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

April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 10, 2008

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:43 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Anmarie Rodgers, Scott Sanchez, Craig Nikitas, Sharon Young, Edgar Oropeza, Daniel Sider, Devyani Jain, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Erika Jackson, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commissionwill 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. 2005.1066E (D. LEWIS: (415) 575-9095)

2800 SLOAT BOULEVARD- north side of Sloat, between 46th and 47th Avenues, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2515 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project proposing the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and a 34-space parking lot, and the construction of three new mixed-use, five-story, 60-foot-tall buildings totaling approximately 120,000 gross square feet (gsf). The project would include 56 dwelling units, approximately 23,000 gsf of ground-floor commercial uses, and 93 off-street parking spaces. The three existing commercial buildings on the project site proposed for demolition include a retail shop (Aqua Surf Shop), restaurant/café (John's Ocean Beach Café), and a motel (Robert's Motel). The project site is within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and a 100-A height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 14, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2008.0274D (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

736 VALENCIA STREET- west side, between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 3588 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application number 2006.02.08.4114. The proposal is to construct a new mixed-use building containing 8 dwelling units with commercial space and 8 off-street parking spaces on the ground floor. The applicant requests that the Planning Commission remove the springing condition requiring community impact fees and BMR units that was previously imposed on the project. The subject property is located within the Valencia NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and remove the springing condition.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2008) Moved to the end of the calendar

3. 2004.1245E (N. TURRELL: (415) 575-9047)
300 Grant Avenue
(aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - Assessor's Block 0287, Lots 013, 014 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 10,500 square-foot project site is located at 300 Grant Avenue (aka 272-290 Sutter Street) on the northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street in the Financial District neighborhood. The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings containing approximately 35,600-square feet of retail space and construction of an approximately 114,354 gross square foot, 12-story, 130-foot tall building containing up to 56 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail space, and 34 to 40 off-street parking spaces. The retail entrance to the proposed project would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street, while the residential lobby entrance would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Harlan Place. Access to the parking garage would be from Harlan Place off Grant Avenue. The site is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail) within an 80-130-F height and bulk district, and the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 6, 2007)

NOTE: On July 12, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to uphold the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) by a vote of +2 -4, the motion failed. Commissioner S. Lee was excused. The Commission continued the matter to September 6, 2007 by a vote +5 -1,

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 21, 2008)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance to May 15, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Sue Hestor

- This item was proposed for continuance indefinitely and now is saying to May 15; if it is being continued to that date, all the materials should be in the Department and they are not.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4a. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street)- northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for review under Planning Code ("Code") Section 309 of the construction of a new, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage, requiring the authorization of exceptions to Code standards for height above 80 feet, building bulk, rear yard, and off-street parking, as well as the granting of Variances of Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 21, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 15, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 3

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4b. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street)- northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in conjunction with the construction of a new, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 21, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 15, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 3

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS - Discussion and possible action to amend the Commission's Rules and Regulations to address imposing time constraints on submittal of documents and material for review by the Commission and the public; discuss and possibly establish rules or policies that address other areas of interest of the Commission.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2007)

(NOTE: At the Regular Meeting of April 3, 2008, following testimony and Commission' discussion, the Commission continued this matter to April 17, 2008.)

6. 2008.0025D (S. PERDUE; (415) 558-6625)

30 WOODLAND AVENUE- east side between Parnassus Avenue and Willard Street; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 2630 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.06.29.5640, proposing to install dormers at the roof of a three-story, two-unit building within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

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

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Item taken out of order and considered with the continuances at the beginning of the calendar

7. ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT: The Commission may take action to elect a Vice President to complete the one-year term (through 2008) with the ability to continue to hold office as the Commission's Rules and Regulations and the Charter allows.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 27, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to May 15, 2008

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

8. Commission Comments/Questions (Tape IA)

  • . Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • . 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

- In the Examiner, there was an editorial that referred to the City Commission study and dealt with the 2007 USA census.

- I'd like to get a copy for the Commissioners because I think it is very insightful.

- There have been a number of reports about this study and the most noticeable one was a comment by the Mayor where he says that San Francisco's population was undercounted by about 100,,000 and this study supports reasons to believe that is true.

- Of equal importance was the fact that the study indicated that huge amounts of money was being spent by San Franciscans outside of San Francisco.

