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 19, 2006

January 19, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 19, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sue Lee; Michael Antonini; Kevin Hughes; Christina Olague; William Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dwight Alexander; Shelley Bradford-Bell

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:45 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Ben Fu, Edgar Oropeza, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Dan Dibartolo, Mary Woods, Jasper Rubin, Johnny Jaramillo, Shaun Mendrin, Michael Li, Lois Scott, Rick Crawford, Elaine Tope, Sharon Young, Glenn Cabreros, Craig Nikitas, 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. 2005.1052D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1 Palo Alto Drive (aka 1 Avanzada aka 250 Palo Alto) - Assessor's Block 2724 Lot 003 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0606 4223 for installation of an interior fire suppression system inside Comcast's existing equipment room within an existing building at the Sutro Tower Broadcast facility. This project lies within the RH-1, Residential House, One Family District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to March 2, 2006 February 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as indicated

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

2. 2003.1108E (V. MASS: (415) 558-5955)

450 FREDERICK STREET - Lot 012 of Assessor's Block 1262, bounded by Stanyan, Beulah and Shrader Streets - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed demolition of a single-family residence and construction of a three-unit residence. The existing building is a 1,755-gross-square-foot (gsf) one-story-over-garage, single-family home, constructed in approximately 1897. The proposed project would result in the construction of a 5,550-gsf, four-story, three-unit residential building. The approximately 1,240-gsf ground floor would be used as a garage for the proposed three off-street parking spaces. The remaining three floors would each contain one two-bedroom dwelling unit. The proposed project would rise 40 feet from street level to the top of the parapet. The site is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family) and is in a 40-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

(proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

3a. 2003.1108DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

450 FREDERICK STREET - north side between Stanyan and Shrader Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1262 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.01.13.3883 proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. One additional request for Discretionary Review of the Demolition Permit Application has been filed by a member of the public.

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

(proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

3b. 2004.0275DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

450 FREDERICK STREET - north side between Stanyan and Shrader Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1262 - 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. 2004.01.13.3877 proposing to construct a new four-story, three-unit dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. One additional request for Discretionary Review of the Building Permit Application has been filed by a member of the public.

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

(proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year

(Proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

5. 2005.0565C (S.YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

2110 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 22nd and 23rd Avenues; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 1411 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 717.27, 186.1(b) and 303 of the Planning Code to legalize the extension of the hours of operation of an existing nonconforming full-service restaurant ( My Favorite Cafe ) from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. in the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. No exterior modifications will be made to the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 5, 2006)

NOTE: On September 15, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to December 15, 2005, by a vote +4 –0, to allow the operator to comply with the existing conditions. Commissioners Hughes, W. Lee, Olague were absent.

OTE: On January 5, 2006, by a vote +4 -1, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve for 9 months, at the end of which the project sponsor can apply for a new Conditional Use authorization for unlimited time. Commissioner Hughes voted no. Commissioners Bradford Bell and Olague were absent. Final Language January 19, 2006.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

  1. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. Commented on amendments received on some proposed legislations from Supervisors, which is certainly something they are entitled to do. I think staff did a good job to inform us of the consequences of these actions.
    I for one probably would never try to take an action quickly, without being able to carefully study an amendment. I think the procedure is a difficult thing to understand and learn on the run. And I think it is important when instances like this may occur in the future that I would certainly want to differ any kind of decision and find time to understand exactly what the consequences of the procedures would be in regard to items such as this.

Commissioner Olague:

  1. Last week I requested some information on when we will be scheduling Trinity Plaza.
  2. I have been receiving some calls from tenants in that area and the building. And they were wondering if we can given them a specific date in March, or some kind of timetable, because some of them would like to be here and they work and they would need a few weeks to request some time off.

Dean Macris – Director of Planning

  1. I worked this morning with Paul Maltzer because that is one of the issues - getting our environmental document done and the development agreement, which is a companion document with this. We are giving that a high priority - to get this accomplished and give it to Commissioners as soon as we can. I want you to know that we are not delaying this in any way. We are moving as fast we can. I have taken a personal interest in this because we are talking about 2,000 housing units. That is a big contribution for the City's housing program.

Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator

  1. My sense is that probably it would be toward the end of February because schedules like this tend to slip and change. Staff and consultants need a little bit more time to do what they need to do.

Commissioner Hughes:

  1. In past people have indicated that the fee structure for the Department is either very expensive to do business in San Francisco or not as expensive as other places. I wonder without obligating the Department too much, if there is any way we can get some comparisons and get some sense of where San Francisco is?

Dean Macris – Director of Planning:

  1. I am glad you raised that question because if you recall, one of the administrative actions that you have taken it, and we been working on, is the reexamination of our complete fee structure. We now have the results of that information and we are combining it with the budget that we are be presenting in February. You will get a good deal of information about fees. And our proposed modifications and adjustments to fees are a part of our budget for next year. I think it has been scheduled some time in February.

Commissioner W. Lee:

  1. Recently, I was able to receive a copy of Joint Venture Silicone Valley Network, telling what they did as a non-profit group by using the 2005 index of Silicone Valley, which included Alameda County, San Mateo and Santa Clara and part of Contra Costa Counties.
  2. This report that you can get on Venture at JointVenture.org. It is a report regarding the economics, which they tie into some bill and whether that reflects the fundamental long-range regional health, community concerns about housing. It took about three indicators looking into the health of the whole Silicone Valley area. Unfortunately, they left San Francisco out.
  3. What I found out about the report is that they were able to get some data, which would be helpful to us in some ways, where the job growth only went up about 1% since 2000, but the net income for the average person went up 1%.
  4. The reason I bring this up is because I think this is a good report and that could be helpful when we look at long term planning. And also when we will be talking about Eastern Neighborhood later today. There a lot of data in here that could be used by our staff.

Dean Macris – Director of Planning

  1. Let me remind you that the Mayor's Office of Economic Development just engage in drafting an economic development plan, which has a goal to do a lot of what Commissioner Lee is talking about in the Silicone Valley situation.
  2. I do not know when that process is going to be complete, but I think it is going to be very informative about the San Francisco economy.

Dean Macris – Director of Planning

  1. Reminded the Commission that the Department is now in the process of scheduling a series of workshops. We are scheduled to have a workshop on housing next week. I just want to confirm that.
  2. We are also scheduled to have the AIA present a series of workshops on Design Quality in San Francisco.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

None

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

Larry Badiner – Board of Permit Appeal

1420 Haight Street – a case where the project sponsor had put in an addition for an elevator penthouse in the rear without proper permits - and also would require a variance. The Commission acted and denied that building permit. I, in my independent capacity as Zoning Administrator, disagreed with you. And that is very unusual. I granted the variance. The Board upheld the variance 4 –0. They overturned the Discretionary Review and approved the building permit 4 –0. Commissioner Albright was absent.

231 Ortega – This is a project that you have seen many times, starting in 2003. It is a demolition permit. The Commission denied the application. Most recently it was before you with the adjacent property owner represented by Ms. Hestor and a Structural Engineer where we had a discussion about how much of the building could actually be safe. Staff recommended that the addition to the rear be reduce in length. The project sponsor did not want to do that. The Commission decision was that this was not retaining any thing in any real sense because the building had a side set back. The Board agreed with you in large park, but did decided to continue it for two months.

Dan Sider – Board of Supervisors

  1. Supervisor McGoldrick's tree preservation ordinance passed on a second reading. Supervisors Elsbernd and Ma voted against.
  2. Better Neighborhood Plus – amendments were made to this ordinance both by Supervisor McGoldrick in a more technical nature, and also by Supervisor Peskin. The amendments made by him [Peskin] really are more toward historic preservation and elevates the importance and significance of historical and cultural surveys in the ordinance.
  3. The Landmarks Board, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors would now have to approve a cultural resource survey, before the plan itself could be adopted under the Better Neighborhood Plan.
  4. Land Use Committee –

24th Noe Valley Restaurant – an ordinance proposed by Supervisor Dufty to allow full service restaurants and limit full liquor license along 24th Street. The Commission reviewed this on December 8 and approved it unanimously. The Land Use Committee agreed with the Commission and agreed to send it to the full Board.

