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
Public Hearings 
 

April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 26, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:37 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, AnMarie Rodgers, Michael Smith, Sharon Young, Kate Conner, Sophie Middlebrook, Ken Rich, 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. 2005.0156C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2130 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE (AKA 350 MASONIC AVENUE) -northeast corner of Masonic and Golden Gate Avenues; Lots 11 and 29 in Assessor's Block 1149 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 178 209.3(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to modify a previously approved Planned Unit Development (Motion No. 11162 for Case No. 1987.519C) for a private elementary and middle school (Kindergarten through Grade 8), The San Francisco Day School, to allow the demolition of an existing single-family house (on Lot 11); renovation of the existing school facilities including the removal of an 8-car surface parking lot (on Lot 29), and the construction of a new three-story over garage/basement science building addition, in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2007)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2006.0074TZ (J. Lau: (415) 558-6383)

Initiation of Planning Code Amendments Establishing PDR Zoning Districts and Initiation of Zoning Map Amendments Applying these Designations to Certain Industrial Portions of Bayview Hunters Point - The Department is proposing a set of Code amendments to establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer District) and a PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair District) in the Planning Code. These zones will permit a wide variety of non-residential uses and will retain space for current and future light industrial activities. The Department is also proposing Zoning Map amendments that would apply these PDR Districts, and a South Basin Design and Development Special Use District, to certain industrial areas in Bayview Hunters Point currently zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial). These amendments would implement various objectives from the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, which seeks to retain space for jobs and light industrial activities and to reduce land use conflicts between housing and industry in the Bayview.

A) Informational Item. Staff will respond to Commissioner questions from the informational hearing held on January 18, 2007 and provide clarifying information.

Preliminary Recommendation: Hold hearing on informational item.

B) 2006.0074T – Initiation of a Planning Code Text Amendment. Consideration of a resolution of intent to initiate an amendment to the Planning Code, including revisions to Sections 121.5, 121.7, 204.3-204.4, 210, 210.6, 210.7, 210.8, 210.9, 213-227, 230, and 249.32. The amendment would establish a PDR-1 Use District (Light Industrial Buffer), a PDR-2 Use District (Production, Distribution, and Repair), and a South Basin Design and Development Special Use District (South Basin SUD), and establish regulations on subdivisions, accessory uses, and the demolition of industrial structures in these districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution of intent to initiate the Planning Code amendment.

C) 2006.0074Z – Initiation of a Zoning Map Amendment. Consideration of a resolution of intent to initiate a Zoning Map amendment consisting of revisions to Sectional Maps 8, 9, 10, and 10 SU of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco. This amendment would: 1) reclassify the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Barneveld Avenue, McKinnon Avenue, Evans Avenue, and Third Street from M-2 to PDR-2; 2) reclassify the area generally bounded by Loomis Street, the I-280 Freeway, Oakdale Avenue, and the Caltrain right-of-way from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair); 3) reclassify much of the South Basin District, generally bounded by Bayshore Boulevard, Paul Avenue, Egbert Yosemite Slough, the Hunters Point Shipyard, Thomas Avenue, and Williams Avenue Avenue, from M-1 to PDR-2; 4) establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer) designation over the northern and southern edges of the South Basin District, on the east side of Third Street, roughly along Fitzgerald, Van Dyke, Underwood, and Thomas Avenues – on properties currently zoned M-1; and 5) apply the South Basin SUD (South Basin Design and Development Special Use District) to the area generally bounded by Paul Avenue, Bayshore Boulevard, Phelps Street, Williams Avenue, and Third Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution of intent to initiate the Zoning Map amendment.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS

Espanola Jackson

- I watched last week's hearing and you had a lot of discussion on affordable housing.

- Most people in my neighborhood have a yearly earning between $14 to $21 thousand dollars.

  1. I am submitting a document for your review and you would find out the reason why people are leaving San Francisco. You need to be aware of it.

Benji Robinson

- I am here to voice support for moving forward with amendments for the Bayview Hunter's Point.

