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

June 19, 2008

June 19, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 19, 2008

12:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Amnon Ben-Pazi, Eliane Forbes Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Devyani Jain, Bill Wycko, Tina Tam, AnMarie Rodgers, 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.

1. 2007.1064C (M. Woods: (415) 558-6315)

1860 LOMBARD STREET - north side between Buchanan and Laguna Streets; Lot 023 (formerly Lot 011), in Assessor's Block 0494 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a  formula retail use that is also a  large fast food restaurant (dba Subway) pursuant to Sections 303(c), 303(i), 703.4 and 712.43 of the Planning Code, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2007)

Note: On April 24, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to May 1, 2008 to allow absent commissioners the opportunity to participate by a vote of +3 -1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Sugaya and W. Lee were absent.

Note: On May 1, 2008, without further hearing, the item was continued to May 29, 2008.

note: On May 29, 2008 the Commission entertained a motion of Intent to disapprove with final language on June 19, 2008 by a vote of +6 -0,

(Proposed for Continuance to July 17, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Patrick Melligan

- We are hoping that this item would be heard today. I will not be available on July 17.

ACTION: Continued to June 26, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Miguel

2. 2005.0651CEK (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

580 HAYES STREET - north side between Laguna and Octavia Streets, Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 0807 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization. The project requires Conditional Use Authorization for an institutional use above the ground floor, for a non-residential use larger than 3,000 square feet and for development of a lot larger than 10,000 square feet. The site is within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial Transit District and a 55-X Height and Bulk District. The project proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a mixed use building containing approximately 2,700 square feet of ground floor retail space along Hayes Street, an assisted living facility of approximately 48 units, 42 independent living group housing units for seniors and 17 off-street parking spaces in an underground garage accessed off of Ivy Street. The proposed building would be 5 stories and 55 feet in height over a below grade basement, totaling approximately 63,000 square feet. This Project complies with Market and Octavia Area Plan Code Amendments. Since the Code Amendments were not in effect at the time of the initial hearing, the Commission entertained a motion of intent to approve the Project with conditions. The Market and Octavia Area Plan Code Amendments are now in effect, thus the Commission may adopt a motion to approve the Project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 17, 2008)

NOTE: On April 17, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and entertained a motion of intent to approve with conditions by a vote of +5 -0. Commissioner Moore was absent. Final language on June 19, 2008.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 17, 2008)

SPEAKER(S) on the continuance

Steven Vettel, Project Sponsor Representative

- Requested that this project be heard today. It was heard two months ago and you passed a motion of intent to approve.

- We are not proposing to testify and it should be a 60 second item.

The Commission decided to hear this item today. It followed item 6

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

MOTION: 17626

B. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES (Tape IA)

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)

None

C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

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) for item 5

Steven Sacks

- There were a number of issues that the EIR did not adequately address - like the amount of noise that is going to be created by the helicopters.

Karen Cliff

- Our general concerns are that the plans do not adequately address the issues of traffic and pollution.

Richard Katz

- I feel minimized by this. We get little time to have our opinion.

Sue Carlyle

- Spoke in favor of the approval and certification of the EIR because it has gone through many considerations and deliberations.

Emma Gerald

- San Francisco General is the heart of our health care system and we need to make sure that this building happens and that we can start serving all communities.

Jeff Critchfield

- San Francisco General Hospital is the only trauma center in San Francisco. It is essential that we go forward with this to continue to provide services uninterrupted.

Erin McGrath

- I am just here to make a clarification on a newspaper article that mentioned that the helipad will be paid for out of bounds to put on the ballot. The helipad is not part of the project or CEQA findings.

Heather Forbes

- Opposed the noise level that construction could lead to, and the helipad production as well. The whole area could benefit from having the helipad somewhere in the Mission Bay.

Francesca Rosa

- Urged to move forward with this project because it is ultimately the only resource for most of our clients in terms of emergencies and health care.

Mitch Katz, San Francisco Public Health Director

- San Francisco General is the best public hospital and I'm hoping you go forward with this EIR and deal with these complicated issues.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

(Tape IA; IB)

3. 2008.0639T, 2008.0640T, & 2008.0641T (E. Forbes: (415) 558-6417)

Fee Revisions and Adjustment - Amends Section 350 to increase fees 1.63 percent; amends Section 315.4 to change the refund provision for projects that provide below market rate units onsite and would codify a Zoning Administrator interpretation that the refund provision applies only to projects that filed on or after June 18, 2001; and amends Administrative Code Sections 31.22 and 31.23 to (1) restructure fees to recover the cost of producing plans from projects in Plan Areas and adopt new Community Plan fees, (2) adopt new fees for Environmental Exemptions for Historical Resources, and (3) increase environmental review fees 1.63 percent and make other adjustments.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolutions recommending that the Board of Supervisors approve the proposed ordinances with amendments.

SPEAKER(S)

John Bardis

- I wonder why we have a city government. Is it to serve the people or that the people get exploited to serve a bureaucracy? You should put the burden on the people that basically initiated the application that lead to an appeal and not the appellant.

