To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
May 22, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 22, 2008

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, AnMarie Rodgers, Jim Miller, Amnon Ben-Pazi, Don Lewis, Glenn Cabreros, Edgar Oropeza, Michael Smith, Ken Rich, Paul Lord, 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. 2007.1326C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

2333 BUCHANAN STREET - (a.k.a. 2140 Webster St. and 2340 Clay St.), north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets, Assessor's Block 0613, Lot 029, Block 0628 Lot 013, and Block 0628 Lot 014 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 303.4(d)(5) for the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Pacific Campus to modify conditions of a previous PUD authorization for way finding signs that exceed the number and size of signs principally permitted by Section 606(b)(1) in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 17, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 29, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2008.0095T (T. Sullivan-Lenane: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code by adding Section 226.5: Alcohol Reduction and Safer Neighborhoods Act - Permitted Locations on New Liquor Stores and their Conditions of Operation. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Sandoval amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 226.5 to impose a distance requirement of 500 feet or more between new off-sale liquor stores and existing liquor stores, elementary and secondary schools, public libraries, and recreation centers throughout San Francisco and establishing conditions for operation of liquor stores.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 26, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2007.1233C (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

805 Columbus Avenue - south-west side between Lombard and Greenwich Streets, Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 0074 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a real estate office, larger than the principally permitted maximum of 1,999 square feet, on the first floor of a mixed use building within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, pursuant to Sections 722.53 and 722.21 of the Planning Code. The commercial space measures approximately 2,760 square feet and has never been occupied. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. This site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2008)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

B. CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing

4. 2008.0332C (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

219 CLEMENT STREET - south side between 3rd an 4th Avenues; Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 1435 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 716.51 and 303(c) of the Planning Code to convert vacant commercial space (previously occupied by a travel agency) into a dental office's accounting division on the second floor of the three-story commercial and residential building within the Inner Clement Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The portion of the dental office consisting of the reception and patient treatment areas have been approved as a principally permitted use on the first floor of the building under Building Permit Application No. 2008.04.04.8879. The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the existing commercial space. There will be no expansion to the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17596

C. COMMISSION MATTERS

5. 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 May 15, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

On the motion for indefinite continuance

AYES: Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee and Miguel

Motion Failed

ACTION: Vice President: Commissioner Ron Miguel

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee and Miguel

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

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.

6. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 7, 2008

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 14, 2008

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 27, 2008

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 3, 2008

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 10, 2008

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 17, 2008

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 24, 2008

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Adopted

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

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim

- Congratulated Commissioner Miguel.

- I just want to let you know that we will be coming to you sometime in June with a series of what I am calling process improvements to the Department's operations, primarily using the Matrix Report which you heard back in March.

- A couple of items are moving ahead now. One is the recent legislation you recommended to the Board that is now in effect on the Administrative Fee for Code Enforcement. It took place last week.

- Another one related to the Environmental Review process is that we are trying to expand the pool of consultants that do those reviews. The Department has worked with the City Attorney's Office and we have issued a RFP for consultants.

- The process will be such that we will, for projects requiring consultants help, select three consultants, and from that pool the project sponsor will have the option of choosing from those three. We will be using that pool for private and City planned projects.

- Next week there is an informational meeting for potential respondents to that.

- The other item that I want to let you know about is that we have issued the Draft of the Better Streets Plan that staff has been working on for some time.

- June 5th is the public release of that plan. Shortly after that, we will get it on the Commission's calendar as well as do a follow up with a presentation to you about that plan.

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

AnMarie Rodgers reported:

Land Use Committee

A- Eastern Neighborhoods continued the series of concurrent Commission/Board presentations.

Full Board

A- Map and Text Amendment to establish PDR definitions and map districts within the Bayview Hunter's point area – This item was approved by the Planning Commission in October of 2007. Passed.

B- Introductions:

a. By Supervisor Peskin that would amend the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial Controls. This legislation is intended to protect neighborhood serving small businesses by prohibiting new bars and restaurants in locations occupied by  Basic Neighborhood Services.' It would amend the Code's current definition and will add a new definition of  bona-fide eating places.' The Ordinance would then allow restaurants to obtain new liquor licenses if they meet this new definition. It would also protect North Beach, especially Take Out uses, and prohibits ATM's [Automatic Teller Machines] and ground floor Limited Financial, Business, and professional uses.

b. Three related Ordinances introduced by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell related to SFHOPE Hunter's View Special Use District – These ordinances would amend the Planning Code, Zoning Map and create the special use district. These items would be brought to you within 90 days for your review.

