, because $40 million is a lot money to spend when it is a public park.
Samuel Berkowitz
  1. If this EIR has been put together as a primary method of obtaining $40 million of State of California boating funds.
  2. Well, I think it  s fine, but I think the first thing that should have been done is to be concerned about what is bet for the harbor and what is best for the City and County of San Francisco.
Suzanne Liston
  1. I am here on behalf of Fort Mason Foundation as well as National Park Service and I can say thankfully that we would like to say the draft EIR remain a draft until some specifics, may specifics are addressed.
John Evans
  1. I'd like to speak in favor of moving this process forward and in favor of the Draft EIR.
Gloria Fontanello
  1. Urged the Commission to find a way to find something to help with the seawalls.
  2. I think this is a matter of public safety.

ACTION: Meeting held. No Action

18. 2002.1129E (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

San Francisco Marina Renovation Project- Public hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina at 3950 Scott Street (Assessor's Block 900, Lot 003). Water-side improvements would include installation and removal of breakwater structures; reconstruction of degraded rip-rap shoreline slopes; maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation and refurbishment of oily water and sewage pumpout facilities; and upgrade of electrical, water, and lighting services on the docks. Land-side improvements would include renovation of marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of the vacant former Navy Degaussing Station into office space; construction of a new 1,000-square-foot maintenance building; and restriping of existing parking lots. The project site is within a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required. Public hearing to receive comments only.

Note: A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on October 6, 2005. An additional hearing on the Draft EIR has been calendared at the request of the Planning Commission. The public review period has been extended to 5 p.m. on January 19, 2006.

SPEAKERS:
Ron Mulcare

  1. If Recreation and Park has not been able to maintain this facility – in other words, they say they've got 40 yeas of deferred maintenance, how are they going to do it in the future?
Michael Spiegel
  1. I wanted to raise a point that the draft EIR as to this thousand foot maintenance building does not consider any alternative.
  2. It is my understanding that an EIR is supposed to consider alternatives.
  3. The major alternative not considered is that this thing can be located somewhere else, other than right there in the middle of this East Marina Green.

Alan Silverman

  1. The comment in the EIR is that it really does not affect the view because the view is obstructed by trees anyhow.
  2. Now, I am not quiet sure how environmentally trees look the same as a building.
Michael Candor
  1. The DEIR is deficient and inadequate, it does not identify the Bay trail along or even within the project boundaries.
  2. It does not analyze those impacts and it does not identify mitigations to those impacts.
Maureen Gaffney
  1. Asked the Commission the DEIR would address the bay trail plan and policies in the Final EIR and work on some mitigation for the trail.
Sue Chang
  1. Respectfully request that there be a review for the historic preservation of this mall.
  2. The draft EIR basically says that this mall is used for sport fishing and that those fishermen can go along the seawall. I do not believe that is accurate.
Joan Girardo
  1. The description is incomplete and inaccurate.
  2. It fails to state the linear feet of docks will be added and the project deletes 3 82 berths for small boats.
  3. Restripping of the parking lots is not defined. Adding parking would be against the City's general plan which states that land uses which can be located other than on the shoreline should be.
  4. The final design and project components have not been presented.
  5. We can not determine environmental impacts or effects of projects components without final design.
Nathaniel Berkowitz
  1. I want to speak to the fact that the water change and water quality within the harbor itself is very poor and very dirty.
  2. It takes a number of days for the water to completely change.
  3. The solution to this problem is available to s and should be investigated with an outlet at the west end of the existing harbor.
Gloria Fontanello
  1. Let's not look back and say we made a big mistake and spent a lot of taxpayer dollars which we had the alternative or repair and replace.
  2. IF we can all think for a minute, the small Marina Green to which we are referring is sandy area, and about $300,000 was spent of ADA money because they wanted access down there.
Dick Robinson
  1. I do not believe that there will be any negative impact on the sailing operation or people coming in and out of the harbor.
Emery Coleman
The process is broken. There some State laws also, not only City laws.

ACTION: Meeting Held. No Action. Public Hearing Closed.

3:30 P.M.

19. 2005.1047D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

739 - 12TH AVENUE - west side between Cabrillo and Fulton Streets; Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 1655 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.12.16.1639 proposing to construct a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of a three-story single-family residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

Walter Kaplan, representing Noel and Denise Turner, Discretionary Review requestors

  1. The very character of the neighborhood is defined by the design and these homes.
  2. These homes are built with sun rooms
  3. They were not additions.
  4. They are part of the design and the original character of this neighborhood.
  5. Views of the shared open space are common to all these 12th Avenue homes.
  6. This project is no more compatible with the neighborhood today in its present form that it was in its initial conception.
  7. The neighbors have raised many objections, among them the issue of privacy and how this project will certainly compromise the privacy of neighbors.
Jane Powell, Restoration Consultant
  1. This block is a remarkably intact collection or urban arts and crafts homes.
  2. A prominent arts and crafts belief was a important connection to nature and emphasis on sunlight, fresh air and bringing the outdoors in.
  3. Unlike suburban homes, these houses have been provided with that connection only in the back where bummed out sun rooms and large pictures windows overlook the back yards up and down the block as though there was an interior park just for the residents.
  4. The proposed changes only move the project from horrible to merely repugnant.

