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 
 

August 2, 2007

August 2, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 2, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Antonini

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:41 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Anmarie Rodgers, Isolde Wilson, Craig Nikitas, Aaron Hollister, Glenn Cabreros, Kate Conner, Sophie Middlebrook, Edgar Oropeza and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1a. 2005.0762ECV (M. Li: (415) 558-6396)

245-259 Hyde Street - southwest corner at Eddy Street, Lots 017, 018, and 019 in Assessor's Block 0336 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to reduce the off-street parking requirement for a 65-unit residential project. The interiors of the existing interconnected two-story buildings, previously used as office and retail space, will be demolished to accommodate the insertion of a third floor within the existing building envelope. One new floor will be added for a total of four floors. The project is proposing no off-street parking where 16 spaces are required. The project site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District, and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for continuance to August 30, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to September 6, 2007

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

ABSENT: Antonini

1b 2005.0762ECV (M. Li: (415) 558-6396)

245-259 HYDE STREET, southwest corner at Eddy Street, Lots 017, 018, and 019 in Assessor's Block 0336 – Request for a rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, and usable open space variances in connection with the project described in Item 1a. The request for variances will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Proposed for continuance to August 30, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to September 6, 2007

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

ABSENT: Antonini

2a. 2007.0242CV (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to reduce the parking requirement by one off-street parking space pursuant to Planning Code Section 161(h) in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. Requests for Variances from the rear yard, open space, and dwelling unit exposure requirements of the Planning Code will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at the same hearing. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea no. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2007)

(Proposed for continuance to August 30, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Tracy, Project Sponsor

- Requesting continuance to the end of the month or first week of September. I will be out of the country for one month starting the second week of September.

ACTION: Continued to September 6, 2007

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

ABSENT: Antonini

2b. 2007.0242CV (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for rear yard, usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea no. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2007)

(Proposed for continuance to August 30, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on 2a

ACTION: Continued to September 6, 2007

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

ABSENT: Antonini

3. 2006.1354D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1166 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Baker and Lyon Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 1235 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.19.5970 to install a below-grade garage to create approximately eight off-street parking spaces for a building containing twelve units located in an RM-1 (Mixed, Low Density) and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to September 27, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Antonini

4. 2006.0847D (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

2071 43rd AVENUE – west side between Quintara Street and Pacheco Street; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 2163 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.23.5225, proposing construction of a third-story horizontal and vertical addition to a two story dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

Proposed for Continuance to September 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Antonini

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

5. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 19, 2007.

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 14, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Antonini

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 Moore

- I want to acknowledge Director Macris' letter to the Commission regarding Department's comments on the regulations of parking space ordinance initiative that is on the Fall ballot.

- I consider the Department assessment extremely important and hope that it will be widely discussed with SPUR and for the benefit of the public.

- We are stepping into very dangerous territory even pursuing this to put the initiative on the ballot.

- Your really extensive work getting into the details is very much appreciated and I hope the public will find a way to read your comments.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I would like to thank Moses Corrette a preservation staff member in the department for giving us the documents that were presented to the Landmarks Board with respect of the historic survey process.

- Secondly, I do not know if I brought up this before but in the Hayes Valley voice there is a news item with respect of UC Extension and some kind of community needs assessment that is being prepared by some consultant.

- It is unclear to me who in the city is involved with this particular consulting process that is contracted out to some professor at San Francisco State in the Department of Recreation and Business Studies.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- I could respond to that. The department has laid out a small contract with the State University.

- This is a request of Supervisor Mirkarimi's Office and the community that we need some more information on how the community facility can be programmed, maintained and sustained over the years if such a community facility is proposed in the final project.

Commissioner Sugaya

- There is a notice for a Neg. Dec. at 3052 Pacific that is considered to be a historic resource, yet there is an extensive amount of modifications being proposed to this building including the replacement of almost every exterior window.

- One of the Landmark Board members brought up this issue yesterday. The answer that she was giving said that it was okay because you could not see the building from the street because of landscaping. It does not seem to be a very good explanation.

- I would like MEA and the City Attorney' office to explain the parameters under which historic resources are evaluated; the relationship to CEQA; and the visibility right of way.

Commissioner Olague

- I received and email about the Transbay Transit Center. I see that we are going to have a presentation on August 6 but I just feel that we are out of the loop, probably not intentionally, of what is really going on with the Transbay.