ACTION: Continued to May 10, 2007

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

3. 2006.0447C (D. DiBartolo: (415) 558 6291)

831-845 Jackson Street - south side between Stockton and Powell Streets; Lot 041 in Assessor's Block 0192  Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Section 812.82 of the Planning Code to install a total of five panel antennas and associated equipment cabinets on the roof of the existing 70-foot tall  Chinese Hospital building. The proposed antennas and associated equipment would be part of the T-Mobile Wireless telecommunications network within a CR-NC Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-N Height and Bulk District. The site is a Preference 1 (Preferred, Publicly used structure) per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2007.0115D (M. GLUECKERT 558-6543)

174 VALENCIA STREET - west side between Duboce and McCoppin; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3502 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.12.1596 to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a.  Mr. Nice Guy ). The parcel is located within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) District and a 50-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project as submitted.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2007.0193D (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

722 COLUMBUS AVENUE - east side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 0090 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007 0206 3529 to maintain operation of an existing medical cannabis dispensary (dba  Medical Cannabis Center ) of approximately 1,000 square feet. The property is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to June 14, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Marc Bruno,

  1. I live and work in the area and many residents have not been notified about this dispensary.
  2. I am in favor of the continuance and would like to see a community meeting to address concerns of the neighborhood.
  3. Submitted copy of a letter sent to the Commission by the local librarian about this issue.

ACTION: Continued to June 21, 2007

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS (Tape IA)

6. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

- I have some questions regarding springing conditions that came up at last week's hearing.

- These are comments that I heard from the public and I think it is worth a discussion of them.

- Is it legal to impose conditions without a nexus study? How are the fees to be used?

  1. Are they going to be used for infrastructure purposes or parks?

- It is an important issue and the public wants to know.

- I also would like a list of projects that have had springing conditions in the past.

- I wonder if they have been applied to residential developments.

- About additional below market rate units: Generally they come in return for height and density bonuses.

- This is the first time I remember changes being made about below market rate as they applied to 736 Valencia Street and 3400 Cesar Chavez.

- I would like to know how or why this applied to those projects.

- Lastly a young couple--patients of mine--illustrates the situation in the city regarding housing.

- Being first time homebuyers, they are moving to Concord even thought they want to stay in San Francisco.

- The only choice they found in the city was a 1 bedroom in the $500,000 dollars range versus in Concord in the $300,000 dollars range for a 2 bedroom home.

- My comments are based on studies showing that we are building almost no housing in the 60 to 80 percentile for people in San Francisco.

- We may speak more about this situation on the Eastern Neighborhood presentation.

- I am hoping we can come up with a formula and be able to include different inclusionary systems for builders to include 80 to 140 percentile.

- I called some researchers for data to compare costs in other cities regarding fees and materials.

- We should know where those areas are and if we could do something in our process to minimize cost in order to increase affordability on projects.

Commissioner Alexander

- I would like to remind Commissioner Antonini that we agreed last week to not impose springing conditions.

Commissioner W. Lee

- I have a question on mitigation fees: How do we justify $13 a square foot for housing and $4 a square foot for commercial?

- Last week on one of the projects, that amount came out of nowhere and was approved voluntarily by the Project Sponsor.

- Rincon Hill was approved for $23 a square foot and it appears to work.

- Bayview has a different fee of dollars and with high-rises would benefit to provide funding to off set the affordable housing.

- I would like staff to provide to us an analysis for a formula on community benefit fees.

- The construction for downtown with the Market and Octavia Plan with the high-rises the fee should be higher.

- Now, we are going into the Eastern Neighborhood and I do not know what model we used to justify these fees.

- I think staff has to come back within a month and give us directions on what is a fair fee and if they could respond as to when they can provide that information.

Commissioner Alexander

- Other Commissioners have to conquer on that request for staff to generate it.

- What we did last week was something that we reasonable for the project to move forward.

- It is the full intention of staff to go back and put together what the actual cost would be until the new zoning comes out.

- Developers have the choice to move forward or wait until the new zoning and fees come out.

Commissioner Antonini

- I support that request. It is definitely an important subject.

Dean Macris, Director of Planning

- It was a voluntary matter and if the Commission would like to have further discussion about fees, we could certainly do that.

- It does need further analysis and we are working on that.

- It is a very important subject to discuss.

- Mr. President could instruct what he would like us to do -- whether to schedule time to discuss or to produce a report.