Larry Badiner reported:

Board of Appeals

A- 75 Folsom Street – There was an application submitted to the Planning Commission under the Dwelling Unit Merger Policy to merge three units into one at a Downtown High Rise Plaza. Your decision was overturned.

9. (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE - Informational Presentation - Updating the Commission on the design changes - Proposal to construct a new, ten-story, mixed-use building containing approximately 45 dwelling units, ground and second-floor retail use, and up to 40 subgrade off-street parking spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.

SPEAKER(S)

Michelle Campbell, Madison

- At the beginning of this year we engaged Alan Martinez who has worked diligently to develop a concept that we proudly present to you today.

- It is our hope that the significance interest in this building will result in a positive outcome for the City as well as all of us who enjoy this special district.

Alan Martinez, Architect

- The architecture in this district has very many different styles.

- The compositional strategy of the project is similar to other buildings within the district; it has three part vertical divisions.

- [Explained the design of the building and features]

Sue Hestor, Attorney for residents at 333 Grant Avenue

- The issues that my clients raised were not so much of the architectural details but the mass of the building as it affects projects, residents, and hotels that are on this block. There was nothing indicating that has been addressed at all.

- Requested clarification of what the structure would be for this project because it seems that they are coming twice to the Commission. The developer is having two chances to present their case.

Linda Mjellem, Union Square Association

- Our association does support this project because we think that the sponsor's efforts and attempts to respond to the various concerns have been extraordinary.

Pamela Duffy

- Requested that the commission focus its attention on considering the design and on the fundamental issues of whether or not this actually meets the standards for an exception on the height limit.

Jim Salinas

- I just want to thank the Commission and congratulate Commissioner Miguel for being elected Vice-president. We are very supportive of this project.

Al

- This building would be so large and high. We would like you to consider our quality of life when considering this project.

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

E. 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.

SPEAKER(S)

Ernestine Weiss, Re: Ferry Park Renovation

- The bridge must go because the blat that it causes is unbelievable with the people creating many disturbances.

Sue Hestor, Re: Timeline for material public release

- Tell staff that it is okay to release material to the public on Thursday, the week before the hearing. And that they do not have to wait until the Commission physically has the material on Thursday night, which does not make it available to the public until Friday.

John Bardis, Re: Academy of Art

- Although this Commission and The Planning Department have been working diligently to preserve housing in the City, yet you are allowing the Academy of Art to take away so much housing from the City's stock and there are no penalties.

F. 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.

RE: 631 Folsom Street

SPEAKER(S)

Sue Hestor

- Requested an additional condition that at six months after the initial occupancy they should report to The Planning Department the number of units sold, children in those household, and for each adult resident the zip code where that adult works and their mean of transportation to that job. Not to be individual data but a summary data.

Alice Barkley

- The project sponsor is willing to work with the additional condition but requested that the time be set at 15 months after completion of the project or at some point after full occupation to get real data.

G. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

10. 2007.1267X (Tape IB) (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

631 FOLSOM STREET - south-east side between 2nd and Hawthorne Streets, Lot 090 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request for an exemption pursuant to Section 309 to add 52 off-street parking spaces to the previously approved 64 off-street parking spaces in a mixed-use building currently under construction - The building is to have 114 dwelling units, each containing at least two bedrooms and at least 1000 square feet. Under this proposal there will be a total of 116 off-street parking spaces, 108 of which will be stored and accessed by mechanical stackers. Two of the spaces will be dedicated to car-share vehicles. No physical expansion of the approved building is proposed. This site is within the C-3-S Zoning District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008)

NOTE: On May 8, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote of +5 -1. Commissioner Moore was absent voted against. Final Language May 22, 2008.

SPEAKER(S):

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Corrected by staff: finding on CEQA should read  adopting findings related to the approval of the Section 309 request

-Finding that this project would not create any new impacts that would affect the CEQA review of this project.