- C-3 Parking – Supervisor Daly's ordinance is up for first action at the committee.

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.

SPEAKERS:

Alec Bash
  1. [Spoke regarding the Discretionary Review process.] He provided historical information.

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.

9. 2004.0746C (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

87 6th Street - northwest corner of Mission Street and 6th Street; Lot 025, Assessor's Block 3704 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 815.73 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of six panel antennas and related equipment cabinets on the roof of an existing two-story, 26'-0 high commercial structure in Location Preference 4 (Preferred Location – Commercial Structures) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, as part of Cingular Wireless' telecommunications network within a RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use District) Zoning District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17173

ITEMS 10a & 10b WERE TAKEN OFF THE CONSENT CALENDAR

10a. 2005.0880DVA (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

24 Hill Street - north side between Guerrero and Valencia Streets, Assessor's Block 3617, Lot 53 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential removal, of Building Permit Application No.2005.06.22.5805 to merge the existing two-unit, two-story building at the front into one dwelling unit

in a RH-3 (Residential, House – Three-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation and in the Liberty Hill Historic District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

10b. 2005.0880DVA (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

24 Hill Street - north side between Guerrero and Valencia Streets, Assessor's Block 3617, Lot 53 - Request for a Variance (Screening of Parking Areas) for the project proposing to merge the existing two-unit, two-story building at the front into one dwelling unit and to provide no screening for the new off-street parking space located at the new drive-way,

in a RH-3 (Residential, House-Three-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation and in the Liberty Hill Historic District.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.

11. 2005.0779C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558.6381)

2871 24th Street - - between Florida and Bryant Street; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 4268 - Request for Conditional Use authorization per Planning Code section 727.44 and 790.91, to establish a small self-service restaurant in the 24th Street-Mission Neighborhood Commercial-Zoning District, the Mission Alcoholic Special Sub-district, and a 40 foot Height and Bulk District. In this case, a small self-service restaurant (Planning Code Section 790.91) is limited to no more than 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and requires Conditional Use Authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17174

12. 2005.0879C (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)

1155 Taraval Street - south side of Taraval Street, between 21st and 22nd Avenues, Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 2404 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization, under Section 781.1, to establish a small, self-service restaurant on the ground floor of an existing mixed-use building in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and Taraval Street Restaurant and Fast-Food Sub-district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17175

ITEM 13 WAS TAKEN OFF THE CONSENT CALENDAR

13. 2005.0771c (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

990 Columbus Avenue (aka 665 Chestnut Street) - southeast corner at Chestnut Street; Lot 48 in Assessor's Block 65 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 722.83 of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility for Nextel Communications consisting of three panel antennas on the roof and related equipment in the building's basement. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the site is a Preferred Location, Preference 2, a co-location site. The site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial (NCD) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17176

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

14. 2005.0965C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

724-730 VAN NESS AVENUE - (east side between Turk and Eddy Streets) and 650 - 660 Turk Street (north side between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street) - Lots 4 and 8 in Assessor's Block 742 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 352 of the Planning Code to modify a condition previously imposed in Motion No. 16443 for Case No. 2001.0535CV, which approved the demolition of the existing structures on the site and the construction of a 141-unit (subsequently changed to 130 units) residential project with ground floor retail spaces and a garage containing 51 (subsequently changed to 52 parking spaces) automobile parking spaces, 40 bicycle spaces and two service vehicle loading spaces, in an RC-4 District (Residential-Commercial Combined Districts, High Density) and the Van Ness Special Use District, and a 130-V Height and Bulk District. The proposal would modify Condition No. A(5) of the approval Motion to allow the project sponsor to designate 12 percent of the total number of units built as Below Market Rate (BMR) units, rather than a fixed number of 19 BMR units, and to offer those BMR units for sale or rental, rather than rental only.

preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

John Sanger – Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. Prior to engaging us, this project sponsor came to the Department with 104 market-rate condominium units for sale with 12% BMR units as required by section 315 of the Planning Code.
  2. After several meetings and several versions of the plan over a period of about three months, they were told without any qualification by Planning staff that there would be no problem with those plans being approved.
  3. That occurred in April, May, and June of 2003.
  4. In July of 2003, the project sponsor acquired the property and within a month, submitted the site permit application reflecting the plans that had been presented to the Planning Department staff and approved for presentation.
  5. Subsequently, based on a request for determination by two interested people in the city who had not been involved in any prior proceedings regarding the project, Mr. Badiner issued an interpretation rejecting the site permit application for 104 units on the grounds that it was too few units compared to that number that had been approved.
  6. I will only say as I said they, that in 35 years of dealing with the Planning Department, I have never known a project sponsor that they could not build less that what had been approved. But we now have that precedent.
  7. Subsequently, after many negotiations, we submitted revised plans because the project sponsor had acquired the site and could not wait forever to move forward.
  8. We came forward with plans for 130 units, which were approved with 16 designated BMR units on site in December 2004.
  9. I'm sorry, it was 2004 that all of this occurred in. Excuse me.
  10. After the site permit was approved – and that is the last time under section 315 when a project sponsor can elect whether to build BMR units on site, provide them off site, or elect the in-lieu payment, Mr. Badiner ruled that the descriptive language describing the BMR units as rental in condition number 5 to the Conditional Use Authorization required "perhaps inadvertently" that they be for rent.
  11. In my opinion this was a grossly unfair procedure.
  12. I've never encountered anything like it in my dealings with the Planning Department - to have a project sponsor caught in this kind of bate and switch operation.
  13. Since that time, we appealed Mr. Badiner's determination to the Board of Appeals.
  14. Because the Board of Appeals expressed in strong opinion, though I believe it is contrary to the Planning Code, that this matter should come to the Planning Commission for consideration rather than to them, we are here today because the only decision maker available is either the Planning Commission or a court of law.
  15. We have always – and certainly the project sponsor has tried to avoid litigation.
  16. In this case, it hasn't been necessary yet.
  17. Hopefully it will be possible to end it by having the necessary amendment made to the condition that will conform to two requirements of law.
  18. One is section 315, which affords no discretion at the Planning Commission after years of imposing BMR requirements at its discretion, but provides all opportunities to all project sponsors the same.
  19. The second is the Ellis Act, which states in simple terms that no governmental agency may compel any owner to rent any property whatsoever.
  20. We believe both of these legal provisions make the condition void as it has been interpreted by the Zoning Administrator.
  21. While we don't believe the Planning Commission should have had to deal with this, we are here because others thought so.

ACTION: Approved a motion of intent to approve with amendments. Final language is to come back on January 26, 2006.

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

15a. 2005.0032DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1043-1045 FRANCISCO STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0477 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.10.6005S, proposing to construct a one-story horizontal addition over the existing one-story extension at the rear of a two-story over basement, two-family 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 as revised

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 2, 2006.

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

15b. 2005.0032DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1043-1045 Francisco Street - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0477 - Request for a Rear Yard Variance to allow the construction of a one-story horizontal addition over the existing one-story extension at the rear of a two-story, two-family building. The last three feet of the addition extends into the required rear yard pursuant to Section 134 of the Planning Code. The project site is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 2, 2006.

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

16. 2004.0160U (J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6310, J. JARAMILLO: (415) 575-6818)

CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO INTIATE INTERIM CONTROLS FOR AREAS OF THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS AND CENTRAL WATERFRONT - Public hearing on a resolution proposing interim zoning controls that would establish Mixed-Use Residential, Employment and Business Development, and Urban Mixed-Use areas for sections of the Mission (generally bounded by Guerrero, Division, Potrero, and Cesar Chavez Streets), Showplace Square/Potrero Hill (generally bounded by 7th, Bryant, Potrero and 26th Streets, and I-280), East SoMa (generally bounded by Mission, 7th, Harrison, 4th and Townsend Streets, and the Embarcadero), and the Central Waterfront (generally bounded by Mariposa Street, I-280, Islais Creek, and the Bay). The Mixed-Use Residential area would support residential development; the Employment and Business Development area would support production, distribution and repair (PDR) activities, including digital-media; and the Urban Mixed-Use area would require limited amounts of PDR space associated with a wide array of other uses, including housing. The proposed interim controls would also establish overlay areas including, but not limited to: 1) a Design and Showroom district intended to support those activities in the Showplace Square area and 2) an Arts and Technology district intended to encourage activities interrelated with the California College of Arts and nearby development in Mission Bay. The interim zoning controls require the adoption of a resolution of intent to initiate that will enable the publication of a formal notice for a future public hearing on or after February 16th at which hearing the Planning Commission would consider the adoption of interim controls.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of the Resolution of Intent