Commissioner W. Lee

- We had two projects coming up and charged $13 a square foot for community benefits.

- Commercial spaces are charged $4 a square foot and I wonder why not charge the reverse, $13 for commercial and $4 for housing?

- Some other questions that I have are the allocation of that money. Where it goes and if we could allocate it for affordable housing?

Commissioner Alexander

- There is specification on the money collected for public benefit to be used on parks, street improvements and sidewalks.

Commissioner Olague

- I am happy with the respond from staff about intent to establish some controls for Eastern Neighborhood.

- The Mission Neighborhood has been neglected because of the absence of permanent controls.

- It is important to finalize and get to a conclusion of a process that has taken so long.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements None

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

AnMarie Rodgers (Reported on events for last two weeks)

Land Use and Economic Committee

1)- Ordinance to amend Planning Code to be more consistent with this Commission's procedures for its consent calendar. Approved

2)- Public Hearing requested by Supervisor Alioto-Pier on the size and retrofit of the company development in the renovation of the California Pacific Medical Center on Van Ness Avenue.

It is the first step of the process before the Environmental Impact Report.

Board of Supervisors

1)- Ordinance to amend the Planning Code to be more consistent with this Commission's procedures for its consent calendar. Approved

2)- Supervisor Alioto-Pier requested a Public Hearing for Saint Luke's Hospital on Cesar Chavez Street. Assigned to the Land Use and Economic Committee.

3)- All final action items for Trinity Plaza project. Approved

4)- Ordinance that would amend Transferable Development Rights [TDR] under special circumstances for the YMCA at 200 Golden Gate Avenue. Approved.

5)- Amendment to Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing - Section 315 - to establish separate requirements for buildings of 125 feet high or greater. Approved lowering to over 120 feet.

6)- Emergency ordinance approving interim zoning moratorium on microcell equipment for 45 days. Continued to undetermined date.

7)- Two items to amend Article 11 of Planning Code on the designation of buildings at 583 Howard Street and 625 – 631Pine Street as well as 635 –659 Pine Street. Approved.

8)- Affordable Housing Funding Appropriation [does not come to the Commission] $28,000,000 for the fiscal year of 2006 - 2007 general fund balance for affordable housing projects. Approved.

9)- Introductions and requests:

A)- Supervisor Mirkarimi requested City Attorney to write legislation to protect and encourage the use of solar energy in residential constructions. Properties in construction that are neighboring properties that might impact solar access would need additional review.

B)- Supervisor McGoldrick introduced an ordinance to limit exemptions and clarifying the scope and collection of the Transit Impact Development fee amended last year.

C)- Supervisor Alioto-Pier requested the Planning, Public Health and Building Inspection Departments to give an assessment of the permitting process and timeline for Medical Cannabis Dispensaries.

  1. These dispensaries need to file to different departments for permits.
  2. Regarding Planning Department, they need to file for CEQA and Mandatory Discretionary Review permits.
  3. We have received 19 applications to operate; 6 have completed the process including hearings at the Commission. 13 have either scheduled for or are pending hearing.
  4. Remainder of dispensaries have not submitted a completed application or have not submitted any.

Board of Appeals None

Commissioner Alexander instructed to calendar discussion about general fund balance for affordable housing on May 10 hearing.

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

Sue Hestor

- Calendar came out for next week continuances and 300 Grant Avenue Project is proposed for continuance to May 10.

- There are new plans for this project and my client has not received/reviewed them.

- I am requesting that you take it off the May 10 calendar because it is not ready.

- 10th and Market project has been filed for an appeal at the Board. The Appealer is my client.

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.