-Project sponsor to provide a summary report two years after final certificate of occupancy on the number of children, each adult zip code of their job and the mean of transportation to it.

-Encouraged the Planning Department to work with the Mayor's Office of Housing and other related agencies having a general pull for this information.

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

MOTION: 17597

H. REGULAR CALENDAR

11. 2005.1066E: (Tape IB; IIA) (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 April 24, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Marc Duffett, Appellant

- We filed the appeal in order to offer some of the immediate neighbors a chance to voice their concerns regarding the environmental impacts.

- The main problems we saw were the overwhelming massing of the Wawona Street façade, the lack of attention paid to the flow of traffic around the site, and the demand for increase of short-term commercial and long-term residential parking in the area.

- The project sponsor requested a meeting with the MTA where I was able to present my ideas on necessary improvements to traffic patterns and parking. I will present the particulars of that plan during the conditional use hearing.

George Mayer

- The environmental impact report should not be undertaken if analysis has not been completed on the impact of under ground parking on the Aqua First that supplies water to Lake Merced.

Margarete Lee

- The proposed plans are excessive and should fully comply with the City's Zoning, and Planning Code before it can continue. She submitted a signed community petition of more than 200 signatures requesting the developers to scale back their plans.

Mike Shawa

- We do not agree with this project to have 56 units and commercial uses on a very small lot in a residential area.

Burt Gabriel

- The environmental report should have been done by a third party and not by the Planning Department.

Patrick Maguire

- Many developers come to the community and leave us with ugly projects and they leave with the money. This developer has come with integrity.

Joel Schechter

- Requested a new environmental review because the existing document is inadequate and insufficient in certain areas.

Mary Anne Miller, SPEAK

- Our intention of appealing the negative declaration was to get more information into the document.

- I am disappointed that there were no graphics, as we requested, that would show the two-story height and elevation versus the five stories on Wawona Street.

Michael Jason

- The negative declaration says that approximately 274 parking spaces will be needed and they came up with only 93. It is bringing more people in the area and not enough parking.

[No name stated]

- Concerned that the height would impact natural light. Also, are they going to use union carpenters? What about affordable housing that is much needed in the City?

Jess

- There is not a building out there that is this tall. This area is not downtown.

Rachel Hamilton, Architect

- It seems that parking is the mayor issue and we have tried to mitigate that. We are committed to install parking lifts on the residential portion. We negotiated with MTA and DPT to introduce diagonal parking along 47th Avenue between Wawona and Sloat.

ACTION: Following public hearing, the item was continued indefinitely to expand the negative declaration to address issues on parking, transportation, and density and for staff to consider moving this into a full environmental impact report.

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

12a. 2005.1066CP (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

2800 SLOAT BOULEVARD - north side of Sloat, between 46th and 47th Avenues, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2515 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow a Planned Unit Development per Planning Code Section 303 and 304, 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) over a 93-space subterranean parking structure and a one-story approximately 1,000 gsf commercial building. The proposal is seeking exceptions that include parking, open space, and rear yard requirements, and authorization for lot and use size. The project would include 56 dwelling units, approximately 23,000 gsf of ground-floor commercial uses including an open-air market. 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, 100-A Height and Bulk district, and the Local Coastal Zone Permit Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued indefinitely

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

12b. 2005.1066CP (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

2800 SLOAT BOULEVARD - north side of Sloat, between 46th and 47th Avenues, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2515 – Request for a Coastal Zone Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development per Planning Code Section 330 to demolish three existing commercial buildings and a 34-space parking lot, and construct three new mixed-use, five-story, 60-foot-tall buildings totaling approximately 120,000 gross square feet (gsf) over a 93-space subterranean parking structure and a one-story approximately 1,000 gsf commercial building. The project site is within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district, 100-A Height and Bulk district, and the Local Coastal Zone Permit Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Grant Coastal Zone Permit.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued indefinitely

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

Item taken out of order and followed item 18

13. 2004.0133C (Tape IIIB) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

520 BALBOA STREET - north side between 6th and 7th Avenues, Assessor's Block 1549, Lot 021 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the demolition of a dwelling unit at the second story pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.39 requiring Conditional Use authorization for residential demolition at the second story or higher. The proposal is to demolish an existing two-story, mixed-use building with a ground-floor commercial space and a dwelling unit on the second floor and to construct a four-story, three-unit residential building with a three-car garage at the ground floor in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S)

Tony Kim, Project Sponsor Representative

- The existing unutilized building has been found unsound.