James Hutton

  1. The neighborh hope, I think very much to protect their shared community gardens, their rear yards, their sunlight and their views.
  2. Urged the Commission to continue this item, so we could have story poles up and the rest of the neighborhood could meet at the Turner's residence to talk about it.
Tom Turman, Architect for this project
  1. Gave a general summary about the project.
Joe Sue, Property Owner
  1. The Turner's feel that our house is too big and families do not need all that much space.
  2. We are asking for us to be able to grow – that our house be able to evolve with us.
Angela Sue
  1. Asked Commission to vote for this project to move forward.
Jerry Sue
  1. Please vote in favor of our project.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with a requirement for NSR.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

20. 2005.0991C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

3011 STEINER STREET - west side between Union and Filbert Streets; Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 0535 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 186.1(b) of the Planning Code to expand a nonconforming full-service restaurant (Terzo) into the rear yard area within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Conditional use is required to expand the nonconforming full-service restaurant into a proposed rear horizontal addition.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Larry Thomas, Project Sponsor

  1. Asked the Commission to approve his project.

Unclear name, Architect for the project

  1. Gave a general description about the project.

Randy Winnick, Charles Salter Associates, Accoustical Associates

  1. Gave a brief report about the strategies and mitigations methods used, in regard to the noise issue.

Norma Worth

  1. Concerned about the noise disturbance to the neighborhood.

Leah Margolis

  1. Concerned about the noise.

Isacc Amato

  1. Concerned about the noise.

Jeremy Paul

  1. I think it is incumbent on the Planning Department and the Commission to help restaurants in our neighborhood commercial districts thrive.
  2. These people in their apartments, they deserve some quiet enjoyment as well, but they live in a neighborhood adjacent to a neighborhood commercial district, and having nice restaurants nearby is one of the amenities one gains by living in a neighborhood commercial district.

ACTION: Approved with conditions:

  • Sliding door close at closed of business.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

21. 2005.0608DD (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

83 POPE STREET - east side between Morse Street and Hollywood Court; Lot 048 in Assessor's Block 6463 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.03.03.6737, proposing to add a second story addition at the rear of the building and add on to the western side of a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

Steve Courier

  1. The soul remaining issue is not a planning issue.
  2. The project is owned by two people.
  3. The Discretionary Review requestor says the other owner does not have permission to do this.

No name stated, Discretionary Review requestor

  1. This property is owned by three people.
  2. A month ago one of the owners signed over for the purposes of getting a loan, just to be able to refinance the house and get a better rate.
  3. I was waiting for the transfer back, but it did not happen and I do not authorize any changes to the house.
  4. The reason she appears as an owner, because I did not have money to hire a lawyer to file a lawsuit.

Javier Solis, Project Sponsor

  1. We have two files and recorded with the Recorder's Office back in October of last year. Both signed by Mr. Carlos Ramiro.
  2. As far a planning compliance, I believe that the project itself is in full compliance and we have even a letter of suppor from the adjacent neighbor.

ACTION: Do not take Discretionry Review and approved.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague

22. 2005.1033D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

124, 126, 128, 128A JERSEY STREET - north side between Vicksburg and Church Streets, Lot 9 in Assessor's Block 6509 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy on Dwelling Unit Mergers (Resolution No.16078), of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.31.1738, proposing to merge two existing units (128 and 128A Jersey Street) in a three-unit building into one unit. The proposal will reduce the total number of dwelling units on the property from four to three units. The property is located in the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the proposed merger.

SPEAKERS:

Jeremy Paul, representing Project Sponsor

  1. This is a perfect candidate for a dwelling unit merger.

ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and approved.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague

23. 2004.0400D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

730 GREAT HIGHWAY - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1595 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2003.05.29.5813 and 2005.10.18.5856 proposing to construct two three-story, two-unit buildings (four units total) on the vacant subject lot in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The subject lot is bounded on three sides by the Ocean Parc Village Planned Unit Development.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 8, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

MOTION: Without a hearing continued to January 26, 2006

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

24. 2005.0751D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

733 27TH AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.05.12.3640, proposing to construct a new third floor, a rear horizontal addition and a side horizontal addition to the existing two-story, two-unit building 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 December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

MOTION: Continued Indefinitely

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

25. 2005.0578D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

1401-1409 Castro Street - east side between Jersey & 25th Street, Lot 025, in Assessor's Block 6538 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy on Dwelling Unit Mergers (and dwelling unit removal), of Building Permit Application No. 2005.05.02.1317, proposing to convert a cottage located at the rear of the property from residential use to commercial use. The subject property is located in the 24th Street, Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the residential conversion to commercial use.

SPEAKERS:

Steve McDonald, representing Project Sponsor

  1. The project will create jobs, services and attract employees living and spending in the neighborhood.
  2. It will enhance the neighborhood.

Steve Collier

  1. The fact is that this unit was affordable housing for over 30 years.
  2. George Noonan, a person with Aids, lived in that unit and was a fixture in the Noe Valley Neighborhood for many years, was evicted by the project sponsor.
  3. Specifically the project sponsor evicted him in order to try to do the conversion.
Erin Lilly, Architect for the project.
  1. Spoke briefly about some of the design deficiencies.
Anthony Ferrie
  1. What the project sponsor is proposing to do it is just going to bring more business into thearea and just make it a better place for everyone.
Laurie Kuhn
  1. Read a letter from the President of the Friends of Noe Valley, stating support for this project.
Isa Mahawi
  1. Asked Commission to approve the project.
Kathy Scarborough
  1. In support for the project.
Mahar Mahawi
  1. This business will help to bring more foot traffic to the neighborhood.
  2. It is beneficial to my business and to my fellow businessmen in the neighborhood.

ACTION: Continue to February 2, 2006. Public Hearing closed.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague

  • 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: 10:16 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Antonini

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:21 PM