SPEAKERS

Gregg Miller, Attorney
  1. We represent concerned owners of several properties in the area that are subject to the interim controls proposed today.
  2. On behalf of those owners I ask to add grandfathering language that will allow existing and soon to be filed projects to proceed.
  3. Also, I request the elimination of restrictive punitive requirements with respect to PDR demolition and replacement.
  4. On a more specific note, I ask that you require block 418, lot 2 to be moved into the urban mixed-use zoning designation.
  5. I think equity, fairness, progress and reality require such a clause to grandfather projects that have already applied or are in the process to file.
  6. With respect to the PDR uses, the proposed controls prevented displacement or demolition of any existing PDR space unless that space could be replaced with one and a half times the amount of the prior space.
  7. This requirement ineffectively prevents anyone from upgrading existing outmoded PDR space.
Steve Barrett, Harrison Gardens
  1. We presented this project a few months ago and it proposed 551 units, 149 family units and over 66 BMR units [Below Market Rate].
  2. I would like to talk against the biases against the larger scale housing projects.
  3. We hope you adopt the grandfather clause to allow projects like ours to move forward during the interim control period.
  4. We would like to see that you eliminate the bias against lot mergers. We would not be able to provide a pedestrian friendly environment.
  5. There would need to be numerous curb cut outs and it would create a lot of confusion with already heavily traffic streets.
  6. We would like to also see the eliminations of the super replacement of PDR.
Alison Poole, Project Manager for Harrison Gardens
  1. I would like to mention some issues pertaining the freeway alley conditions and controls for the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  2. Alleys adjacent to freeways provide a unique urban condition.
  3. There should be exceptions for properties adjacent to freeway alleys to eliminate the mandatory walkways because they would not be used.
  4. The alley near the Gardens of Harrison project would not have heavy pedestrian use because it would not lead to anywhere.
  5. I also support the grandfather clause for these projects.
Curtis Eisenbezer, Mission Coalition for Economic Justice for Jobs
  1. I am stunned as to the implications of what I have seen written.
  2. A two and a half to one replacement of PDR for residential.
  3. This would increase the cost of housing because parking would need to be construct under ground and that is very expensive.
  4. A particular case: the Wonder bread factory immediately adjacent to the Potrero Shopping Center.
  5. Intercontinental bakery went bankrupt and put the building on sell. And the best of all was U-Haul.
  6. You want business and employment in this area and we need to work on that.
  7. There is a need for an increased amount of work. Get these interim controls to something that is really going to work for the City.
Bob Meyers, Planning Consultant for Harrison Gardens
  1. I would like to address Appendix C, page 8 for Mixed-use Residential Districts. In this section, staff presents design guidelines and controls. I am here to support design guidelines.
  2. We oppose the controls with its words like "shall," "shall not" or "prohibit."
  3. The controls say that driveways and curb cuts shall not exceed a certain width. This should be discouraged and not "shall not." That is typically decided by DPT in a project that goes through a very extensive transportation study
  4. These should become guidelines and be part of the design review of each individual project.
  5. I request that you remove all the controls with their word  shall not' for the East SOMA and include guidelines.
  6. We support a grandfather clause.
Debra Stein, Attorney for Harrison Gardens
  1. We know these projects need to move forward and the interim controls is going to stop them. Even Eastern Neighborhoods would take a long time to develop.
  2. The new interim controls are including substantial new housing policies even though no new nexus study has been done.
  3. Imposing these new unsupportive housing policies is not consistent with the Commission's determination that we need a comprehensive economic analysis.
  4. I urge you to sustain the existent housing policies until a new economic and comprehensive analysis can be adopted.
  5. If we are going to have new housing policies, it needs to become sensitive and legally defensible.
Judith Berkoniz

- The Mission certainly does not need more self-storage.

