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

February 26, 2009

February 26, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 26, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Aaron Hollister, Sharon Young, Mary Woods, Sarah Dennis-Phillips, Jonas Ionin, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Joshua Switzky, Elizabeth Watty, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2001.1056E (L. KIENKER: (415) 575-9036)

280 DIVISADERO STREET CARRIAGE HOUSE - east side of Divisadero Street between Page and Haight Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 1238 – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project would replace an existing approximately 1,340-square foot (sf) carriage house structure, part of Landmark No. 190, the Charles L. Hinkel House, for a single residential unit within the same building footprint as the existing structure and attached garage, at the northeast corner property lines of the 6,875-sf lot. The proposed structure would be two stories in height and include a deck over an attached garage. The proposed project would not modify the main three-story over garden-level residential structure. The project would require approval of a Variance for construction within the required setbacks and a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Article 10 for demolition and new construction. The project would have a significant impact on Landmark No. 190, constructed in 1885.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR

Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on June 18, 2007. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission in writing prior to the hearing or during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

(Proposed for Continuance to March 19, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2006.1431E (D. DWYER: (415) 575-9031)

1960-1998 MARKET STREET/Project Title - north side between Laguna and Buchanan; Lots 005, 006 and 007 of Assessor's Block 0872 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed project consisting of the demolition of the existing a surface parking lot with approximately 20 carshare parking spaces; Union 76 gas station comprised of a 1,710-square-foot, one-story building, three islands with gas pumps sheltered by metal canopy approximately 15 feet in height, and two 12,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs); and two 12 ft x 25 ft general advertising signs. The proposed project also would construct a nine-story, 85-foot-tall mixed-use building totaling approximately 146,800 gross square feet in area, including ground floor parking with approximately 108 condominium units, 86 off-street parking spaces located on the ground floor and in two below-grade garage levels, and three ground-floor commercial spaces totaling 8,150 square feet. The 21,200-square-foot project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Market, Duboce and Buchanan Streets in an NCT-3 (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District and 85-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 19, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2008.1393T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Ordinance Rescinding Planning Code Articles 10 & 11 in their Entirety and Adopting a New Article 10 & 11, and adding new Planning Code section 176(F) [Board File No. 08-1565]- Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly and former Supervisor Peskin that would rescind Articles 10 and 11 from the Planning Code in its entirety and adopting a new Article 10 and 11 to implement the provisions of the new San Francisco Charter Section 4.135 (Historic Preservation Commission), and to add Section 176(f).

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 9, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2008.1147T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to Articles 10 and 11 and adding a new Section 309.3 of the Planning Code- Ordinance introduced by Mayor Newsom amending Articles 10 and 11 and adding a new Section 309.3 of the Planning Code, contingent on voter approval in the November 4, 2008 general election of the proposed Charter amendment creating an Historic Preservation Commission, to provide additional criteria for Planning Commission review of Historic Preservation Commission decisions, to provide for Section 309 review at the discretion of the Planning Department Director of certain projects requiring Certificates of Appropriateness under Article 10 of the Planning Code, and to create a rebuttable presumption of compatibility for certain projects requiring Certificates of Appropriateness under Article 10 of the Planning Code; adopting findings, including environmental findings and findings required by Section 101.1 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 9, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, 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

5a. 2008.1215CV (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

827 Guerrero Street - east side between 20th Street and Liberty Street, Lot 076 in Assessor's Block 3608 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.2(a) and 303 for a 20-bed group housing facility in an RH-2 (Residential, House Districts, Two-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing building–previously a residential care facility (dba Chateau Agape) into a group housing facility (dba The Alternative to Meds Center) with a maximum of 15 bedrooms and 20 beds and 1 off-street parking space. No changes are proposed for the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 3/12/09

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

5b. 2008.1215CV (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

827 Guerrero Street– east side between 20th Street and Liberty Street, Lot 076 in Assessor's Block 3608 - Request for a Parking Variance pursuant to Planning Code Sections 151 and 305 to provide only 1 of the 5 required off-street parking spaces for a 20-bed group housing facility in an RH-2 (Residential, House Districts, Two-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing building previously a residential care facility (dba Chateau Agape)–into a group housing facility (dba The Alternative to Meds Center) with a maximum of 15 bedrooms and 20 beds.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 3/12/09