9a. 2005.1062BV (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

650 TOWNSEND STREET - north side of Townsend Street between 7th Street and 8th Street, Lot 009 in Assessors Block 3783 - Request for office allocation pursuant to Planning Code Section 321 et seq. to authorize 375,151 square feet of office space. The proposal is to convert approximately 269,680 square feet of business service and approximately 105,471 square feet of exhibition space to office space within the existing building. The existing 269,680 square feet of office space and 30,730 square feet of retail space would remain. No new construction is proposed. The project site is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, and 65-X/100-X Height & Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Harry O'Brian, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. We agree to another two weeks continuance to work with Supervisor Maxwell's Office and any other interested party.
  2. I am confident that what we are proposing is appropriate for this site.
  3. An issue was raised that we are rushing this project. It has been in process since November, 2005

Katherine Higgins, Supervisor Maxwell's Office

  1. Supervisor Maxwell would like the continuance to be extended as much as possible.

- We are willing to work with all parties involved to solve issues regarding this project.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 10, 2007

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

9b. 2005.1062BV (M. GLUECKERT (415) 558-6543)

650 Townsend Street - north side of Townsend Street between 7th and 8th Streets, Lot 009 in Assessors Block 3783 - Off-Street Parking Variance Sought - The building would contain 644,831 square feet of office space and 30,730 square feet of retail space. The proposed use would require a total of 1,373 parking spaces on the site. Currently, the site provides up to 971 parking spaces, via on-site parking and through the use of a valet parking system. A variance is required for the parking deficit of 402 spaces. The project site is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, and 65-X/100-X Height & Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 9a

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 10, 2007

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

10. 2007.0198C (Tape IA) (E. Watty: (415) 558 6620)

3739 26TH STREET - south side between Dolores and Guerrero Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 6567 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 303, to allow a child-care facility - which provides less than 24-hour care by licensed personnel - for 13 or more children. The facility is located at the ground floor of the existing single-family dwelling, and meets the Outdoor Activity Space requirement set forth by the California State Code for Child Care. The site is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17421

  • F.REGULAR CALENDAR

11. 2006.1095C (Tape IB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2035 Irving Street - south side between 21st and 22nd Avenues, Lot 11B in Assessor's Block 1776 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.44 to legalize a 995 square-foot small, self-service restaurant (DBA Wonderful Dessert & Café), located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, Irving Street Restaurant and Fast-Food Subdistrict, and a 105-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Norman - Owner

  1. My business offers all kinds of healthy desserts for all people.
  2. I hope you approve this project.

Forrest Thompson

  1. My parents bought a house in this neighborhood in 1957.
  2. We have been clients of this store for over 10 years.
  3. This is a matter of being able to sit down at a restaurant on a table with a chair.
  4. We have been residents in this neighborhood for over 50 years.
  5. Over the years, stores have come and gone offering the same culture and atmosphere.

- Residents in the area have known the owner for a long time and he is trying really hard to provide a good service store.

  1. Urged the commission to approve the project.

Awadalla, President of Outer Sunset Merchants Professional Association

  1. Is in support of this project.

- Communicated with business owners and residents in the area and this project has a lot of support from them.

Ron Lee, Member of Outer Sunset Merchant Association

  1. I have studied this business and visited it many times to observe it.
  2. It is a family-friendly and vibrant business that helps the community.
  3. I highly recommend it for your approval.

Joyce Chang, Project Sponsor

  1. This is a small local business that would not create disturbances [noise or smell]

- We are requesting operational hours on weekdays from 11a.m. to 12p.m. and weekends from 11a.m. to 1a.m.

Mendy

  1. I am in disapproval of this project.
  2. There are already a lot of businesses on Irving Street.
  3. It would increase more traffic. Parking is an issue in this area.

Isabel Sau

  1. We have been on Irving Street for about 12 years.
  2. No body has complaint about our business of parking issues.
  3. A lot of our neighbors support our project and we hope you would do so as well.

Officer Apodaca, Representing Captain Keith Stanford and the Police Department

  1. We have received a letter from the Neighborhood Association supporting this project.

- The Police Department has not had any incidents at the prior commercial establishment and we do not anticipate any problems with the new one.

  1. We have no objections to granting a conditional use permit by the Department.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended.

-To meet health code requirement for waste.

-Hours of operation are 11a.m. to 12p.m. on weekdays and 11a.m. to 1a.m. on weekends.

-6 month report to Zoning Administrator from the date of this motion with a copy to Police Department identifying any complaint that can be revisited and possibly brought back to the Commission for revocation.