- It also looks particularly at what had been historically the 12 lowest income neighborhoods.

- Something interesting about the study is that the median income of these neighborhoods had increased between 2000 and 2007.

- It shows particular areas of need for grocery services and banking.

- I think that educational process studies should get as much exposure as possible because it brings some very good points in.

- This is an important subject and I would like to see that study.

Commissioner Moore

- I would like to comment on an article about the progress report on Sea Wall Lot 377. I am delighted to see a direction emerging that I think is very urban and has a lot of promise.

- I was surprised about the diverse points presented and what is now shaping out. It is very promising.

- Director Rahaim sits on the review panel and I am very encouraged by seeing that as the first result coming out of this participation.

Commissioner W. Lee

- I read the SPUR Newsletter this past month that said that the Planning, Building, Fire and Health Departments work together to streamline the process for restaurants.

- I was wondering if the Director could give us a sense of the accomplishments. Is it actually faster if you would open a restaurant in the City? What changes were made to be more efficient in helping out project sponsors that want to open a restaurant?

- This year, 2008, we still have a lot of buildings that are under construction and I am really worried for 2009. I'd like staff to give a verbal report during Director's Report to let us know the major projects in the pipeline for 2009.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)

9. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim

- You will receive today the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan policy documents. We are proposing the plan for initiation next week.

- Secondly, the census report that Commissioner Antonini's mentioned: I understand that grew out of an interest in a market study for some part of the City. They discovered a couple of things about population in those areas. We are going to be working with the Mayor's Office of Community Development on that in figuring out what the reasonable count would be.

- Sea Wall Lot 337, just to let you know, there were originally four submissions that the advisory panel recommended and three of those go forward. I do not think there is any formal decision at this point.

- The pipeline projects report is being completed and we will be able to report on that in the next couple of weeks.

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

Anmarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

NONE

Full Board

  1. . This moratorium will allow additional study of the issue while Supervisor Sandoval considers permanent legislation. As an urgency ordinance, this item was not forwarded to the Commission for policy review. In the event that permanent controls are established, those would be heard by this Commission. Passed.
  2. . Sponsored by Supervisor Peskin. On March 25th, Supervisor Peskin introduced an amended ordinance that focused solely on the Excelsior area. Passed.
  3. . This legislation would establish numerical criteria to establish when a demolition had occurred and establish processes for reviewing the loss of a dwelling unit either by a Conditional Use for loss of 3 or more units, or by a Discretionary Review for loss less than 3 units.
  4. . This week the Committee considered amendments by the Board. Supervisors Peskin and Mirkarimi introduced amendments that would: (a) stipulate the participation of the Commission and Landmarks Board in further review of the project, (b) meet the criteria and apply to be certified as LEED project, (c) specifics on the amount of affordability, and (d) plan for UCSF to demonstrate within 5 years how they might relocate the dental school as well as changes to the amount of parking for the dental school.
  5. . This week was the Plan's first read. It will need a second read next week and the Mayor's signature before it can begin the final 30-day wait to become effective.
  6. :
    1. on the SFCTA's [San Francisco County Transportation Authority] 19th Avenue/Park Presidio Boulevard Transportation Plan Final Report.
    2. that would rezone 6 lots on Third and Mandell Streets from 105 feet to 55 feet.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals

  1. – Discretionary Review. This was a nine unit building filed before amendments to the 315 Ordinance had been made in 2006. The Planning Commission did not require any inclusionary housing under the ordinance. Two motions were made, first one for a monetary contribution towards affordable housing and the second to remove the fifth story of the building, and both failed.

11. (S. SANCHEZ (415) 558-6326)

ACADEMYOF ART UNIVERSITY ENFORCEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN UPDATE(IMP)- Informational presentation on the status of pending enforcement cases and preparation of IMP by the Academy of Art University. Item to be presented as new information is available.

SPEAKER(S)

John Bardis

- I really feel that this Department is not really enforcing the Institutional Mater Plan Ordinance.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational only

12. (Tape IA; IB) (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

UPDATE ON THE STATUS AND DESIGN OF THE SAN FRANCISCO CITY COLLEGE CHINATOWN – NORTH BEACH CAMPUS- Informational presentation

SPEAKER(S)

Jennifer Dublin

  1. - We are targeting a LEED gold building with the primary strategy maximizing daylight and recycling materials.