- I get more information from the media and my emails than I do from the department.

- I am wondering if there is a possibility of scheduling a hearing, or during Director's Report at this informational meeting on what is being planned there.

- I am getting from everywhere else but here.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- We have scheduled a hearing for next week. It is calendared as an informational presentation.

- I am going to give you a quick brief today under Director's report on what we have been doing since the last time we spoke with you.

Commissioner Olague

- A couple of weeks ago in the Bay Guardian, there was an article on a Board of Appeals project at 10th and Market and I would like to give this to the Department's staff. Maybe Mr. Nikitas can give a written response to this.

- I have not had a chance to watch the hearing.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I did review that and the article seems negligent to mention that the project has been before this Commission.

- It seems to take on the flavor that the Department was doing something without the Commission's knowledge because the article never mentioned that the project had an extensively review during at least two hearing in front of this Commission.

Commissioner Olague

- It also made some comments about 309 notices and exceptions and that sort of thing. If you could elaborate about that it would be good.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I believe that is also before the Board of Appeals in the last week of August. We will be representing and we will be happy to respond with a memorandum to you.

Commissioner Olague

- Last week I requested some information about the Eastern Neighborhoods and I am going to request to receive that report before the August 30th hearing.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We are working on that and I am going to be unable to do that because what you have asked for is very extensive and we are struggling exactly how to respond.

Commissioner Olague

- I would like to even add to that a better understanding of how the department applies the Eastern Neighborhood policies that [Supervisor] Maxwell and others are passing at the Board of Supervisors.

Commissioner Moore

- I have an additional comment on the upcoming presentation for Transbay. I personally expect the Commission to be invited to attend and that indeed we would be guaranteed to seat inside the meeting. There would be a large number of people attending.

- We have not been involved in looking over your shoulder on this project. We fully understand what the intent is and particularly that we would be looking at the general area plan which will be developed for the surrounding area.

- It is the meeting for Tuesday at 4p.m. It was publicly announced.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- Next week, per your request, we will have an informational presentation on the Transbay project. We are now calling it the Transit Center District Plan.

- We will at that time discussed with you in great detail what we propose in that work-scope with the Transit Center District Plan.

- In the meanwhile, I could give you a quick update on what we have been doing since the last time we talked to you in February of this year or you may wait for the presentation.

- I just wanted to let you know that on a separate track from what we are doing, the TJP has been moving forward on its design competition for the Transit Tower.

- There are three teams that have proposed. Our jury is now evaluating the proposals and that is the reason Mr. Macris is not here because he seats on the jury.

- Next Monday at 6p.m. in the Board Chamber in City Hall, each of the competition teams will give a brief public presentation of their proposal.

- You are all invited and we will talk to you about the details of how you can attend.

- In February when we made the last presentation, it was a morning session and we gave you a lengthy presentation and discussion on the ideas that were generated by the Transportation and Transbay Inter-agency working group.

- The department tended to move forward with what was then called the Transit District Plan. Also, the 4th and King rear yard study. There were two separate scopes.

- At that time, staff distributed to the Commission a Planning Department Transit Center and 4th Street and King rear-yard plan RFP; The TJP Transit Center and Tower competition introduction and over view; The Transbay Center competition manual; the Transbay Center RFP scope definitions; and the report contained in the Executive summary.

- Since that time, we have been engaged in selecting consultants and issuing an RFP. We have reissued an RFP that had to be canceled because of some technical conflict of interest difficulties that we ran into.

- We have now engaged an economic consultant to provide an economic analysis and demand forecast for the Transit District.

- We have initiated a number of other consultants including an EIR contract to run concurrently with the planning effort; a technical shadow analysis, historic preservation analysis and other technical analysis that do not really rely upon our figuring out the physical land use and height proposal that will be coordinated later on also with the EIR.

- On July 25th, the department conducted an initial meeting to discuss the plan with the public. It was held at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and was very well attended.

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

Anmarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

- Second hearing on the Eastern Neighborhoods. Emphasis was on transportation.

Full Board

A- Negative Declaration Appeal of 3400 Cesar Chavez. The Conditional Use was not appealed to the Board. Affirmed the mitigated negative declaration

B- 2nd reading of the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements sponsored by Supervisor Sandoval. It would establish minimum qualifications for firms that market below market rate units. Passed.