- The replacement would remove one bedroom unit and provide 3 family size units and a net gain of five bedrooms.

- The ground floor is completely dedicated to one-to-one off-street parking with no habitable space and a rear yard.

- We feel that the proposed building is compatible with the mixed visual character of the subject block face and we have about eight letters of support.

(-)Tanja Beck, Representing Alexander Banderhains – 518 Balboa Street

- We met with Tony Kim and the architect prior to this hearing to raise our concerns and were not heard at all.

- The proposed building would block natural light. We ran sunshade reports.

(+)Margie Camp

- I inherited this property from my parents and the proposed project is to provide housing for my children.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee and Sugaya

ABSENT: Moore

MOTION: 17598

14a. 2007.0981CV (Tape IIIB) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

953 TREAT AVENUE - east side between 22nd and 23rd Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 3639 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 215 and 303, to allow the new construction of dwelling units within the C-M (Heavy, Commercial) District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the proposed Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area. The project also includes a rear yard, exposure and off-street parking variance requests pursuant to Planning Code Section 134, 140 and 151. The project proposal is to construct a 4-story, 40-foot mixed-use building consisting of 4-dwelling units over approximately 1,050 square feet of ground floor Production, Distribution and Repair space. No off-street parking is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S)

Jim Heinzer, Project Sponsor

- We own a warehouse at 933 Treat Avenue. It was my parents' intention to expand the business at 953 Treat. We have tried to have a very cleverly and well crafted project that would fulfill their dream.

- Given the many factors that we have tried to juggle, we think we are submitting a well set up proposal that would be an asset to any mixed use area in San Francisco.

- We are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

(+)Owen Kennerly, Architect

- There is a mix of residential and industrial character in the area.

- The proposal for the parcel organizes the building in the east-west direction that is separated from the loading zone and pressed up against the existing warehouse presenting a slender residential scale frontage on Treat Avenue and PDR space at the ground floor.

- The blended design that we developed is in response to a diverse neighborhood character integrating the modern addition to the Mission District industrial architecture with the timeless elements of San Francisco Housing.

(+)Frank Lewis

- The sponsors are some of the best neighbors that you can possibly hope to have and I know that this project would be done very well with consideration to everyone.

(+)Ernest Herwav

- Read a supportive letter that Laurie McCone wrote and who was unable to attend.

- We hope that this building will be a great addition to San Francisco.

(+)Don Di Martini

- Supported the project. Some of the neighbors' complaints were about the lack of parking, but in our neighborhood there are only 12 buildings.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee and Sugaya

ABSENT: Moore

MOTION: 17599

14b. 2007.0981CV (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

953 Treat Avenue - east side between 22nd and 23rd Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 3639 - Request for variances from the rear yard, dwelling unit exposure and off-street parking requirements of Planning Code Sections 134, 140 and 151, will be considered by the Zoning Administrator. The project proposal is to construct a 4-story, 40-foot mixed-use building consisting of 4-dwelling units over approximately 1,050 square feet of ground floor Production, Distribution and Repair space. Planning Code Section 134 requires all properties having dwelling units within the C-M (Heavy Commercial) District to provide rear yards at the lowest story containing a dwelling unit, and at each succeeding level or story of the building. The project proposes a rear yard of approximately 8 feet from the third story and above. Planning Code Section 140 requires at least one room of at least 120 square feet to face one of the following open areas: a public street or alley of at least 25 feet in width, a code complying rear yard, or an inner court measuring at least 25 feet in every direction. Three of the four proposed dwelling units do not meet the exposure requirement. Planning Code Section 151 requires the addition of one (1) new off-street parking space for each new dwelling unit. Thus the proposed project results in a requirement for four (4) new off-street parking spaces. The project does not propose off-street parking for any of the dwelling units.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 14a

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variances

15. 2007.1467DD (Tape IIIB; IVA) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

1671 11TH AVENUE- west side between Moraga and Lawton Streets, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1932- Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.24.7492 proposing to construct a one-story, full-floor, vertical addition and alter the front façade of a two-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Jimmy Chan, 1st Discretionary Review Requestor

- The design is going to have a lot of impact to me because its roof deck is right on the mid-block open space and it is kind of awkward. It does not match with the rest of the buildings.