Steven Vettel

- Requested the Commission to direct staff to put in a memorandum some sort of flow chart on how this is going to work. So before you adopt the fees, you can see if it is really going to work.

ACTION: Approved amending PC Section 350 to increase fees 1.63%

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17627

ACTION: Approved amending PC Section 315.4 to change the refund provision for projects that provide below market rate units on site and would codify the a Zoning Administrator interpretation that the refund provision applies only to projects that filed on or after June 18, 2001

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17628

ACTION: Approved with modifications to address the language describing  frivolous appeals the amendments to Administrative Code Sections 31.22 and 31.23 to (1) restructure fees to recover the cost of producing plans from projects in Plan Areas and adopt new Community Plan fees, (2) adopt new fees for Environmental Exemptions for Historical Resources, and (3) increase environmental review fees 1.63% and make other adjustments.

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17629

4. (Tape IB) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Discussion and consideration of possible action to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding Charter Amendments proposed for the November 4, 2008 election.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 12, 2008)

-– Creating a Landmarks Commission (Sullivan-Lenane)

SPEAKER(S)

Sarah Karlinsky

- Supported the amendments as proposed by staff because it is doing a good job of clarifying what the appropriate balance is between the Planning Commission and Landmarks Board.

ACTION: No recommendations

– Music and Culture (Rodgers)

SPEAKER(S)

Terrance Alan

- The proposal is that the Entertainment Commission could supersede the authorship is only so that the changes do not get side tracked.

ACTION: Approval to support recommendations supported by staff with favor given towards exhibit A-2

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17630

– The Environment (Rodgers)

SPEAKER(S) None

ACTION: Adopted with staff's modification

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17631

Item 5 was taken out of order followed item C

5. 2007.0603E (Tape IA) (D. JAIN: (415) 575-9051)

The SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL (SFGH) SEISMIC COMPLIANCE HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AT 1001 POTRERO AVENUE: BOUNDED BY 20th STREET TO THE NORTH, U.S. HIGHWAY 101 TO THE EAST, 23rd AND 24th STREETS TO THE SOUTH and POTRERO AVENUE TO THE WEST, Lot 001 in Block 4154 - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The project sponsor, San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) and San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), propose to construct 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: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, April 22, 2008. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

ACTION: FEIR Certified

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

MOTION: 17623

6. 2007.0603R (Tape IA) (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

The SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL HOSPITAL (SFGH) SEISMIC COMPLIANCE HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AT 1001 POTRERO AVENUE: BOUNDED BY 20th STREET TO THE NORTH, U.S. HIGHWAY 101 TO THE EAST, 23rd AND 24th STREETS TO THE SOUTH and POTRERO AVENUE TO THE WEST, Lot 001 in Block 4154 - General Plan (GP) Referral for 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. Pursuant to Section 4.105 of the San Francisco Charter and Sections 2A.52 and 2A.53 of the Administrative Code, construction of a public building or structure shall be referred to the Planning Department to determine consistency with the General Plan prior to the Board of Supervisors' consideration of and action on any ordinance or resolution.

Preliminary Recommendation: (1) Adopt CEQA Findings; and (2) Adopt Resolution making consistency findings with the General Plan.

SPEAKER(S)

Richard Katz

- The older hospital is a historic building and the pictures showing a planned hospital is out of scale with the space there.

Alfredo Morales Jr.

- Spoke in support of adopting the resolutions to allow rebuilding the hospital because there is a need since St. Luke's Hospital is closing.

ACTION: (1) Approved adoption of CEQA findings

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

MOTION: 17624

ACTION: (2) Approved adoption of a resolution making consistency findings with the General Plan

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

MOTION: 17625

E. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS (Tapes IB; IIA)

7. 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 Sugaya

- There was an article in last week's Sunday paper that says that the City has recently hired John Gale to look at four areas in San Francisco. Is that through Planning?

- If we can get some periodic reports along the way.

- We have a letter from the Landmarks Board from their meeting yesterday requesting that a Commissioner or somebody, I think it is called an interested party if I am not mistaken; review the environmental impact statement Section 106 process for the Presidio and how they have to go forward with respect to the main post areas.

- I do not think we can take action since it is not a calendar item. I do not know what the proper thing to do is since they are asking us.

- And if at some point we can get the same presentation that the Landmarks Board received from the Trust [Presidio]

Commissioner Moore

- I just want to remind everyone that we started asking these questions last September and it is in our-to-do list that we want to initiate a dialogue.

- Now we are coming into the eleventh hour where we are asked to really help and extend whatever we can to support the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board's concerns.

- Second thing, is there any possibility that the Commission can meet with John Gale? I think it is going to be very inspirational for us and we all can benefit from hearing from him.

Commissioner Sugaya

- If you go to his website, he has at least two or three of his studies for various cities on-line in PDF form.

Director Rahaim

- I was going to speak regarding him in my comments. We had an original amount of money budgeted that had to be cut back on, so we have a smaller amount than anticipated to contract with him, but there should still be plenty for him to be able to come.