C- Urgency Ordinance approving an interim zoning moratorium on installation of microcell equipment for at least 45 days sponsored by Supervisor Peskin. Continue to August 14.

D- Cat. Ex appeal for the Citywide Wireless Broadband Internet Access Ordinance. The Board heard public comments and continued to September 11th.

E- Landmark Designation Appeal for the U.C. Extension Center at 55 Laguna. Continued to August 14th at 3pm.

Budget and Finance Committee

A- Mills Act Contract Approval for 1735 Franklin Street. Advanced to the full Board.

Introductions of new legislations:

A- Interim zoning controls requiring conditional use authorization for new developments in Bernal Heights Brewster/Joy Neighborhood sponsored by Supervisor Amiano.

B- Urging resolution to restore two-way traffic on Hayes Street introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi.

C- Resolution initiating the designation of 194 Church Street as a Landmark presented by Supervisors Dufty, McGoldrick, and Ammiano.

Board of Appeals report given by the Zoning Administrator

A- 943 Church Street – Discretionary Review.

Permit was suspended by Zoning Administrator and DBI. Letter did not get to the applicant in a timely manner for them to appeal and they requested that the Board of Appeals take late jurisdiction. Project Sponsor said that one of the reasons they did not get the letter was because it was sent to the project site rather than the business center. Staff was not in opposition to granting jurisdiction. Vote: +3 -1.

At the Board of Appeals, it takes four votes to overturn a decision. It was unclear as a procedural issue and Commissioner Garcia asked that there be a clarification. It may be brought back.

B- 2616 Irving Street and 415 Castro Street – Quicklys. They are formula retail. The one on Irving Street was in operation prior to the adoption of Proposition G that made all of them conditional uses and necessary to comply with the formula retail requirements. The project sponsor had a health permit but never took out referrals or building permits.

We issued a notice of violation to require them to come in for conditional use to legalize it. Upheld +4 -0. You will see conditional use on that.

The one on Castro Street was sort of the same thing. It violates the formula retail but because in the Castro neighborhood commercial district fast food is not permitted. It cannot be legalized as a small self service use. The appellant argued that they were lied to at the Department of Health and did not receive accurate information regarding permitting uses. Continued to October 24th to discuss possible options.

C- 244 32nd Avenue – Discretionary Reviewed case approved on 4/18/07. The Board flipped the deck minimizing the impact on the appellant.

D- 3099 22nd Avenue – Subdivision case where the property was divided into five properties. I issued a determination that the individual project would be subject to the inclusionary housing requirement that defines the housing project as a series of individual projects when there are five/four generally at one time. If they are going to divide up projects in certain ways that would bring them in under the threshold and obviously create subsequent serial projects or multi-phase projects they should apply for that. We are trying to apply this retroactively. We need to have a more defined policy on what subdivisions are subject to to start a process.

9. 2007.0529I (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX – INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN - Zoning Administrator announcement of the receipt of the University of Phoenix Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The Planning Commission has the discretion under Planning Code Section 304.5(d), to hold or not hold a public hearing on an Abbreviated IMP. If the Commission requested a hearing, it would be scheduled for a later date. The University of Phoenix's Abbreviated IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department's website.

Preliminary Recommendation: Commission not hold a public hearing

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 9, 2007

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

ABSENT: Antonini

10. 2004.0339C (Tape IA) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1800 Van Ness Avenue - northeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Clay Street; Assessor's Block 0619, Lots 009 & 010 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Planning Code Sections 253.2, 303, 304 and 306 proposing to demolish an existing two-story commercial building (currently occupied by Kinko's) and to construct an 8-story, 62-unit mixed-use building with up to 82 parking spaces and approximately 5,100 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, located in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Note: 1754 Clay Street, Lot 10, is a through lot which also fronts onto Washington Street.

NOTE: This case was approved with conditions (+6-0) on January 25, 2007. At that time, the Commission requested an update of the project once a 5-foot setback was provided along a portion of the upper two floors at the Clay Street facade.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: No Action required by the Commission. Information only.

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

Joe Alioto

- I am here to give an update on the 770 Powel Street property.

- The site permit given four years ago has expired by law on January 23 of this year.

- I sent a letter to the Director to actually expedite that permit on the 28th of May. I forwarded some information to you in the last couple of days to these regards. On July 2nd, I received a response from the Director.