- If someone stands on the roof deck, they can look at all my bedrooms--invading my privacy. It should be setback six (6) feet.

- Another concern is the front design that sticks out three (3) feet, invading privacy to my dining room.

Joe Donehill, 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor Representative

- The backyards are supposed to be the essence of the neighborhood, not the decks.

- Move the roof deck back six (6) feet and ensure that there is a stairway from the garage to the first floor.

- You should add another condition for inspection once a year. We need enforcement to ensure the integrity of the RH-1 and RH-2 districts.

(-)Joanna Felder

- It is important that we look at the impacts on the neighborhood character and green space. With the proposed project we would loose a lot of open space, light, and peace at the end of the day.

(-)Rose Tsai

- Raised and read a letter that listed concerns about the height of the proposed building and it not being in keeping with our neighborhood.

(-)Betty Larson

- Consider the elimination of the deck in the back; pull back the back perimeter of the house and prevent any bay windows from being built on the back that would impact the privacy of the neighbors.

Sean Han, Project Sponsor

- I made changes to the frontage and lowered the deck to accommodate the requestors' concerns.

- [Showed photographs of buildings in the area stating that his property is smaller]

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as modified:

-NSR

-No bathroom on the ground floor

-No rear deck

-The front of the building can not go out any further than it currently is

-Allow front bay window at 45 degree ONLY if building is pulled back.

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee and Sugaya

ABSENT: Moore

DRACTION: 0001

16a. 2007.0439D (Tape IVA) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

586 VALLEY STREET - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 6611 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application 2007.08.01.8470 under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, for the demolition of a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Demolition.

SPEAKER(S)

Michael Bruce, Project Sponsor

- The house is dilapidated and the structure suffers from dry rot.

- We need the three bedrooms because our family is growing. We are expecting twins.

- Most of our furniture and personal possessions are in rental storage.

- One of the rooms would be used as an office space.

- We lowered the pitch of the roof by 2 feet to accommodate concerns of neighbors. We also eliminated the chimney on the roof.

- A petition was circulated asking to oppose our project with no drawings and none was circulated after we made changes. Many changed their opinion and support our project now.

(+)Michael Leva, Co-Owner

- We met with the neighbors twice and have tried very hard to work with them because we love the neighborhood.

(+)Tim, Architect

- The proposed design has an architectural base element lodged into a hill side.

- The design is composed of three basic elements: base, wall, and roof working together in a cohesive fashion to create visual balance.

- The 11 foot ceiling would most likely to be dropped 14 – 18 inches for mechanical ducting.

- We have set back the new building 5 feet from the side lot line.

(+)Brett Gladstone

- The height of the building is indeed way below the height limit and the set back was created even though they could have built to the side lot line.

Kalton Finney, Santos Urritia Structural Engineers

- The project speaks for itself and I just want to let you know that I am available to answer any questions you may have about the soundness report or construction costs.

Clifford Anderson

- Although we are taking a neutral position at this point, you developed guidelines that we encourage our neighbors to engage on projects such as this one and compromise to minimize impacts on key elements that must be considered as projects affect sun, light and air to nearby residents.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini and Lee

EXCUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Moore

ACTION: 0002

16b. 2008.0220D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

586 VALLEY STREET - north side between Castro and Diamond Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 6611 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.08.01.8475 under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of a new residential building in association with residential demolition, for the construction of a two-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the New Construction.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 16a

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved with construction hours 7:30a.m. – 4p.m. Monday to Friday, 8:30a.m. – 4p.m. Saturday, and no construction on Sunday.

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini and Lee

EXCUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Moore

ACTION: 0003

4:00 P.M. - - [Although the following item may be called after the listed time, it will not be called before.]