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

MOTION: 17422

12. 2007.0126C (Tape IB; IIA) (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

2071 UNION STREET - south side between Webster and Buchanan Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 0541 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 703.4 and 303 of the Planning Code to establish a Formula Retail Use in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert a vacant retail sales establishment (previously occupied by a home furnishings store DBA  Z Gallerie ) to another retail sales establishment (DBA  Rugby , a new apparel store concept of Ralph Lauren). The proposed retail apparel store is considered a Formula Retail Use under Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the existing commercial space with new partitions and merchandise display areas and exterior modifications to the storefront with new windows and doors. There will be no expansion of the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Brian Oshima, Architect

  1. The existing front of the store is approximately 40 feet wide and is not in compliance with code.
  2. Tile is not of historical nature.
  3. Storefront would have an additional center pier.

- At the doors we have pulled back to formally enter on the right side and exit on the left side.

ACTION: Approved as amended: To diligently try to move the door.

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

MOTION: 17423

13. 2006.1502C (Tape IIA) (M. Li: (415) 558 6396)

1710-1712 Polk Street - northeast corner at Clay Street, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0620 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to expand an existing full-service restaurant (dba  Hahn's Hibachi #2 ) from approximately 530 square feet to approximately 1,070 square feet in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The subject business would expand into an adjacent vacant commercial space previously occupied by a retail cellular phone store.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Michael Khan, Project Sponsor

- Garbage is already enclosed in the back.

  1. We are trying to expand our restaurant to provide good service to our neighborhood.
  2. Restroom would be bigger in order to provide accessibility to disabled customers.
  3. Project would generate more taxes.
  4. This site has been vacant for a long time.

ACTION: Approved as amended.

To provide for storage of waste/garbage disposal as required by Health Dept.

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

MOTION: 17424

14. 2007.0125D (Tape IIA) (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

245 ROANOKE STREET - northeastern side at the intersection with Arlington Street; Lot 014D in Assessor's Block 6718 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.12.14.0894, proposing construction of a second story vertical addition to an existing one story over garage residence in a 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 submitted.

SPEAKERS

Collet Fontanneli, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Sunlight would be obstructed in my bathroom, bedroom and my deck/garden.
  2. Why should I be deprived of simple little pleasures like sunlight?
  3. Project does not comply with the Victorian character of the entire neighborhood.

Stewart Hills, Project Architect

- The subject property is a regular size lot. Its depth corresponds to similar corner lots in the neighborhood. However, there is only a 13-foot wide limit.

  1. With these limitations, the only option is a vertical addition.
  2. The design meets the guidelines. The addition sets back from the front and rear property line.
  3. We added a bay window for a better articulation of the façade on the Roanoke Street side.
  4. Addition is modern in design and compliments the existing structure.
  5. Regarding privacy: the requestor's home sits on the corner lot and there would not be any additional view than currently exists.

- Subject property sits at a 135-degree angle northeast of the DR requestor's property.

- Following path of the sun throughout different seasons, the sun does not cast greater than 120-degree angle.

Mike Shainne, Owner

  1. We need the extra bedroom to accommodate my daughter.
  2. Submitted a letter from the next-door neighbor supporting the project.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved.

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

15. 2007.0125D (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

270 OCEAN AVENUE - north side between Meda Avenue and Delano Avenue; Lot 010A in Assessor's Block 3211 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.18.6852, proposing construction of a new four-story six-unit residential building on a vacant lot in a NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 10, 2007

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

16. 2006.1488DDDD (Tape IIA; IIB) (S. Middlebrook 558-6372)

1911 Funston AVENUE - west side between Rockridge Drive and Aerial Way; Lot 050 in Assessor's Block 2121A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.0609.3616, proposing construction of a four-story horizontal addition to the rear of the subject dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Note: This case was first presented at the 3/15/07 Planning Commission hearing. On that date, the Department's recommendation was: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications. The Commission continued this matter to 4/26/07 with instructions to the project sponsor to consider a new design and neighborhood character.The Department's preliminary recommendation below is based on the revised submission.

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

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. What you requested has not been provided by the developer.
  2. You asked that this project to be made narrower and shorter.

- We have not seen information on the visual impact on Ms. Yamagushi who is the property owner to the north of this project.

  1. They have not shown visuals of what people are going to see from their level.
  2. There is no real information about it.