- If you remember a week before that, this Commission met on June 26 and actually requested that the Director and Zoning Administrator specifically not act on this particular property.

- On July 2nd, the Director [of Building Inspection] sent a letter basically giving the property owners an extension to file for an extension to the site permit that the Director acknowledges that the site permit was expired.

- However, there is no basis in law for allowing the party to file for an extension of an extension or for an expansion on the site permit that has already expired.

- I am very concerned about this act. The property owner was given until July 29th to file for this extension and I am not familiar if that extension has being granted or requested.

- I have copies of my appeal to the Building Inspection Commission on the Director's particular decision because that is the proper venue for that.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR (Tape IA)

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.

11a. 2006.0106CV (Tape IA) (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

473 Eucalyptus Drive (St. Stephens) - south side between 20th and 21st Avenues, Assessor's Block 7295 Lot 011 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 209.3(g) and 209.3(j) to expand an existing church and Elementary School with the expansion of the gym/multi-purpose facility in an RH-1 (D), Residential House, One Family Detached and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17468

11b. 2006.0106CV (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

473 Eucalyptus Drive (St. Stephens) - south side between 20th and 21st Avenues, Assessor's Block 7295 Lot 011 - Request for Variance from the standards for rear yards in Planning Code Section 134, to allow a rear yard of 10 feet 5 inches where a rear yard of 27.5 feet is required in an RH-1 (D), Residential House, One Family, Detached and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Zoning Administrator granted the variance subject to the standard conditions of approval.

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

12a. 2006.1273EKBX (Tape IA; IB) (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

535 MISSION STREET - south side between 1st and 2nd Street, Lots 68 and 83 in Assessor's Block 3721- Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions to setback and separation of towers, ground level wind currents, and bulk requirements, for the construction of a 27-story (plus mechanical penthouse), approximately 380-foot tall building containing approximately 293,760 square feet of office space, approximately 3,700 square feet of retail space, and approximately 12,600 square feet of parking on one underground level, with approximately 32 parking spaces using valet operation. The Project also includes approximately 6,000 square feet of open space in a combination of exterior open space, interior greenhouse and improvements to Shaw Alley. This project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District, Transbay C-3 Special Use District, and is within a 550-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jim Reuben, Project Sponsor Representative

- As you heard, this is the first LEED project coming to the Planning Commission and we are very proud of that.

- This is also a Redevelopment project in the Transbay project area. We have worked very closely with the Redevelopment staff especially at the ground level and they authorized us to tell you they are supportive of the project.

- Lastly, it is a very contemporary cool design and I am proud to be associated with that design and we did not have to go to Paris, Spain or New York to find the designer for this project, we found one right here in San Francisco.

Ali Mohad, Architect

- The project is in the downtown financial district of San Francisco. The site is right at Mission and Minna between First and Second streets.

- This 27 story building is comprised of one basement with parking and about 3,700 square feet for retail predominantly on Mission Street to activate pedestrian improvement.

- The mechanical penthouse would be on the top.

- There are three important issues about this building: location, pedestrian improvement to the Transbay area and how everything is going to look once it is completed.

- At the ground level, we tried to come up with a scheme that engages the office lobby with the short alley that connects Mission to Minna Street.

- The lobby is all glass with plant trees to give a level of comfort and public art work on the public open spaces.

Sue Hestor

- The new style you have does not give upfront the introduction information that is basic like how many square feet and what the exceptions are.

- The staff report should give you upfront all the information that you need to know when you start reading.

- Second, the have placed the open space on the south side. What is the effect on other projects that are built to the south of it on the open space?

- What are we getting in terms of quality open space?

ACTION: Approved as amended by staff and including a finding that the sponsor should attempt to maximize sunlight and staff should provide the Commission with a memorandum approximately six months after opening informing them of the use status of the outdoor seating area

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17469

12b. 2006.1273EKBX (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

535 MISSION STREET - south side between 1st and 2nd Street, Lots 68 and 83 in Assessor's Block 3721 – Request under Planning Code Section 321 for approval and Determination of Compliance for the construction of a 27-story (plus mechanical penthouse), approximately 380-foot tall building containing approximately 293,760 square feet of office space, approximately 3,700 square feet of retail space, and approximately 12,600 square feet of parking on one underground level, with approximately 32 parking spaces using valet operation. The Project also includes approximately 6,000 square feet of open space in a combination of exterior open space, interior greenhouse and improvements to Shaw Alley. This project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District, Transbay C-3 Special Use District, and is within a 550-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a.