Commissioner Miguel

- I do know that the City is involved in preparing comments on the Presidio and I would very much suggest that the Department take an active role in that regard.

- A number of departments are involved in this, not just Historic Preservation, but DPT and DPW are heavily involved in this because of the ramifications that this would have on neighboring districts surrounding the Presidio.

Commissioner Antonini

- I just wanted to comment on a letter from Barbara Hernandez and I think that all the Commissioners received the same letter.

- She is at 333 Grant, one of the residents that were able to buy an inclusionary unit. Then all the HOA [Home Owners Association] and assessment fees came and it is more than she could afford.

- I had a chance to phone her up and she has interesting thoughts on this and one of the things she said is that she questioned whether this [inclusionary units] is practical for high rise buildings because most of the residents paying market prices are often voting for assessments that are higher because they want luxury items.

- She was speaking, at least in her case, for off-site inclusionary that would be in the same neighborhood.

Commissioner Olague

- Something that I have always been concerned about is HOA fees. But I think that is something that is regulated at the State level.

- Perhaps in a later conversation we can take a look at that because I think it is important to keep this kind of housing project integrated with a diversity of people from different economic sectors of the City.

- I think that the HOA fee is a huge challenge. That's what I hear from a lot of people.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I remember this coming up some time last year when were talking about housing. Doug Shoemaker was here. I can not remember what the answer to that was, but it is already a problem.

F. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IIA)

8. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim

- We are organizing an informational briefing on the Presidio. I had suggested that we do it after the Eastern Neighborhoods process. We are looking at possibly doing it on July 17 but we will confirm that day with you soon. And we are in fact involved in a multidepartment effort that is being coordinated by the Mayor's Office of Economic Development to look at it.

- As it was mentioned earlier about fees, there are a number of process improvements that the Department has been working on. We have tentatively scheduled that for July 17.

- In your package today, is the final draft of the Upper Market Community Design Plan. This is the final draft. I think it was a very interested and focus process that we went through with the neighborhood. In a month or so we will have this on the agenda.

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

AnMarie Rodgers reported:

Land Use Committee

None

Full Board

A- Parking and Off-Street Loadings sponsored by Supervisor Peskin. You heard this item on April 10th and at that time you recommended modifications. You suggested to allow renting of parking spaces to neighborhood residents but not for commercial or commuter use, and to expand the definition of  space-efficient parking'. Also to define it as not only parking with mechanical lifts and valet, as written in the ordinance, but also as  tandem spaces where no more than one car needs to be moved to access any one space. Last week the Land Use Committee approved an ordinance that contained your modifications. This week it was passed on first ready at the Full Board.

B- Hearing requests:

a. On the consideration for an initiative to be submitted by the Supervisors for the November 4 ballot regarding a CU requirement for Steam or Fossil-Fuel Power Plants in M-1 and M-2 districts. Sponsor by Supervisors Maxwell, Peskin, McGoldrick, and Duffy

b. Planning Department's procedures for enforcing the formula retail legislation. Requested by Supervisor McGoldrick.

c. Planning, MTA, and the City Attorney to discuss the Bicycle Plan Injunction. Requested by Supervisor Sandoval.

d. Conversion of affordable housing units into group housing by the Academy of Art. Requested by Supervisor Daly.

C- Legislation Introduced

a. Ordinance to amend Planning Code to allow a limited number of full service restaurants in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District by Supervisor Alioto-Pier.

b. Ordinance to establish for the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District to limit the number of bars and restaurant and to preserve what is called the basic neighborhood services. Sponsored by Supervisor Peskin.

Larry Badiner reported:

Board of Appeals

A- Commissioner Holland resigned effective June 18.

B- 770 18th Avenue – Project on new construction. It was noticed that the adjacent building was shown incorrectly. The Board voted to eliminate any ground floor street access to habitable space, convert the full bath to a half bath on the ground floor, to provide open connection between the ground floor and the second floor.

C- 1314 Polk Street – Project that was approved as senior housing and it was approved administratively. The Planning Code allows the ability to double dwelling unit density for seniors and the disabled. The project sponsor sold some of these units to non-seniors, based on interpretation. Upheld our decision.

G. PUBLIC COMMENT (Tape IIA)

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

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

SPEAKER(S)

Joe O'Donaughe, Re: DR process

- The process is being abused by project sponsors with poor reputations.

- They are coming to neighbors, presenting their proposals, offering accommodations, and then having them sign support of the project, which compromises them to not file for DR.

Rose Tsai, Re: DR process on de facto demolition – 11th Ave. project

- Project Sponsor takes a permit and basically alters the number so it does not go to the DR requirement. DBI is not enforcing the de facto demolition, nor are they sending out an inspector.

- We are allowing these kinds of people to make a mockery of this process.

John Bardis

- This question about de facto demolition is not new. Who is responsible? It falls on this Commission and the Board of Supervisors for not clarifying the definitions and with very poor enforcement.

- I am still waiting for your response regarding what is the most important industry in San Francisco.

Adjournment: 3:47 P.M.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 24, 2008.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, 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 10:00:36 PM