Chris Durazo
  1. I would like to have more outreach to the community through posting notices on the streets.
  2. It would be powerful to have somebody, either a Commissioner or staff, inform the communities about the process that is going to take place with the eight hearings.
Fred Snyder
  1. It has been six years with the interim controls. The effect is going to be wonderful with the employment.
  2. We should have this moving forward.
  3. I request that 550 Florida Street be removed from the mix-use residential.
  4. I would like to know how much money has been spent during these six years by the Planning Department to do what they have done until this point.
Tony Kelly
  1. We worked for a long time on community based planning at the Central Waterfront.
  2. It is sad that these interim controls are going forward before even going back to the community.
  3. You have a lot of new concepts that have not been studied by a nexus analysis.
  4. I understand that developers and the community are pushing to move this forward.
  5. This is not the right time to rush through this process and make a mistake on these controls that have not been studied.
Brett Gladstone
  1. Speaking on behalf of Mission Preservation Partners, the owner of the Mission Armory that is proposed to have 173 dwelling units.
  2. I am requesting the Commission to ask staff to look into the requirement of one square foot PDR for five square feet of residential.
  3. Brokers have been out there marketing the Armory for thirty years. Mini markets for PDR users that have no takers. That is a problem.
  4. The community is proposing to us community space between 10 and 30 thousand square feet.
  5. The point is that under this new zoning the only use of that size other than residential can be PDR.
  6. Also, why is there not an exception for landmarked buildings? Why is there not a grandfather provision for pipeline projects?
  7. We can understand the encouragement of 2 to 3 bedroom units all being BMR units and that may work for large brand new projects on empty land.
  8. That would probably not work economically for an expensive rehabilitation to a building that is a city landmark that has failed to be developed for so many years.
  9. Now, I am changing hats to speak on behalf of six developers in the Mission and the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  10. I am really surprised that staff has proposed another change of the FAR CM district from nine to one.
Michael Burk
  1. I am here representing Lion Enterprises who owns the Lion's building at 16th and Florida Street as well as a lot across Florida Street.
  2. I could show you the location on these photographs. As you can see there is a lot of housing on Bryant Street.
  3. The property is located just to the West of Bryant and 16th Street with residential above double.
  4. The pitch here is that these properties should be urban and residential mixed-use development.
Roberto
  1. Urged the Commission to not adopt the interim controls and instead to follow guidelines and policies.
  2. Interim controls would stop development when market conditions really permit them to go forward.
  3. There are multiple opportunities for the production of housing with the Eastern Neighborhood rezoning, including affordable housing.
Sarah, 3400 Cesar Chavez Project
  1. I understand that you received a letter from Steve Vettel from our office addressing our main concerns regarding the interim controls.
  2. We look forward to working with this Commission and staff over the next few weeks to address those concerns.
Steve
  1. I would like to speak about the grandfathering proposition.
  2. Our client filed last year for an environmental evaluation, conditional uses and zoning re-classification. Thousands of dollars were needed to file these documents.
  3. Regarding the lot mergers: there are very unusual shaped lots in the city and it would be hard to build anything on them.
  4. The alley guideline is an unusual condition for our block on 3rd and Harrison Street. The alley there is 200 feet to the next alley with no building in between.
  5. Some of these things need to be put together with the planning documentation to really create better projects that helps to produce more housing.
Joe
  1. I have some reservations about interim controls but I have a greater concern that we continue to not get the planning completed.
  2. I encourage the interim controls.

ACTION: Approved initiation

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

RESOLUTION: 17177

4:30 P.M.