ACTION: Approved as amended by staff and including a finding that the sponsor should attempt to maximize sunlight and staff should provide the Commission with a memorandum approximately six months after opening informing them of the use status of the outdoor seating area

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17470

13. 2007.0246C (Tape IB) (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

1326 Polk Street - east side between Pine and Bush Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0668 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a financial service (dba  CitiFinancial Services, Inc. ) of approximately 1755 square feet within the vacant, existing ground-floor commercial space. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. Financial services that will be offered at this site include home mortgages, personal loans and automotive loans. This site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Vesa Becam, City Financial Representative

- I am available to respond to any direct question you may have about their activities or what they might bring to the community.

ACTION: Approved as amended through the errata sheet provided by staff:

-The existing storefront configurations and fenestration on both street frontages as well as the unpainted brick exterior and cornice shall be preserved.

-The existing prism glass transom windows shall be retained and repaired as necessary.

-If the existing wood doors and windows need replacement in the future, replacement shall be in-kind in terms of appearance and materials.

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17471

14. 2007.0514T (S. EXLINE: (415) 558-6332)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 315/Inclusionary Housing: Alternative Rehabilitation for Rental - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly as part of Board File No. 070444 that would amend portions of the Planning code to allow a new alternative to meet the requirements of the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing ordinance by allowing payment to a nonprofit to acquire and rehabilitate units for permanent affordable rental housing if the number of units is 25% greater than the amount provided under the existing off-site alternative.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 6, 2007

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

ABSENT: Antonini

15. 2006.0157C (Tape IB) (G. Cabreros: (415) 558-6169)

21 WOOD STREET - west side between Lupine Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1069 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the demolition of a single-family house and the construction of a new two-family building, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors' interim zoning controls requiring conditional use authorization for the demolition of a residential structure. This site is located within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Alec Birga, Project Sponsor

- I believe we have met your concerns from June 28th and I am ready to answer any questions you may have.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17472

16. 2007.0283D (G. Cabreros: (415) 558-6169)

2136 hayes street - north side between Cole and Shrader Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 1193 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.09.06.1523, proposing construction of a 21-foot deep rear addition and roof dormers at the existing four-story-plus-attic, three-unit building in RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 6, 2007

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

ABSENT: Antonini

17. 2007.0052D (Tape IB; IIA) (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

45 ALVISO STREET - west side between Estero and Holloway Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6926 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.08.4063, proposing construction of a third-story vertical addition, a two-foot horizontal side extension and an eight-foot horizontal rear addition to a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Susan McDonald, 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

- Our position has been modified somewhat since we last spoke to Ms. Conner, but we are still making this request today.

- This project presents extraordinary issues with the collective experience that we all have on the public streets of San Francisco but this time it is in the neighborhood context to preserve its character.

- They are moving the first and second floor 8 feet toward us because they are moving their garage forward.

- We can accept the 4-feet and 6-inch set back at the rear elevation rather than 8 foot.

- We can accept the vertical extension because we understand the need of their family and the 8 foot horizontal extension across the back of the property and the idea of the third floor.

- We think there is still some more room for compromise.

- We have two requests: 1) a 4 feet set back at the left or southern elevation; and 2) set back on the second floor.

- The public policy issue is one of massing scale. This is a big project.

- The project would overwhelm other buildings on the block and the rear neighbor.

- A building should be designed to compliment the other buildings on the block, not to stand out.

- The project, as revised, is still 5,074 square feet. Even with the revisions that they made, this project would have an extraordinary impact on the visual character.

William Corbet-Jones

- One person who signed the support for the enlargement project was my wife who cannot be here today.

- She never was for the project but felt that the issue was to be a good neighbor and staying on a friendly relation with the people on 45 Alviso Street.

- It is understandable that this family wishes to add rooms to their house but we strongly oppose the third story.

- If permitted to build up, it would destroy the beauty of the block and set a precedence that equal of larger houses can and will be built.

Lannie

- Our reason for even being here today is the fact that all of us have the opportunity to be heard and I like the idea that all parties involved are talking to each other.