(-)Sue Hestor

(+)Jenny Lew

- The community has been following this very carefully and this has been under the scrutiny of former Director Macris.

- This is an elegant and visually exciting building without overstating any of the historic buildings.

(+)[No name stated]

- This building is a great, adding additional lighting to the City's skyline.

John Bardis

- City College has an Institutional Master Plan and you have a responsibility to look over this because if they do not comply with their obligations, you have tremendous resources where that compliance can be achieved.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational only

13. (Tape IB) (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS TO REQUIRE GREEN BUILDING FEATURES IN NEW CONSTRUCTION AND MAJOR ALTERATIONS - Informational presentation

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational only

D. GENERALPUBLIC 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.

SPEAKER(S)

Sue Hestor

- Asked the Commission or the Director to institute a written policy mandating that staff gives to any agency, with which it is in context on a project that would not have an environmental review done by Planning Department, the neighborhood and general notice lists that are used for every project that the Planning Department gives notice.

Harry Tomas

- Owners and tenants should get notices on constructions going on in their neighborhood.

John Bardis

- In the last three meetings I requested you to provide what would be the five major industries in San Francisco, hoping that staff could give you that information.

Douglass

- Suggested that for future major projects like the rebuilding of the San Francisco General Hospital, that part of the early permit process be an audit for any deficiencies and that they be rectified before the actual project is done.

E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED (Tape IB)

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKER(S)

(+)Cathy Post

- Ralph Lauren is very eager to become a part of the neighborhood and we have actively engaged the community and many are supporting it.

- We have reached an agreement regarding community benefits.

(+)Paul Wermer

- We have had very productive discussions with the representatives of Ralph Lauren and I urge you to reconsider the motion of intent to deny them the conditional use.

(+)Steven Vettel

14. 2007.1095C (Tape IB; IIA) (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

2040 FILLMORE STREET- east side between California and Pine Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 0653 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 703.4, 303(c), and 303(i) of the Planning Code to establish a Formula Retail Use in the Upper Fillmore 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  Smith & Hawken ) to another retail sales establishment (dba  Ralph Lauren , an apparel, and accessories store). The proposed retail 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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 3, 2008)

NOTE: On February 14, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove by a vote of +6 -1. Commissioner Antonini voted no. Final Language March 6, 2008.

NOTE: On March 6, 2008, without a hearing the Commission continued the matter to April 3, 2008 by a vote of +4 -2. Commissioners Moore and Sugaya voted no.

ACTION: Approved as amended requiring First Source Hiring and changes to the Findings:

Project Sponsor to work with two organizations on: Street Fairs, adopting a local high school to provide students with an opportunity to learn about potential career in fashion and retail industry, partnership with free alternative charitable program serving local community, commitment to a minimum of two annual in-shop events to raise funds for reputable non-profit organizations, having a local community board within the Fillmore area, offering the shop to the merchants and residents associations to meet at least in an annual basis, up to three times per calendar year and in conjunction with other retailers to be visible within shop remainders for events sponsored by the Fillmore Merchants Associations.

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

MOTION: 17578

Item taken out of order followed item 18

15. 2007.1359CE (Tape IIA; IIB) (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

1501 15th STREET (AKA 400 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE)- the southwest corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 15th Street; Lot 054 in Assessor's Block 3553 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 223(j) and 303 to allow the construction of a automobile wash, the proposed project is for the construction of a 32-foot tall, two-story commercial building, and under Planning Code Sections 228.3 and 303 to allow the conversion of a gasoline service station to another use, within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District, A 50-X Height and Bulk District and the proposed Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area.

Preliminary recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKER(S)

David Silverman, Project Sponsor Representative

- This project was very welcomed by the department from the beginning, and continued to be so until a week ago when the position of the department changed.

- The intent is to build an efficient environmentally friendly, green car wash using solar power and recycled water.

- Machinery [at the current site] is outdated and absolute. It is going to be shut down.

(-)Harry Thomas

- The project would increase traffic and noise. The chemicals would affect students from the elementary school close by as well as residents.

(-)Marc Glomb

- There are four garages with car wash in the neighborhood within four blocks. The proposed project would increase traffic and noise in a residential area.