Item taken out of order and followed item 12

17. (Tape IIA; IIB; IIIA) (K. RIch (415) 5586345)

Presentation from the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development on business and workforce development strategies related to the Eastern Neighborhoods

SPEAKER(S)

Michael Cohen, Director of Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development

- Our work has been guided by two regards: The City's economic plan and hard data gathered for the economic plan and specifically for our work around the Eastern Neighborhoods.

- Key economic and planning objectives of the plan are: (a) to protect economically viable PDR sectors that provide relatively high wages for people with less than a 4-year degree, (b) to protect viable PDR sectors that provide support of the City's economic drivers, (c) protection of the predominant industrial character of the areas for both practical and aesthetic reasons, and (d) preserve land to accommodate the next generation of innovative industries.

Michael Yarni, Director of Economic Development

- [Gave examples of four small businesses in the City that are growing]

- These are examples and they want PDR flexibility within the Eastern Neighborhoods to accommodate any small business person needing affordable small space.

RwandaSimmons, Director of Workforce Development

- We are two years old and we are moving towards an outcome driven workforce system. The notion of providing quality assurance is high on our list.

- Workforce sectors in the City are construction, health care, transportation, hospitality, information technology, retail, and biotech.

- San Francisco is considered a  smart city. 51% of the residents have BA degrees and the other 49% is a different mix with about 16% not having a high school diploma, 39% have some college but no degree or certificate.

- Being able to look at wages across a wide spectrum of skill sets with the ability to access different paths to move about is important in my business.

Brett Gladstone

- Asked for more flexibility on the PDR along 16th Street and Alabama Street [Lion's Building]

EaganTurp, SPUR

- I found useful the particular examples that were given of specifics companies. We want to make sure that those kinds of firms as they evolve would stick around.

Bill Lightern

- I would like you to consider how expensive it is to build these buildings and why small businesses can not compete with traditional office and residential uses.

Chris Haorny

- I am here to say that the new plan needs to be very flexible.

Jim Meko

- Obviously the most important thing that needs to be solved in the Eastern Neighborhoods process is the need for affordable housing above and beyond anything else.

- I am glad that we are beginning to talk about job opportunities as well.

- The mix of uses is what describes the essence of San Francisco. Light industrial, commercial, retail, arts, and innovative industry is what describes San Francisco.

- I am encouraged that the Mayor's Office of Economic Development is trying to broaden this discussion a little bit beyond PDR.

Fred Snyder

- This plan is not really meeting the needs of what it is in the field. Many of the uses are becoming non-conforming.

Jim

- Acquired a lot on Potrero Hill for a business that is proposed for a height limit of 45 feet while just across the street it is 60 feet. The whole area should have a 60 foot height limit.

Eric Quezada, Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

- There is a conflict between last weeks' presentation and today's because we should not try to define what office space is but the preservation of classic/traditional PDR.

Judy West

- Reminded the Commission of the economic issues that the artists are facing with seismic upgrades right now and seismic impacts that are not being considered in any of the Eastern Neighborhoods.

Peter Cohen

- The trick is how to really grow the economy and all its various sectors into the future while thinking about that in terms of workforce.

Nick Pagaulatos

- As Ken Rich said at the last hearing, the real challenge is not try to move San Francisco back to its industrial past but to really manage the piece of change.

- We need to plan for the unknown by paying attention to what we know. PDR is still a vital industry in San Francisco.

Jim Allen

- Echoed all the comments about flexibility. Do not consider people that went through every process to get permitted as non-conforming without some kind of protection.

Tony Kelly, Potrero Boosters

- We support the overlay district in the Central Waterfront but are strongly opposed to the innovative industry overlay in Showplace Square.

Mike Ghallager

- Regulations on how you are doing this plan have run out of the City one of the few hopes we have for the motion/picture industry.

Phil Lesser

- We all believe that we need to have PDR in San Francisco because we are one of the most technological advance places in the world and we need to keep that going. The question is where?

Jeffrey Leibovitz

- I have visited Vancouver and they are victims of their success now. They are so successful on residential that they have no place for jobs.

- We need to take into consideration jobs and where to put them in relationship to where we build the housing as well.

Greg Miller

- We are engaged in a difficult policy debate, not about whether to preserve industrial land but really how much to set aside and where that should be.

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

5:00 P.M.- [Although the following item may be called after the listed time, it will not be called before.]