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

6. 2008.0528Q (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

860 WALLER STREET - north side between Webster and Buchanan Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1240 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed five-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing five-unit building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration or demolition of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17832

7. 2007.0901Q (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

235 WALLER STREET - south side between Webster and Buchanan Streets, Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 0869 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed six-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in an RTO (Residential, Transit-Oriented) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing six-unit building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration or demolition of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17833

8. 2008.1408C (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

614 IRVING STREET - north side between 7th and 8th Avenues; Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 1743 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 730.51 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert vacant commercial space (previously occupied by a television sales and repair shop dba Irving Electronics) into a dental office dba Svetlana Yesin, D.D.S. within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17834

9. 2008.1289C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

630 IRVING STREET- north side between 7th and 8th Avenues; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 1743 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a  formula retail use (dba Crossroads Trading Company, Inc.) pursuant to Sections 303(c), 303(i) and 703.4 of the Planning Code, in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert a vacant retail space (formerly  Black Oak Books ) to a retail clothing store for Crossroads Trading Company, Inc., which is a formula retail use. Crossroads Trading Company would vacate its current premises at 555 Irving Street to relocate to the project site. The proposed project will occupy the entire building, approximately 2,800 square feet. The proposal involves interior remodeling work with minimal exterior improvements, while maintaining the existing building envelope and height. The existing building has no off-street parking or loading spaces and none is required or proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17835

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

10. Commission Comments/Questions

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

Commissioner Antonini:

He expressed that the two things we (the commission) has the most discussion on are preservation and rent control, or things related to them. One of the concerns is that we have a large stock of older homes with various needs (seismic, soft-story, plumbing, electrical, dry rot, etc.) and the renovations are expensive. The concept came to mind that there would some kind of a system whereby an owner or builder of a newer unit could trade that unit for older units. The older units would then not be under rent control. The newer units would then be under rent control. There would have to be a lot of protections for those renters that are in these units to make sure they were still under rent control. One of the benefits, other than the fact there would be more incentive to invest into the units because you could afford to do it because your rents could be raised, is the fact that there might be less of a tendency to move out of rental tenancy into home ownership tenancy because now there are great pressures on owners. They buy buildings and you can't possibly rent them for enough so there is a tendency to want to try to convert them into a different tenancy. I think it's a concept to think about and explore because we have such a need for these older structures to be renovated and there are a lot of things the newer structures lend themselves more to families. You have more bathrooms; you have better room plans; the plumbing and electrical systems are better; and by its nature you would not have to increase the rents as much because presumably these buildings have been built to the seismic qualifications and other qualifications that we have today and there would be less need to increase rents. It would be a voluntary program and I throw it out for the commissioners and other to think about.

Commissioner Borden:

I just want to ask staff on record about the Metro Theatre because that was an item that was supposed to be coming before the Commission next week and it is my understand that it is no longer coming before the Planning Commission and it's going before the Historic Preservation Commission.

Commissioner Miguel responded:

I discussed this earlier with the City Attorney and would appreciate it if they would give all of us that interpretation.

Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne responded:

As you all are aware on the November ballet this past fall the voters approved Proposition J which created a new Charter section – Section 4.135 – creating the new Historic Preservation Commission. That Charter Section specifically states under the sub-paragraph entitled Landmarks and Historic Districts I believe is the title, that the Historic Preservation Commission shall make recommendations regarding approval, disapproval or modification of individual landmarks directly to the Board of Supervisors without referral or recommendation of the Planning Commission. So essentially, the Planning Commission no longer has jurisdiction to give a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors about individual landmarks. For Historic Districts it is slightly different. The Charter Amendment does state that the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendations on Historic Districts should be referred to the Planning Commission for their input and then that input would be sent to the Board of Supervisors along with Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. But because the proposed landmarking of the Metro Theatre is just for an individual landmark building, it is no longer within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction.

Commissioner Borden:

I do have a question. It is my understanding that the Metro Theatre was already heard before the old Landmarks Board. I know that is a different body now, but I am just wondering about that process and will we have other projects that having been heard previously by the Landmarks Board that now have to have a second hearing again before the Historic Preservation Commission.

Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne responded:

The Metro Theatre was sort of caught in between the two processes and had its first hearing before the former Landmarks Board back in December when that body still existed. Subsequent to that the new Charter section went into effect. Under the law the new procedures are applied to projects of applications that have not completed their approval process. The new procedures of having it go before the Historic Preservation Commission are required. It actually doesn't create a new hearing because under the old procedures it still would have had to come before this body. So it's a different body they are appearing in front of but it is the same number of hearings that they would have had under the old system.

Commissioner Borden:

Do we have any knowledge about how many projects approximately might fall into that category?

Tara Sullivan-Lenane of Department Staff responded:

We have analyzed, once this came up about the Metro Theatre, to see if there were any other projects in the pipeline that were subject to this and the Department doesn't believe that there are. There is a Planning Code change for Article 10 – The Bush Street Cottage Row Historic District – which was heard by the Landmarks Board as well as the Planning Commission. It was pending at Land Use for most of the fall. So that has actually been re-referred back to us and is subject to the same controls that Deputy City Attorney Byrne mentioned. It has come back to the Planning Department. It has to be heard by the Preservation Commission and then again by you one more time. That is another piece of a code change that is in limbo, but in terms of specific projects, it is only the Metro Theatre that has been caught in this.

Commissioner Borden:

So assuming whatever happens in that process, when they would come with a real project that would still come to us, correct?

Tara Sullivan-Lenane responded:

For the Metro Theatre? Presuming that theatre gets landmarked as an individual landmark under Article 10, it would need a Certificate of Appropriateness that would go the Historic Preservation Commission. It would also likely need a Conditional Use that would come in front of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Borden:

If it doesn't need a Conditional Use for the uses they put in there then we won't see it.

Tara Sullivan-Lenane:

Exactly.

Commissioner Sugaya:

There was an article in the Chronicle's Sports section that said that Bill Lee actually tried out for the Giants in 1985 and goes on to elaborate. I just want to acknowledge Commissioner Lee as a former baseball player.

Commissioner Lee (in the background):

It was the Boston Red Socks

Commissioner Antonini:

To the City Attorney: Does Prop J have definite language that speaks to projects that are not completed or is your opinion more of an interpretation?

Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne responded:

It doesn't specifically call out projects that are not completed

Commissioner Antonini:

What is the basis of your opinion on that then?

Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne responded:

On which? On the Metro Theatre?

Commissioner Antonini:

On the fact that it's in transit. It sort of started but not completed. So one could interpret it that since its already been started it should just precede through the channels that existed at the time it began as opposed having to go through the new &

Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne responded:

I'm sure the Zoning Administrator could also speak to this, but for any project of any kind, if it hasn't gotten the permit or in this case had a final hearing on its landmarking, if it's still going through the process, new processes apply to that. This comes up frequently in the context of permitting. Unless there is a specific exemption in the new legislation that grandfathers existing applications, applications that have not been completed are always subject to new processes.

Commissioner Antonini:

My follow up question is does there need to be a full Preservation Commission in place before action can be taken or can they take action with less than a full complement of commissioners?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

It is my understanding that there are four commissioners. That constitutes a quorum. They need a unanimous opinion because they need a majority of the full complement because they only have four of the seven to make a decision. But they can make decisions as long as they all agree, which in San Francisco is common.

Commissioner Olague:

I have some questions about the CAC for the Eastern Neighborhoods and when that is going to be established.

Director Rahaim responded:

Commissioner, the letter went to the Board and to the Mayor asking that they appoint their members. We sent that out about two weeks ago. We are waiting to hear back. There are a total of about nine or eleven, I can't quite remember the exact number.

Commissioner Olague:

When is the Mission Street rezoning going to happen?

Director Rahaim responded:

The Board legislation directing us to do that work asked us to bring something back for their consideration within six months from the effective date of the Plan. The Plan was effective at the end of January and staff is already working on that. We believe we can meet their schedule and get something to this Commission and to the Board in June or July.

Commissioner Olague:

I'm kind of hoping that the CAC is established so they can weigh in. I think that is critical.

Director Rahaim responded:

We are doing our best to make that happen.