(+)Tom Saberi, Project Sponsor

  1. - We purchased the building and started the process because we were told that the use was appropriate and that the City was supportive of it.
  2. - Denial would put our businesses, employees and their families in financial jeopardy.

(+)Allen Kipper

- I have worked for this company for seven years and hope the project is supported to save my job.

(+)Leticia Barrera

(+)Roy Castillo

- Requested approval for the new car wash for giving opportunities for new places to work.

(+)Kershaw Pracad

(+)Jim Meko

  1. - Everyone can learn to live together by putting the appropriate conditions on this.

ACTION: After public hearing, continued to May 1, 2008 to consider new information and explore other possibilities of mixed use on the lot.

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

16. 2008.0275I (Tape IIB; IIIA) (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

HEARINGON A REVISED INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN (IMP) FOR SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL- Generally located at 1001 Potrero Avenue, east side between 20th and 24th Streets; Assessor's blocks 4090, 4140, 4154, and 4213. SFGH proposes to revise the IMP currently on file with the Planning Department to reflect changes including the proposed design of a new acute care hospital, related campus master plan elements, and the replacement of existing emergency generators associated with the balance of the SFGH Campus. Pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5(e), a public hearing is required to solicit public comment on any proposed revision to an Institutional Master Plan. The property is in a P (Public) Use District and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action is required. This hearing is for the purpose of receiving Commission and public comment only.

SPEAKER(S)

Jean O'Connell, San Francisco General Hospital

- This is targeted for completion in 2010. The Environmental Impact Report is still in planning and the draft should come out in the summer.

- [Presentation of the project showing sections staying in the old building and which sections are being relocated in the new building]

- The helipad for the hospital would be located on the old building.

Stephen Murray

- I urge you to be skeptical about the plans for the helipad being anywhere because there is no need for it.

Karen Cliffe

- There is no need for a helipad because San Francisco General is designated to be a trauma center for adults and pediatrics.

Richard Katz

Bridget O'Rourke

- I'm against the helipad at the hospital because it is unnecessary and even redundant because of the existing helipads in the Bay Area.

Michelle Schoal

Loretta Lynch

Kat Podgornoff

Felario Salazar

Sue Hestor

Ezka

- Expressed support for the helipad and the hospital extension because noise is not as important as citizen's health.

Silvia Johnson

- There were not enough time to review the documents and the public tried to call and could not get answers.

Del Greger

- The helipad is intended for out of area patients and I questioned why that is appropriate for a city tax funded hospital and the need of it.

ACTION: Although no action is required from the Commission, from Commissioner's discussion, and particularly through the President, the IMP is accepted.

17. 2007.0603E (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (D. JAIN: (415) 575-9051)

San Francisco GeneralHospital (SFGH) Seismic Compliance Hospital Replacement Program- Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report- The project site is located at 1001 Potrero Avenue (Assessor's Block 4154, Lot 001). The proposed project involves the construction of a new approximately 422,144 gross-square-foot, 7-story-plus-2-basement-level, 284-bed, acute care hospital to comply with seismic safety requirements of Senate Bill 1953. The proposed new hospital would be constructed on the west lawn of the SFGH Campus, located along Potrero Avenue between Buildings 20 and 30. Acute care services currently located in the existing Main Hospital (Building 5) would be relocated to the new hospital, and the vacated space in the existing Main Hospital would be reused for non-acute care medical and administrative uses. The SFGH Campus, including the proposed new hospital site, is in a P (Public) Use District and a 105-E Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would require a Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) addressing height measurement modification, bulk, and parking, among other approvals.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action is required. This hearing is for the purpose of receiving Commission and public comment only.

SPEAKER(S)

Karen Cliffe

- This DEIR does not explain what is the standard or criteria imposed on the hospital to apply for variances on open space.

Richard Katz

Bridget O'Rourke

- More analysis is needed on all facts of the proposed construction phase into more details like how the asbestos is to be eliminated instead of mitigated.

Kat Podgornoff

  1. - It seems that a lot of scales do not match particularly with the noise level and that should be addressed.

Beth Brown

Del Greger

- There are some serious inadequacies in the analysis of alternative sites. For example, the lot adjacent to the current emergency department could be the site for the new building.

Michelle Schaul

- Concerned about traffic impacts with the existing very complicated busy intersection on 23rd and Potrero.

Loretta Lynan

- We are concerned with the inadequate data in the Institutional Master Plan and how it relates to the data in the DEIR.