Item taken out of order and followed item 19

18. (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task ForceStrategic Analysis Memos - The final informational presentation of the Western SoMa Strategic Analysis Memos. This presentation covers the analysis of existing conditions for Economics and Preservation for the Western SoMa Special Use District. These Strategic Analysis Memos provide background and analysis of conditions considered by the Task Force during the formulation of policy recommendations for a community plan that will be presented to the Planning Commission in July 2008.

SPEAKER(S)

Toby Levy, Vice-Chair of the Western SoMa Citizen Taskforce

- We started with the ideas of incorporating these principles from the start of our plan.

- When we are looking about the historic context that it is done in terms of the largest South of Market and not only SoMa. We thought of them as not only the preservation of buildings and structures but actually the culture and its residents.

- Western SoMa was settled by the Native American Indians and later by the Spanish settlers with ranchers that grouped by the time of the gold rush.

- It has been mostly working class through its history from the gold rush until today.

- The mixture was destroyed in the earthquake; in fact, there were very few buildings that survived the earthquake. Our historic buildings were actually rebuilt after the earthquake.

- When it was rebuilt [Mission Creek], it was rebuilt with a mixture of industrial warehouses and commercial buildings that supported the port and the industry in downtown. The residential structures were small in scale and often mixed in with the commercial buildings.

- The taskforce is thinking about preservation of culture, people, as well as structures.

- We are looking to complete our survey of historic resources. We want to have a policy that encourages new affordable housing that would have supportive services to sort of keep the members of the communities to live in South of Market.

- We wish to preserve existing housing stock and identify community benefits that would go to the support and retention to core culture assets.

Jim Meko, Chair of the Taskforce

- We spent almost the first year of the life of the taskforce concentrating on understanding what our vision and values were. It took almost a year to set down planning principles.

- The second and third year, we asked a lot of questions.

- The strategic analysis memorandums are basically the product of all the questions we had. I hope this is helpful to you before beginning to present the plan to you.

- When we do release the plan in June, I look forward to a conversation about our principles, questions, and the implementation of the Western SoMa Community Plan.

Anthony

- They did a great job.

Ingrid Aquino

- Thanked all the West SoMa Taskforce for the wonderful report.

Gus Kiper, Arts Taskforce

- The preservation of PDR and industrial space is essential for me as an individual and citizen of San Francisco to have the opportunity to find a job and to afford a place to live here.

- I am hoping that there is communication and dialogue in preservation and usage; to have a comprehensive plan to go forward.

Peter Cohen

- What you saw tonight were some things that were made up as ways to answer questions that this planning taskforce came up with. This is one of the interesting and neat things about this.

- It would be great to see if there were some good methods that come out of it to use those again because you are able to get some very fine grained insights that you can not get through a lot of typical planning analysis.

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

6:30 P.M. - - [Although the following items may be called after the listed time, they will not be called before.]

Item taken out of order and followed 17

19. 2004.0160EMTUZUU (K. RIch: (415) 558-6345)

Eastern Neighborhoods PROGRAM - This is the second of a series of public workshops at which the Planning Commission will consider the entire Eastern Neighborhoods Program and direct staff on any modifications that should be made to the proposals. At the end of the hearing series, the Commission will be requested to certify the Environmental Impact Report and take a number of additional actions to approve the Eastern Neighborhoods Program, which are described below.

Members of the public may review a copy of the proposals at the San Francisco Planning Department office at 1650 Mission Street 4th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, at the Public Library (the Main Library 100 Larkin St., the Mission branch library, 300 Bartlett St., and the Potrero branch library, 1616 20th Street). An electronic copy of the proposed amendments and actions is available at http://en-hearings.sfplanning.org. Printed copies at full printing cost and CD-ROM copies at no charge are available from the Department, by contacting (415) 575-9097 or eastern.neighborhoods@sfgov.org.

Proposed Topics for Planning Commission Hearings

A list of proposed topics for each of the workshops is available on the Department's website at http://en-hearings.sfplanning.org. These topics may be changed at the direction of the Commission. Be advised that due to the nature of the public hearings, the Commission may continue any particular hearing item and/or may not hear all items at the hearing. To confirm the final Commission Hearing schedule, on the week of the hearing please visit: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_meeting.asp?id=15840 or call Eastern Neighborhoods Information line at 575-9097.