- Sponsor wants to maximize their space no matter what the impacts are on their neighbors.

  1. This is a very special setting.

- We have not received any phone calls for a meeting from the engineer to respond to concerns.

  1. They came back basically with the same model.

James Zhao, Representing Adjacent Neighbor

- I have reviewed the revised plans produced by the project architect and have found that the main issue still has not been addressed.

- It would impact, impair and weaken the structure foundation system supporting my client's house adjacent to the subject property.

  1. The solution would demand changes in the architect's design of the proposed addition.
  2. The exterior walls on both sides would need to set back 4 feet and 6 inches.

- Two piers along property line support six houses and construction needs to be away from those piers.

Mildred Yamagushi

  1. I was asked to sign a petition in support for a modest addition and I did.
  2. This is not a modest addition.
  3. I have a big concern with the common foundation of these properties.

Louise Victor

- We are very frustrated with this process with the lack of communication.

- Contacts were not made from Project Sponsor until plans were submitted.

  1. Project is still too big and not feasible for the neighbors.
  2. Requested that the commission consider this carefully.

Leon

  1. I just want to show with these photos the massiveness of this project.

Robert Colyer, Project Architect

  1. We had done a number of revisions intending to reduce the profile of the building.
  2. The concern was made about the middle block open space.
  3. We compromised 37 percent rear yard set back versus 25 percent required.
  4. Massing study shows a number of prototypes to culminate the scheme of 1911 Funston.

- As originally designed, it did not have a very large addition on the upper floor with the intent of reducing its profile as seen from adjacent properties.

  1. Project was designed to step-down the hill and step-in from the sides.
  2. Showed digital photos of property renderings.
  3. We did try to meet with the neighbors to get feedback.
  4. In the past, at meetings with neighbors, we would get no feedback when we requested it.

Elizabeth Tippin, Project Sponsor Representative

- I just want to focus my comments on precedence in the area.

- The building at 1887 Funston Avenue is a large vertical mass that actually goes all the way out to a 30 percent set back.

  1. 1901 Funston Avenue has a deck on minus level 1, which is the same thing we are proposing.

- 1923 and 1927 Funston properties have an existing deck that is approximately 3 to 4 feet away from the 30 percent set back line.

  1. 1914 Funston house already has the 25 percent set back.

- There is a lot of precedence that already exists in the block to establish the 37 percent set back as some sort of guidance for this development.

  1. Basically this project is very consistent with the General Plan and buildings in the area.
  2. Project would not impact views and sunlight.

- Sunlight gets to these houses until one o'clock and the biggest shadows come from trees on the property.

Roger Quiring

  1. I have lived in the neighborhood for 21 years.

- I support this project mainly for the spirit of interest to meet with neighbors and listen to reasonable suggestions.

  1. An effort has been made to mitigate discomfort.
  2. The plans were prepared in accordance with city codes.

Debra Bowles, Project Sponsor

  1. I am requesting the Commission make a decision.
  2. I strongly feel that we have made every effort to work with neighbors.
  3. This process has taken about 2 years and it is impacting our family economically.
  4. Read a letter of support from a neighbor unable to attend because of illness.

Josh Weaver

- We used to live in the neighborhood and had to move out of the city because we had no choice.

  1. We could not effort any addition to our house in that neighborhood

- The process the project sponsors have been going through would discourage residents to improve their homes.

Chet Matuszak

- Read a support letter on behalf of Harold Wong who lives at 1895 Funston Avenue.

Pat

  1. I attended one of the meetings held by one of the Discretionary Review requestors.
  2. People just do not want any construction done on that property.

- I am a union carpenter/general contractor and believe this project would help stabilized that hill.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as Staff recommended with a further modification to cut back 5 feet of office space on level negative 2.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore.

6:00 P.M.

17. (Tape IIB; IIIA; IIIB) (K. Rich: (415) 558-6345)

EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM - The Eastern Neighborhoods Program encompasses the Mission, Central Waterfront, East SoMa and Showplace Square. Bayview Hunters Point is undergoing a separate process, but shares some issues with the other neighborhoods. Staff will present a progress report on the Program, including a proposed schedule for completing the Eastern Neighborhoods area plans and rezoning, an update on proposals for affordable housing and public benefits and an overview of the basic land use proposals for the industrial lands. This progress report is the first of a series on the Eastern Neighborhoods that staff expects to present to the Planning Commission over the next several months.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Item, no action requested.