- The logical thing to do, in my opinion, is to where possible try to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

Norman

- I am a very concerned neighbor. We live behind this project. Project sponsors were always willing to hear us.

- My family uses the yard all the time and we feel like they would be looking right down onto us.

- I am very concern about this monster home. It does not make any sense.

Dennis Weaver, 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

- I just want to reiterate our appreciation to our neighbors and we do support them. We have worked with them.

- Only last week they came in with a new plan and we have not had discussion since that plan was presented.

- We have two small requests: 1) a small set back on the south side of the third floor; and 2) reduce the extension of the garage to make it one floor instead of two.

- These are two minor requests that we think will have a significant impact upon our environment.

Rosina Tong, Project Sponsor

- We have three children that attend public schools in the city.

- The five of us share one bathroom. Mornings are especially difficult in preparing for school and work.

- We are adding an additional car space because our cars have been broken in three times in the past four years.

- The initial plan had the additional garage on the rear but we moved it to the front to honor a neighbor's concern.

- For the last two years, we ensured that the neighbors and the Planning Department would be involved in the planning right from the beginning.

- We have been sensitive and responsive to neighbors' concerns.

- We have made numerous revisions and have further reduced our project because of the concern of mass, scale and articulation.

- There was a similar project that came before the Commission and was approved on February 8th of this year. The concept of neighborhood has a broader definition.

- There are many two and three story homes randomly throughout Ingleside Terraces.

- We are not impacting air and light. The front and rear set back on the third floor creates much articulation.

- In response to the discretionary review requestor, we have modified our plans to show wood windows and raise stucco bench trims throughout the front, back and sides of the home.

Toto

- I live next door of the proposed project and am in support of it.

- This family has three children which makes a total of five people in a small place bringing much difficulty for the use of the one bathroom.

Vinidhin

- We raised our family in our home at 55 Alviso Street and we see the need for more space for a growing family.

- Our neighborhood is very special. You see many examples of big houses right next to small houses.

- Allow the Tam's family to have the addition to their house.

Briana Tom

- I visit my sister frequently. It is clear that they need more space and more bathrooms.

- It would be nice if the kids had their own rooms for more privacy.

- We gather once a week for dinner at my other sister's or my parents house but we hardly ever gather at Regina's house because of the lack of space.

- The proposed addition would make their house more functional.

Silvia Lew

- The Tam's has a family of five and they need a bigger home to accommodate their family's needs.

- The proposed project is in no way exceptional or extraordinary. I have seen the plans.

- The Tam's have made every effort to comply with the neighbors and the Ingleside Terrace Home Owners Association requests.

- Many houses in the Ingleside Terrace Neighborhood are as big as or even bigger than the proposed project.

John Lau, Designer

- I am here to answer any questions or concerns from the Commission.

- Thanked the Home Owner Association, Norma, for working with us for eighteen months.

David Wang

- The Ingleside Terrace is a gem for its uniqueness. Many people have spoken saying that there are small and big homes throughout the whole area.

- I am totally supportive of Victor and Rosina especially for the size of the family they have and the current condition.

- We are fortunate enough today that we are actually home owners within the San Francisco area.

Victor Tam, Owner/Project Sponsor

- This project is in no way exceptional or extraordinary to our neighborhood.

- Ingleside Terrace is a special place because of its distinction and uniqueness of each home. I like preserving the characteristic of our neighborhood too.

- Our family's intention to expand our home is to provide a comfortable and livable space for all five people within these boundaries.

- Our plan has four bedrooms of modest size and two bathrooms upstairs. Our family finds the design beautiful and we are looking forward to living in our new remodeled home.

- We have 28 signatures of support from neighbors throughout the neighborhood. 21 of these signatures are from homes on our two block streets of Alviso.

- We have also numerous letters of support.

- We have worked very hard for the last two years trying to work with the Planning Department, the Association and the neighbors in making our project functional for our family and acceptable in our neighborhood.

- Our project complies with the design review guidelines as well as the ITHA guidelines [Ingleside Terrace Homeowner Association].

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as revised.

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

NAYES: Moore

ABSENT: Antonini

18. 2007.0306DD (Tape IIA; IIB) (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

9 Douglass Street - east side between 17th Street, State Street, and Ord Court; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 2623 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2007.01.11.1515, proposing construction of a 2-story horizontal and vertical addition to the rear of the subject 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 as proposed.