17. 2005.0795C (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

2015 GREENWICH STREET - south side between Buchanan and Webster Streets; Lot 001, in Assessor's Block 0517 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 157, 204.5, 209.7 and 303 to legalize the operation of the existing motel parking lot (for the Motel Capri) as a public automobile parking lot (available to the public at times when such parking is not needed to serve the use for which it is primarily intended). The site is within a Residential Mixed, Moderate Density (RM-2) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

William Choper, Project Sponsor's Attorney

  1. This parking operation has existed for many years.
  2. The former manager of the property was renting out the spaces on a monthly basis to people who work on Union Street and that practice has continued to the present.
  3. There are 10 spaces used for that purpose.
  4. I am a little troubled with the condition proposed that they cannot let out any more spaces than they have vacant rooms.
  5. We have two people renting for only two days per week during business hours and these people do not disturb our guests from using the parking lot.
  6. If the parking lot is crowed with customers, the monthly parkers cannot park there.
  7. We have never received a complaint of loudness from neighbors.
  8. Requested that the Commission delete that condition.
Kim Fraser
  1. I am one of the neighbors most affected because I live directly across the street from the motel.
  2. The motel conditional approval appears to be disallowed by amendments to the planning code following its construction. I would like that to be investigated.
  3. I do not see how you can permit an intensification of an activity on a non-conforming use that would have a negative impact on neighbors.
  4. The parking lot is not necessary because there are nearby public garages.
  5. At least 15 to 20 spaces are used throughout the day by non-motel customers and that many again at night.
  6. I urge that you deny this request so as to preserve and protect our neighborhood.
Patricia Vaughey
  1. I have been watching this motel as well as others in the area doing something similar.
  2. The majority of the people who lease those parking spaces during the day are from Hilling Company and Coldwell Banker. There are about ten to eleven people.
  3. One of the problems in the Marina Cow Hollow is the lack of city planning.
  4. We have 8,754 bar/restaurant seats, 700 businesses, 2800 workers and only 1300 spaces in 9 parking places.
  5. There is not enough for the neighbors or for the merchants in the area.
  6. I do not have a solution to this but I do not have a complaint about Capri.
  7. We do have a problem late at night with the bar.
Joanie
  1. This is an intensification of the use. We are a transit city and you can never fulfill the desire for parking.
  2. There are so many ways to deal with this.
  3. People that take their car at two in the morning are very loud.
  4. This is a quality of life issue and I do not see the reason to support it.
John Kelly
  1. I used to work at the Capri Motel as a night clerk and because of my actions the motel had to come to this Planning Commission for a conditional use application.
  2. They have been operated this parking that way for many years. Only before, they were doing it illegally. Just recently they paid taxes for that use of the lot.
  3. I am not sure that the Motel Capri's situation is similar to other parts of the city.
Barbara
  1. I request that you deny the conditional use.
  2. There was no outreach to the neighbors regarding this matter.
  3. A public parking lot is not appropriate for this residential neighborhood.
  4. There are also parking spaces available in the area.

ACTION: Approved as revised by staff and amended:

- The number of spaces allotted it at any time for a commercial use should not exceed the vacant rooms on the property.

- A commercial user could occupy a parking space if the guest has checked out and the housekeeper is preparing the room.

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and W. Lee

MOTION: 17178

18. 2005.1049C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1685 SACRAMENTO STREET (aka 1552 Polk Street) - southeast corner at Polk Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0644 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a liquor store (dba  Nob Hill Liquors No. 2 ) of approximately 1,850 square feet. The subject commercial space was previously occupied by a retail gardening store. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The project site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKERS

Barbara

- I am a business owner and resident of the area.

  1. The issue is the number of liquor stores in the area. There are five liquor stores within two blocks and that's not mentioning others in the area.
  2. This does not enhance what we offer as a community.
  3. I urge you not to approve this.
[No name]
  1. Don't continue the item.
Rachel Larson
  1. I live in the neighborhood and am very much against having another liquor store between Post and Clay on Franklin Street.
  2. It would not make an ideal addition to the neighborhood, nor is it beneficial to the neighborhood.
John Kelly
  1. This application is the only reason that I am here.
  2. I would like to know if the project is continued whether I would have a chance to speak then?
  3. I strongly oppose this application because we have more than enough liquor stores in our city. [Showed a map of liquor stores in the area]
  4. Supervisor Maxwell is seeking a moratorium on liquor stores in her district. Also, I heard that Supervisor Daly is considering a moratorium in the Tenderloin.
  5. These moratoriums are being considered for a reason.

ACTION: Continue to February 9, 2006 with public hearing open.