SPEAKERS

Doug Shoemaker, Major's Office of Housing

- In the Eastern Neighborhoods, the median household income tend to be lower than the rest of the City.

- The average household size is larger.

  1. Four out of every five households are renters.
  2. There is a need for a stock of low-income housing.

- We have existing city-financed housing between 600 to 1,200; and inclusionary housing between 950 to 1,350.

- Total affordable housing is 1,500 to 2,500 in the Eastern Neighborhood serving low, extreme-low, and medium income families.

- This is absolutely an average and it is based on different types of opportunities when they represented themselves.

  1. Our goal is to produce more on the baseline than what we are doing right now.

- According to the housing inventory that Planning Department publishes on a regular basis, 30 percent of housing created in the city for the last 5 years is affordable.

  1. Three main components of our strategy:

1)- Inclusionary Housing

We need to decide whether we want inclusionary or super-inclusionary housing in the Eastern Neighborhood.

A)-Baseline: 15% of total market rate production.

B)-Increase development potential zoning: creating new value to enable funding for additional affordable housing.

Options: -Increase percentage requirement of units.

-Charge affordable housing fee.

-Provide choices for more affordability (number of units versus median income limits).

2)-Affordable Housing Priority Zone

A)-Allow new residential uses in areas currently zoned industrial only.

B)-Allow 100% affordable developments as-of right.

C)-Create incentives for mixed income residential developments (donate portion of parcel for affordable housing in exchange of market rate housing)

D)-Allow 100% moderate-income developments without the need of competing with luxury housing.

3)-City-financed affordable housing developments:

A)-Current challenges are land availability and funding.

B)-Land represents 30-50% of City's subsidy and potential zone dedication could create over 1,000 affordable units.

C)-Because land would be donated throughout the process; the amount of money to fund units would be significantly less.

  1. We are trying to address different needs.
  2. There are strategies for very-low, low and moderate median income limits.

- There are very different affordable housing programs in the Bay View Hunter's Point. We are considering super inclusionary housing.

- We really want to emphasize public benefits zoning. What the financial possibilities are and prioritize what is needed.

  1. Existing zonings changing for the new ones. We need a pattern for those changes.

- On May 14 and 15, we are going to meet with stakeholders and go over financial modem data for feedback.

Jessie Blout, Mayor's Office of Housing and Economic Workforce Development

- We have conducted an analysis over several decades regarding economic performance before releasing the economic development plan.

  1. Structure of economy includes four broad clusters:
    • Knowledge Generation
    • Experience Generation
    • People Infrastructure
    • Physical Infrastructure

- Production Distribution and Repairs [PDR] industries provide employment opportunities for people without 4-year degrees.

- We have a workforce system for employment opportunities and important ramifications to provide trainings.

- It provides a strategy to make sure we are preparing people coming out of high school and those with no training at all.

- It is very important to keep in mind the growth of our economy for the next decade when deciding the land use.

Judy West

- We have been trying to build an arts and theater district in the Northern Mission on an underutilized site that is attracting criminal activities.

- Requested Production Distribution and Repairs zoning [PDR] not be applied on 16th South of Mission Street.

  1. In the Mission, absentee landlords who neglect their properties own housing.

- A housing strategy is to build condominiums for low-income families [below market rate] promoted by the city with unrealistic restrictions.

  1. Locate below market rate units along transit corridors.

Toby Levine

  1. Requested the Department to make The Mission Plan clearer to the residents.
  2. For example, to list different Production Distribution and Repairs [PDR] uses.
  3. You should add appendices and numbered pages and make reference to them.
  4. Process should focus on planning and not politics.

Jeffrey Leibovitz

  1. We are moving in the right direction with this kind of communication.

- Important elements to consider are employment opportunities, housing, historic resources and community benefits.

- Questioned the Production Distribution and Repairs [PDR], what type of business would these be and what would be the relationship, financially, to the neighbors.

Steven Aiello

- Urged the commission to pay close attention to the global issues and all areas of the specific plan.