SPEAKERS

Morgan Hall, 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

- We feel that the proposed addition would be a significant detriment to the neighborhood. It is out of scale with the modest Victorian cottage fabric of the neighborhood.

- It is going to significantly reduce the amount of light to the adjacent neighbors and as well will compromising privacy.

- The primary fabric of the neighborhood is two stories at the front or one story over garage and a single story at the rear.

- The character is such that to the north, west and east are hills. The only opportunity for any kind of solar exposure is from the south.

- The proposed addition is two-story unarticulated at either side to the property line with no set back and has a 4-foot extension to the kitchen at the ground floor with a second floor deck.

- The addition impacts the available sunlight to 5 Douglass quite extensively to the point that it will not receive winter direct sunlight to their window.

- 5 and 15 Douglass have their own side yard set backs and light wells.

- Ms. Cameron, who lives at 15 Douglass, from their dining room 3 and a half foot light well, she will be faced with a 29 foot tall wall.

- The addition is out of scale and interferes with the mid-block open space.

- The second story deck affects the privacy of the rear yard of the adjacent neighbor. Currently everybody is fairly private from each other.

- It is not an asset to the neighborhood and it is quite disruptive for the quality in the neighborhood.

- In the petition letter to the neighbors, the owner states  I need your support to support this petition to allow me to renovate my home in a thoughtful and responsible way'

- Depriving one neighbor of all afternoon light is not responsible. It is compromising the privacy of both neighbors.

Laurel Riordan, 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

- I live on the north side and we will be impacted with the proposed addition loosing light and air.

- Change is usually good when all can benefit from it but in this situation only Mr. Nathanson will benefit.

- It would have a negative impact on our lives and our neighborhood. Light and air are very important for our lives, health and well being.

- We will be loosing light in our kitchen, light and air from our rear bedroom, and our only bathroom.

- The design does not enhance the charm of this lovely Victorian and adds no flavor to our small cottage neighborhood.

Michael Lerner

- We are not against change or development. The street has gone under a great deal of change and not once we have ever challenged a single project.

- We do oppose a project that is out of scale with the neighborhood and that would degrade the quality of life for all the long term residents of the block.

- Our challenge to this project is based on the desire to conserve and protect the unique character of our neighborhood. This is our civic responsibility.

- There is overwhelming opposition on Douglass Street to the current plans. There has been no dialogue on this issue. We have signed letters asking for community mediation.

Georgia Heise

- Although this project will not affect my property, it will have an adverse affect on our neighborhood on the fabric, scale and the hill side nature of the small cottages.

- I am concern about the dominant effect that this type of development has on the character of a neighborhood.

- I support the request to enter into community mediation.

David Cannon

- I live in mortal terror of someone putting a second story or some kind of obstruction that is going to affect my house.

- I am here to support my neighbors and say that we have to be responsible about what goes on in our neighborhood.

- It is totally inappropriate and there should be a kind of mediation that San Francisco really means to protect its architectural character.

- This is about consideration of the people that are close to you.

Stephen Haigh

- I am here representing myself. I have looked at this project and it could be comprised in a way to be acceptable to the neighbors.

- It is too large and obstructs light and air.

- I think it could be possible to move it forward and still retain the Victorian façade and give the neighboring homes the light and air they need.

Elsa Cameron

- I am asking on behalf of 14 of the neighbors that you encourage the applicant to go for mediation.

- There are 18 homes in this area and all of them would be affected by this project. 16 are requesting the Planning Commission help us to get modifications to the project.

- We believe that if it is allowed to proceed in the present format we will have a negative impact on the character and history of our neighborhood.

James

- When I look from my door on my balcony, I will see a huge box sitting in my view. I know view means nothing, but for me it will be like taking out my air.

- The people supporting their project are people that do not live in the neighborhood and it would not affect them.

Laurence Nathanson, Owner/Project Sponsor

- I bought the home a year and a half ago and intent to live in the home for the rest of my life.

- 75 percent of the homes on the street are two stories above the garage. My home is currently one story with one bedroom, 885 square feet making it the smallest house on the street.

- My architect designed a very modest second story addition that allows for a master suite and a tiny 59 square foot office upstairs and an expanding kitchen living space downstairs.

- The second story will be just over 557 square feet with an 8 foot ceiling height. We will be adding 135 square feet to the kitchen downstairs by enclosing a patio within the allowable building area.