Hearing #2 – May 22, 2008 6:30 pm (Commission workshop & public comment)

Staff will lead a discussion with the Commission on the following aspects of the four Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans: Complete Neighborhoods – overall framework for transportation, open space, streets, building heights and design, community facilities and historic preservation in East SoMa, Mission, Showplace/Square Potrero Hill and Central Waterfront. At this hearing, Planning Department staff will present information and the Planning Commission will hear public comment on the subjects discussed at the hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation and Public Comment; No Commission Action requested at the May 22 hearing.

The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on May 15, 2008 to consider Case No. 2004.0160EMTUZUU, and would include adopting a Motion to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings and consider resolutions to approve amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map and resolutions to approve Historic Resources Interim Procedures and Public Benefits Program and Monitoring Procedures related to the four Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans – the Mission, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront and East SoMa Area Plans. Hearings are currently scheduled for May 15, 2008, May 22, 2008, June 5, 2008, June 12, 2008 and June 19 2008. The Commission will consider and receive public comment on specific aspects of the Plans and proposed amendments at each hearing. The series of hearings will culminate in a public hearing to consider adoption actions on or after June 19, 2008.

The project encompasses a significant proportion of the San Francisco land area in the southeast quadrant of the City, encompassing:

· East SoMa (the eastern portion of the South of Market district), bounded generally by Folsom Street on the northwest, the Rincon Hill Plan area (essentially, Second Street) on the east, Townsend Street on the south, and Fourth Street on the west, with an extension to the northwest bounded by Harrison, Seventh, Mission, Sixth (both sides), Natoma, Fifth, and Folsom Streets;

· the Mission, bounded by 13th and Division Streets on the north, Potrero Avenue on the east, César Chávez Street on the south, and Guerrero Street on the west;

· the Showplace Square/Potrero Hill district, generally bounded by Bryant Street and 10th Street on the northwest, Seventh Street on the northeast, Interstate Highway 280 (I-280) on the east, 25th and 26th Streets on the south, and Potrero Avenue on the west; and

· the Central Waterfront, bounded by Mariposa Street on the north, San Francisco Bay on the east, Islais Creek on the south, and I-280 on the west.

The project areas are comprised of the entirety or portions of 437 Assessor's Blocks. Specifically, on or after June 19, 2008, the Commission will consider the following actions:

· Case 2004.0160E – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of CEQA Findings on the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.

· Case 2004.0160M - Adopt General Plan amendments that would, 1) add to the General Plan four new area plans (the  Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans ), which include the Mission, East SoMa, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill and Central Waterfront Area Plans; and 2) also make related amendments to the following portions of the existing General Plan: the Commerce and Industry Element, Recreation Element, Open Space Element, the South of Market Area Plan, the Central Waterfront Area Plan, the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan, and the Land Use Index;

· Case 2004.0160T - Adopt Planning Code text amendments that would revise Planning Code controls, including, but not limited to controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, density, open space, and parking; establish 13 new zoning districts; amend the South Park District; RTO District, NCT Districts, and Downtown Residential Districts; and make related revisions to the Planning Code necessary to implement the General Plan as proposed to be amended and make related Planning Code Amendments pursuant to the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.

· Case 2004.0160Z - Adopt Zoning Map amendments that would revise the Zoning Maps of the City and County of San Francisco. Proposed Planning Code map amendments would a) update height and bulk districts, b) apply the RTO District and PDR-2 Districts in the Eastern Neighborhoods, and c) establish 13 new zoning districts.

· Case 2004.0160U – Adopt Interim Historic Preservation procedures that would establish interim procedures for additional review of proposed changes to or demolition of historic or potentially historic resources in the Eastern Neighborhoods, pending completion of the ongoing historic resource surveys.

· Case 2004.0160UU - Adopt Monitoring and Review Procedures in order to review development activity and progress towards the Eastern Neighborhoods implementation measures.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 12, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee and Moore

EXCUSED: Miguel and Sugaya

I. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

20. 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.

NONE

J. 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))

SPEAKER(S)

None

Adjournment: 10:46 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, October 16, 2008.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Borden

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