Commissioner Olague:

What would fall under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission vs this commission in the Eastern Neighborhoods? I want an understanding of what types of development would be heard by us. And also, I don't believe that any members of the affordable housing development community or community based organizations that do advocacy work around community based planning were apart of those drafting the Prop J legislation. I want to make sure that as we enter into the discussions of Articles 10 and 11 that the Planning Department convene a meeting with community based organizations and affordable housing developers so they can have a clear understanding of how the criteria that they would have to meet that is being established by this new commission might affect/impact the projects that they might be proposing. I think that is important that that take place. Also, when it comes to advocacy work that will have an impact I think on the type of projects they can advocate on and how they would advocate. I think that is a community in the city that needs to have a better understanding of this. Also, healthy development measurement tool is something that came up a lot during the Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment work. I would like to have a better understanding of how the Department is going to be applying it to projects. I would like an update. I know that DPH spent a lot of time and effort and money developing it.

Director Rahaim responded:

Why don't I ask staff to prepare a memo on that? There was some form of the healthy development measurement tool that was incorporated into the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. But we are happy to let you know how that is working.

Commissioner Olague:

Finally, last week, I believe it was someone who was speaking about the project for formerly homeless individuals in the Haight - I was wondering is there any mechanism for selecting people from a specific zip code when it comes to affordable housing projects. Maybe I could get some information from the Mayor's Office of Housing about it. They had asked if there was a way of prioritizing it.

Craig Idelman, Mayor's Office of Housing responded:

Traditionally, Redevelopment law allows for some more specific targeting of a geographic nature for housing but our sources generally at the Mayor's Office of Housing that don't fall under the California Redevelopment law requirements do not. And actually fair housing and other restrictions on our dollars specifically prohibit that kind of targeting.

Commissioner Olague:

There were formerly homeless individuals that were going to be placed into this one project.

Craig Idelman responded:

I think what we often times what we try and do is address that through affirmative marketing plans so that while we are not creating a specific geographic preference, what we are doing is affirmatively marketing to areas that we think are most in need.

Commissioner Lee:

Before you go, what is the definition of affirmative marketing?

Craig Idelman responded:

I don't know that I have a legal definition. The intention of affirmative marketing is making sure that there is much awareness of the availability of housing, and affordable housing in particular, to the San Francisco public as possible.

Commissioner Lee:

So if you advertise in just that area is that considered legal or illegal?

Craig Idelman responded:

I can't give you a legal definition. We have minimum standards that we adhere to. Every development we fund and work on requires an affirmative marketing plan and we have staff persons that review that for conformance with both legal requirements and our funding regulations.

Commissioner Lee:

My question is if someone say in the Mission or the Bayview wanted to move to the Haight, if you have affirmative marketing, how would those different ethnicity groups know there is availability for this type of housing say in the Haight?

Craig Idelman responded:

We have an array of outreach efforts. Some of them are city wide and some of them are working with specific community groups on targeted populations, for instance, homeless populations in this case where we know there is a concentrated need. So geographically we are not specifically targeting areas but often working with community based organizations and project sponsors.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Something Commissioner Olague said prompted me to ask this question and that is the Eastern Neighborhoods CAC is similar I assume to the Market Octavia CAC in what its roles and responsibilities are; so therefore they are not really project oriented

Commissioner Olague:

No but the rezoning of Mission Street isn't project oriented either per say, right?

Commissioner Sugaya:

But aren't they limited to looking at the community benefits program?

Director Rahaim responded:

Their primary is not to look at projects or zoning specifically, but to look at community benefits and how impact fee monies are proposed to be spent and to look at over time how the plan is doing; to Kind of do an on-going stewardship of the plan itself. We have to look at the specific language to know if they should formally weigh in on Mission Street height analysis.

Commissioner Olague:

It seems to me that stewardship would fall under that category.

Director Rahaim:

Perhaps

Commissioner Olague:

I would like a definite answer to that because I think it's critical.