  1. We have shared our points with the Department.
  2. Some concerns are height--to increase capacity, and affordable housing.

- We are missing production for the middle-income range, between 80 to 150% of annual median income.

  1. Suggested to come up with strategies for those families to stay in San Francisco.

Tim Colen

  1. We have been doing a lot of work and we will present it to the Commission shortly.

- We would like to see a balance in housing. There is a lack of production for middle-income families.

Calvin Welsch

  1. First attempt on real comprehensive planning for the Eastern Neighborhood.

- Coordinated presentation between Planning, Major's Office of Housing and Economic Workforce Development closes a huge gap from other attempts.

  1. Unified School District and Muni should be part of this communication.

- The presentation had no reference on the policy statement from the Board of Supervisor.

  1. We need to work together to make this plan work for everybody.

- We need to really think thoroughly and make a reality the affordable housing component for the Eastern Neighborhood.

Scott

  1. Concerned about what the real community benefit components are. It is unclear.

- Putting affordable housing everywhere would create problems. We need truth protection and stabilization. Put housing where there should be housing and not with industrials.

Fred Snyder

- This process has taken 7 years and it is still unclear what is going to happen in my neighborhood.

  1. I would like to see a comprehensive plan to move forward.
  2. Our neighborhood would have all affordable housing and that is not right.

- The idea of donating portions of parcels would downsize the tendency to make those properties available for affordable housing.

  1. Owner would not know what type of tenant is coming to the property.

Brett Gladstone

  1. Requested the Department to include an explanation of decisions made on new policies.

- We would like an opportunity to discuss what one square foot of PDR to 4 square feet for other use such as housing. Is it net or gross footage?

- It is unclear on the chart if the list of subdivision of units would become a conditional use. It needs some clarification of that.

Douglass Lin

- There are no Production Distribution and Repairs [PDR] tenants in SOMA district because of heavy traffic and no parking.

- 900 to 1000 market-rate units are available and nobody is buying them. Building affordable housing in that area would freeze those units for 20 years.

Chris Durazo

- Requested to freeze the Production Distribution and Repairs [PDR] and remove affordable housing overlay in East SOMA.

  1. This area is not appropriate for light industrial because of heavy traffic and no parking.

Bob Mayers

- Requesting to remove staff proposal of overlay for mix use district between 3rd and 4th Street.

- Restricting building affordable housing would jeopardize projects in process in the East SOMA offering 900 units, including 125 units guaranteed to be affordable.

Peter Cohen

  1. Commended staff for providing an excellent presentation.
  2. We worked on affordable housing, policies and economic development policies.
  3. We are interested to see how things mediate throughout the land use controls.

- Land use stability is critical in moving forward as part of a diverse economy.

Shannon

- I am in support of the Board of Supervisor policy statement regarding Eastern Neighborhood and meeting the housing element goals to the extent that we can.

- Land dedication ideas, overlay of affordable housing, and other tools are important components.

  1. This plan could make a real difference if done right.

Judy

- Regarding the maps: Franklin Square Park would be the only remaining park in the whole planning area.

  1. Parks are very important and we should try to keep as much as we can.

- Pacific Gas & Electricity property and other large areas should be labeled the way Muni property is.

ACTION: Informational only. No action needed by the Commission

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

  1. directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS:

Judy West

- I am extremely concerned with our approach to a liquefaction zone in the Eastern Neighborhood.

- The effort to downzone the areas that are most at risk of an earthquake is unacceptable.

- You must find a way to encourage other types of investment in these areas.

- Production Distribution and Repairs zoning [PDR] would make it almost impossible for urban upgrades.

Chris Durazo

- Requested the appointment of a staff member to report on the cumulative impacts of all the different plans in the City [Market-Octavia, Transbay, Rincon Hill and Eastern Neighborhoods]

- Include in the presentations a model of the South of Market with proposed changes including traffic.

Steven AieIlo

- Our coalition works with developers and endorses projects before they come to the Commission.

- We do not make public the non-endorsement projects.

- We have been very successful working with developers to improve their projects and have a -pro-housing attitude.

Adjournment: 8:41 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 31, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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 10:00:26 PM