Silvia Johnson

Felenzio Salazar

ACTION: This public hearing was to obtain the public's and commission comments only. No Action is required of the Commission. The Public Comment period ends on April 22, 2008

Item 18 was taken out of order and followed item 14

18. 2008.0103T (Tape IIA) (A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Requirements for off-street parking and loading [Board File 080095]- On January 15, 2008, Supervisor Peskin introduced an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 151 to reduce the required number of parking spaces for housing for seniors and physically handicapped persons, affordable housing, group housing, SRO units and residential care facilities; amending Section 154 to revise the minimum dimensions for off-street parking spaces, to encourage space-efficient parking and to no longer require independently accessible parking and define independently accessible parking to include parking accessed by automated garages or car elevators and valet parking; amending Section 155 to delete a requirement for independently accessible parking and require parking design to prevent bicycle and transit lane conflicts; amending Section 157 to provide for a demonstration that car-share parking cannot satisfy the need for non-accessory parking as a conditional use; amending Section 167 to provide for optional parking in all new residential buildings or conversions to residential buildings of 10 units or more; amending Section 303(c)(2)(B) to provide for consideration of whether a use seeking a conditional use permit is providing car-share parking; amending Section 790.10 to include a car-share parking space as part of a community residential parking use; amending Section 890.10 to include a car-share parking space as part of a community commercial parking garage use. The proposed Ordinance is before the Commission so that it may recommend adoption, rejection, or adoption with modifications to the Board of Supervisors.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications

SPEAKER(S)

Mr. Radulovich

(+)Steven Vettel

- This is very good legislation making sensible parking work with the market.

- Recommended you allow two or three car tandems to count.

(+)Tony Panteleoni

ACTION: Approved with staff's modification and amended to allow tandem parking as long as only one car has to be moved.

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

RESOLUTION: 17579

Item 19 was taken out of order and followed item 17

19. 2007.1447T (Tape IIIB) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments relating to Planning Code Sections 102.17, 790.38, and 890.37 [Board File No. 07-1649]- Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Peskin amending Planning Code Sections 102.17, 790.38, and 890.37 to define three types of entertainment use based on size; amending Sections 1060, 1060.1, 1060.3, 1070, 1070.1, and 1070.3 of the San Francisco Police Codeto define the three types of entertainment use authorized by the Planning Code and to require an application and the permit for a place of entertainment or extended-hours activity to specify one of the three types of entertainment use; adopting findings, including environmental findings and findings required by Section 302 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Jim Meko, Western SoMa Citizens Task Force

Silvia Johnson

ACTION: Approved as amended

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

RESOLUTION: 17580

Addendum 2008.0274D (Tape IIIB; IVA) (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

736 VALENCIA STREET- west side, between 18th and 19th Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 3588 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application number 2006.02.08.4114. The proposal is to construct a new mixed-use building containing 8 dwelling units with commercial space and 8 off-street parking spaces on the ground floor. The applicant requests that the Planning Commission remove the springing condition requiring community impact fees and BMR units that was previously imposed on the project. The subject property is located within the Valencia NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and remove the springing condition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 20, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

David Silverman, Project Sponsor Representative

- This project was approved on April 19, 2007 and it was before this Commission on August 30. It was approved with Resolution 17482 when there were no rules set on how to handle projects in the Eastern Neighborhoods.

- We are here asking that you enforce your resolution 17481 and delete the springing conditions as recommended by staff.

(+)John O'connell

- This project should be exempt from the conditions because the Commission grandfathered application before the April 19, 2007 date.

(+)[No name stated]

- Mr. Mallia [project sponsor] was passive resistant to the conditions. He did not willingly accept them.

(+)Ron Mallia, Project Sponsor

(+)Gina

- Supported the removal of conditions to let the project go through.

Silvia Johnson

(-)Judie Ledbetter

- We would like to see the conditions and the below market units stay because it would set a really bad precedence otherwise.

(-)Sue Hestor

- The developer agreed to something on the project and whoever wanted to go through their project before the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan was done took a risk.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the removal of the Springing Condition

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

  1. 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

SPEAKER(S)

Silvia Johnson

- I have an opportunity to build a new home.

Adjournment: 10:02 P.M.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 22, 2008.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approve

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore, Olague, 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 10:00:34 PM