Commissioner Miguel:

I want to mention that I had the pleasure of going on a SPUR tour of mosaic housing this week at 19th and Alabama. It is interesting because it is a massive project, a full large square block with public mid-block access, PDR already going in on the ground floor, rental and home ownership, BMR and market-rate all combined into one project and it looks like it was combined well. I also want to comment that this Tuesday in the Chronicle, John King's article on Working for More Affordable Housing I felt was done in his usual good style. I attended a meeting of the Japantown Better Neighborhoods group which meets on a regular basis and has for some time. Rosie Dudley from the Department does an excellent job running that group. I just wanted to get up to date in my mind on what's happening there as I did last night with at the meeting of the Taylor Street Revitalization Plan. There is a lot of things happening there – the 180 Jones street project, the TNDC project on Taylor that is not quite as far along. I have also met with some people on 1650 Broadway which is slowly coming around to us. Just so the Commission knows, I do not intend to do this very often, and that is ask for continuances. I don't like continuances. I like to try to have things settled, or at least come to some fruition as early as possible. But on 100 32nd Avenue, I worked with Glenn Cabreros who has arranged for a joint meeting with all parties and I think we are real close and my hope is we won't have to hear it. But that is not something I intend to do on a regular basis.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

11. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Good afternoon everyone. We did submit a balanced budget to the Mayor's Office last Friday. I just want to thank you again for your support of that budget last week. We will keep you informed as to the details as we move forward and to whether there will be any changes in the coming months, which there likely will be, but we don't know what those are at this point. I wanted to let you know that on the Bike Plan EIR we are working with the MTA very closely on that project. We are working on the comments and responses and we expect to be able to get that to you for final certification by the end of June, which I think meets a commitment that we made that happen in that time frame. And finally, you may have heard that I attended a Port Commission meeting on Tuesday evening related to the Northeast Waterfront. Supervisor Chiu as formally requested that the Port look at more closely the sites that they control along the Northeast Waterfront, along the Embarcadero, and the Port has asked us to do an urban design public realm study of that part of the Embarcadero, similar to what we did on the upper Market study. We have agreed to do that. We have been talking to the Port staff about budget and scope for that right now, but we do expect that we will be starting that very quickly and hope that we will complete by the middle of fall. The idea is to work with constituents in that part of the city, neighbors, and the community to look at specific design guidelines for the Port owned properties and to look at potential public realm improvements in that part of the Embarcadero. So we will be working closely with the Port over the next few months and we will brief you on that in the coming months as well.

12. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Commission.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT:

LAND USE:

  • India Basin Industrial Park (Redevelopment) – the Commission heard and approved this on 2/5/09 – the Committee recommended approved and forwarded it to the full Board
  • Interim Zoning Controls requiring CU for Tobacco Paraphernalia establishments as defined in the Haight Street NCD – forwarded to full Board with recommendation for approval
  • Balboa Park General Plan Amendments – approved by the Committee and forwarded to the full Board

FULL BOARD:

  • Re-zoning of 483 Bosworth Street, also known as 1 Lyell Street from P to RH-2

NEWLY INTRODUCED:

  • Supervisor Alioto-Pier introduced a 90-day extension for the Metro Theatre to allow the Historic Preservation Commission to review this item and get back to the Board of Supervisors
  • Supervisor Maxwell introduced the Visitation Valley Area Plan which included the General Plan Amendments, the Zoning Map and code changes.

BOARD OF APPEALS REPORT:

None

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REPORT:

None

13. (S. Dennis-Phillips 558-6314)

2009 Housing Element Update - Informational presentation to discuss progress to date on the 2009 Housing Element - The presentation will include an update on the remaining tasks and timeline for the project, including the ongoing outreach strategy to gather public input for the Housing Element.

SPEAKERS: Bernie Choden, Charles Ferguson, Joe Curtain, Judith Berkowitz

ACTION: Informational only – no Commission action

14. 2006.0460C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

690 Stanyan Street Mixed Use Development - Informational Presentation - to present refined architectural, landscape and loading plans subject to the review and approval of the Director of Planning, with the advice of the Planning Commission, with special attention to location of HVAC, cooling systems and air vents of the parking garage to mitigate impacts to residents along Page Street, for the project heard and approved by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2008.

SPEAKERS: Calvin Welch, Ted Lowenberg, Michael Parson

ACTION: Informational only – no Commission action

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.

SPEAKERS:

Quentin Kopp

Re: Letter of determination of a parcel on the even side of Brotherhood Way (800 Brotherhood Way); requirement of a pedestrian easement that has been obviated by a determination of the Zoning Administrator

Hirochi Fukuda

Re: Housing Element of 2004

Calvin Welch

Re: Housing Element

Jeremy Paul

Re:  Top Planner Picks Favorite Buildings article - the smallest of the residential buildings that the Director picked is a project I worked on. This building could not be built today. It was a long and difficult battle. But it is good architecture.