- The only expansion at the back of the house would be from a 4 foot pop-up of 50 square feet with a deck above it on the second floor.

- We have agreed to incorporate a 5 foot set back on either side of this pop-up to minimize impacts to my neighbors.

- After consulting with planning staff about the possible historic value of the existing structure, we decided to follow the national historic guidelines for the restoration of historic homes.

- We put the addition as far to the rear of the house as possible to minimize visual impact on the historic structure from the street.

- The addition only affects light to the rear home to the north of my property. It is only really notable in the winter afternoons. It would not affect direct sunlight from Spring to Fall.

- With regards the mid-block open space, the addition does not significantly reduced the existing pattern as my back yard will still provide a depth.

- 70 neighbors signed my petition including 10 on Douglass, specifically stating that they do not want to see the front of my house impacted by the addition.

- I kept an open dialogue with my neighbors throughout this process: meetings, phone calls and correspondence by letters or email.

- I made ten concessions to my original plans in order to mitigate light/privacy concerns including change in the roof, re-orienting a side balcony and views to the rear and implementing property line setbacks for the rear pop-up.

Joel Karr, Architect

- We feel that this is a very responsible addition. We are not building a mansion and in fact it is the smallest house on the block.

- In terms of light and air and privacy, the fact is that neither of the neighbor's houses gets any winter afternoon sun at all because they face west.

- 75 percent of these buildings are two stories above the garage within that block.

- The fact is that the house sits on a deep hill affecting the building scale from the perspective as it goes lower on the hill.

- The Victorian character and maintaining the historic integrity of the existing building was considered very important from the very beginning by my client.

- We felt that in response in the planning staff recommendation it was extremely important to keep the addition to the rear in order to minimize the visual impact on that Victorian structure.

- Regarding the mid-block open space, there is no variance for this project because the little pop-up on the back is allowable under the current code.

John Redmond

- I realized that I needed to take into consideration my neighbor's need to make this house livable and enjoyable for himself.

- I thought that I needed to look at this project of what he is trying to do and how it fits with the neighborhood.

- This is a very, very small house and I can see why someone would want to make it larger.

- The addition seems to be very well thought out and is not extraordinary or an out of character addition.

- It is positive to the neighborhood to have this improvement done to the house.

ACTION: Took DR & approved with an amendment to remove or relocate the toilet room (+/- 3.6' x 7.2') on the top floor.

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

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Antonini

19. 2007.0531D (Tape IIB) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

230 11TH STREET- southwest corner of Howard and Kissling Streets; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 3516 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Sections 816.23 and 890.133, requiring review of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCDs), of Building Permit Application 2007.0319.6634, to maintain operation of an existing MCD (d.b.a.  The green Cross ). The property is located within the SLR (Service / Light Industrial Residential Mixed) Use District, the Western SOMA Special Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Joseph Elford – Representative for Kevin Reed and the green Cross

- This Commission is familiar with the efforts of the Green Cross to find a home.

- Kevin Reed decided to open up his home as a home base for the Green Cross as a delivery service.

- Delivery service has a lot of benefits that a store front does not have. Primarily, it could be done in a way that would not have a significant impact on the neighbors.

- More importantly, it will allow the chronically ill who are immobile to get the medicine they need to alleviate their symptoms.

- The Green Cross by delivery services will help seriously ill people get the medicine they need.

- Kevin Reed has gone above and beyond in his effort to comply with every regulation passed in the State of California and in the City. He has applied for every permit needed.

- He is very active in the medical marijuana community. He is very well supported by the community and there is no opposition to his project.

- People in the building and the neighborhood support this.

Nati Ramirez

- We are dealing with a medical cannabis facility two and a half blocks away from where I live.

- The South of Market area is heavily populated with people and there are safety concerns and concerns with an increase in criminal activities.

- We also have businesses in that area.

- If this is going to be opened, it is hopefully he will take into consideration concerns of our neighborhood.

Kevin Reed

- I just learned about Ms. Ramirez' concerns and we responded immediately.

- I gave her my card and phone number and invited her to come to visit any time that she feels necessary.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved with the standard conditions of approval.

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

ASENT: Antonini

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

Michael Aldrich

- Thanked the Commission for doing the right thing for all the people in District 2 and the City.

Adjournment: 5:48 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, August 30, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

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 10:00:29 PM