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and W. Lee

19. 2005.1087ET (L. SCOTT: (415) 558-6317)

Consideration of an Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Peskin on November 8, 2005 which would amend Planning Code Section 610 to provide for neutral Administrative Law Judges to conduct reconsideration hearings concerning the Planning Director's assessment of administrative penalties for the unlawful operation of general advertising signs; to make additional procedural clarifications; to establish a fee for requesting a reconsideration hearing; and to make environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority polices of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Approval with further amendments

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 2, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

20. 2005.1034D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

943 Church Street - east side between 21st and 22nd Streets. Assessor's Block 3619 Lot 043 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0614 5053 to add a second unit and to construct a two-story addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low Density) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the Project.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 2, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

21. 2005.1029DD (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

527 HICKORY STREET - south side between Buchanan and Webster Streets; Lot 015C in Assessor's Block 0829 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.28.8902, proposing to add a new roof top deck, which is accessed through a stair penthouse, to an existing single family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family, Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Paul Targel, 1st Discretionary Review Requestor
  1. I live with my wife in a house on Oak Street that backs up against the project applicant's property.
  2. The proposed project would change the architectural historic character of this neighborhood.
  3. It would affect the light, air and ventilation of my property.
  4. We receive only a little right now.
  5. The penthouse deck would be at the same level of our bedroom - impacting our privacy.
  6. That deck would be a nuisance because I understand it is going to be for recreational purposes.
  7. Please, I strongly suggest that you disapprove this project.
Ashley Allen, 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor
  1. I am the immediate neighbor.
  2. There are four points of concerns regarding this project: privacy, potential safety hazard, copycat behavior by other neighbors, and diminishing property value.
  3. The deck would be at bedroom level and I assume that their activities would include smoking and drinking, bringing the potential of safety hazards.
  4. The copycat behavior is that the Planning Department has approved recently a vertical addition only two properties down the street and now everybody wants to do the same thing.
Mark Sammerfield, Project Sponsor and Owner
  1. I want to construct a 230 square foot deck on the second floor of my home.
  2. It is primarily for my own use. I am single and do not smoke.
  3. I went to the Building Department and asked how I could design something with minimum impact on my neighbors.
  4. It is an improvement to the house and is within the codes.
Steven
  1. I generally support my neighbors but this project would have a big impact on our properties.
  2. This boxy construction would impact light, air, privacy and the obstruction of the view would diminish the value of my property.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and W. Lee

22. 2005.1043DD (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

3025 - 3029 SACRAMENTO STREET - south side between Baker and Broderick Streets; Lot 029B in Assessor's Block 1024 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.06.26.6107, proposing to construct a three-story horizontal extension at the rear of an existing two-story over garage, three-family dwelling 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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 2, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

23a. 2005.0620D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2929 STEINER STREET - west side between Union and Green Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0538 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.04.22.0687, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 26, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

23b. 2005.1112D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2929 Steiner Street - west side between Union and Green Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 0538 - 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. 2005.08.18.0678, proposing installation of a landscaped garden / open space in lieu of a residential replacement building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 26, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

24a. 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 26, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

24b. 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 January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 26, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and Bradford-Bell

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))

SPEAKERS:

Emeric Kalman

  1. One week ago I testified on agenda item 18.
  2. We only had one minute and I could not finish my comments and request to you.
  3. Basically, I wanted to ask you for the deadline to be extended for submitting comments for the draft EIR on the Marina project.
  4. If this is possible, let me tell you my efforts to get the information.
  5. I asked for copies of the documentation submitted by the project sponsor at the Department because of an extension of the deadline for three months and nothing was submitted to the file.
  6. The gentleman from Rec and Park had some documents in his hands.
  7. I checked out the Planning Department – Ms. Gibson – and there was nothing from Recreation and Park.
  8. So we absolutely need more time to review what was submitted by Recreation and Park Department.
  9. I raised this issue at the Rec and Park Commission Regular meeting. I asked under the Sunshine Ordinance and they didn't answer yet.
  10. So, I would like an extension for submitting public comments on the draft EIR.

Adjournment: 6: 31 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 19, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

NAYES: W. Lee

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:24 PM