Judith Berkowitz

Re: How are we going to comment on your comments if we can't comment under Category F on today's calendar?

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.

SPEAKERS: None

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

15. 2008.1326T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code Section 315.6: Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly amending the San Francisco Planning Code Section 315.6 of the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program to provide that ten percent (10%) of in lieu fees paid under Section 315.6, not to exceed a maximum of $15 million at any one time, be designated exclusively for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing sites consisting of less than 25 units. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of February 12, 2009)

NOTE: On February 19, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve with modification by a vote of +6 -1. Commissioner Miguel voted no. Final Language is scheduled to February 26, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with modified findings recommended by staff to address concerns expressed by this commission on 2/19/09

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

NAYES: Miguel and Antonini

RESOLUTION: 17837

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

16. 2009.0056U (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

425 First Street- Motion to Authorize Allocation of up to $1,552,973 from Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund To Reimburse One Rincon Hill Development, LP Pursuant to Planning Code Sections 318 et seq. For New In-Kind Public Street Improvements on First and Harrison Streets. As of September 2008, a total of approximately $1,208,500 is available in the Fund, all in the form of Mello-Roos bond proceeds and held in trust by ABAG. One Rincon Hill Development, LP (the  Project Sponsor ) is currently completing construction on Phase I of its One Rincon Hill high-rise residential condominium project at 425 First Street (Block 3765, Lot 037; the  Project ). As part of Phase 1 of the Project, the Project Sponsor has constructed approximately 17,893 square feet of public streetscaping, sidewalk widening, and neighborhood open space infrastructure improvements in the First Street and Harrison Street public rights-of-way (the  Improvements ). The Improvements are of the type and kind called for in the Rincon Hill Area Plan of the General Plan and the Rincon Hill Streetscape Master Plan and are in excess of the open space required to be provided by the Project in satisfaction of Planning Code open space requirements, as well as in excess of basic street tree planting required by Planning Code Section 140 and other right-of-way infrastructure required by other agencies. The Improvements include decorative paving on sidewalks and within the roadway, extensive landscaping on sidewalks, and extensive landscaping and public seating in the First Street right-of-way. The Improvements were designed and implemented in consultation with the Planning Department. The Planning Director determined that the appropriate total value of the Improvements for purposes of fee payment pursuant to Planning Code Section 318.6 is $1,552,973 and has determined that such amount shall be appropriated from Fund to the Project Sponsor subject to fund availability.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: Steve Vettel – Representing the Project Sponsor

ACTION: Approved as modified to change paragraph 5 on page 4 to maintain $100,000 in the Fund and pay out $1.4 million if $1.5 million currently exists in the Fund.

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

MOTION: 17836

17a. 2007.0129D (G. CABREROS; (415) 558-6169)

100 32nd Avenue - southeast corner of the intersection with El Camino del Mar; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 1312 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.19.2027 proposing to construct a three-story side horizontal addition and to enlarge the existing partial fourth floor at the existing four-story, single-family residence. The subject building is within an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 3/12/09

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

17b. 2007.0129V (G. CABREROS: 415-558-6169)

100 32nd Avenue - southeast corner of the intersection with El Camino del Mar; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 1312 - Request for Variances from Planning Code Sections 133, 134 and 188 to modify a required side yard, the required rear yard and a noncomplying structure. The project proposes to construct a three-story side horizontal addition and to enlarge the existing partial fourth floor at the existing four-story, single-family residence. The subject building is within an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 3/12/09

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

18a. 2008.0319D (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

1515 12TH AVENUE - west side between Kirkham and Lawton Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1858 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.08.25.0622, proposing the demolition of a one-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling, located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: Lenny Kaminker – Project Sponsor

ACTION: Did not take DR and approved demolition

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

DRA#: 0066

18b. 2008.1364D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

1515 12TH AVENUE - west side between Kirkham and Lawton Streets, Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1858 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.08.25.0627, proposing the construction of a new four-story, two-family dwelling, located 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.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 18a

ACTION: Did not take DR and approved the project as proposed

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

DRA#: 0067

I. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 5:34 p.m.

Adopted: July 16, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:39 PM