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

December 8, 2011 - Regular Meeting

New Page 1

 SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, December 8, 2011

1:00 PM

Regular Meeting

 

 

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

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:00 PM

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Sophie Hayward, Sara Vellve, Thomas Wang, Sharon Young,  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.         2011.0304DV                                                                            (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

147 ANDOVER STREET - east side between Powhattan and Eugenia Avenues; Lots 024 in Assessor’s Block 5647 - Requested Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.10.21.3547, proposing to change the roofline at the rear of the subject building and construct a new rear deck and stair on the existing single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House – One-Family) Zoning District and the Bernal Heights Special Use District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2012)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

2.         2011.1064C                                                                   (S. Hayward: (415) 558-6372)

2800 SLOAT BOULEVARD - north side of Sloat Boulevard, between 46th and 47th Avenues, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 2515 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303(e), to add two years to the validity of the previously approved Conditional Use Authorization for the proposed project originally approved November 13, 2008 under Case No. 2005.1066C. The project includes 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 112-space subterranean parking structure and a one-story approximately 1,000 gsf commercial building. 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

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 10, 2011)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 26, 2012)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

3.         2007.0310C                                                                         (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)

1340 NATOMA STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets; Lot 065 of Assessor’s Block 3548 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 175.6(e), 215, 303, and 317 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and to construct a 40-foot tall three-family dwelling within a UMU (Urban Mixed Use) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District; and utilizing the Project’s Eastern Neighborhoods Pipeline status per Planning Code Section 175.6(e) to elect to conform to the controls under the former C-M (Heavy Commercial) Zoning District and 50-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

                        (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

E.         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.         2011.0726C                                                                        (S. Vellve:  (415) 558-6263)

1188 FRANKLIN STREET - southeast corner of Geary and Franklin Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 0714 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 712.83 and 303, to allow AT&T Mobility to locate up to nine (9) WTS panel antennas flush mounted to the building’s exterior and related equipment on the roof of a four-story office building occupied by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union within a NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale)  District and 130-E Height and Bulk District. The site is a Location Preference 3 (wholly commercial structure).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 1, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18502

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

5.         Consideration of Adoption: 2012 Planning Commission hearing schedule

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved as modified: add 8/16/12 and 11/29/12 as hearing days

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

 

6.         Commission Comments/Questions

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

·         Future Meetings/Agendas.  At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

 

Commissioner Antonini:

I want to thank the Housing Action Coalition for forwarding a reprint from the "New York Times" of a very interesting review of a book, The History of Suburban Corporate Landscape.  The author is from San Francisco, Luis Mosingo, Professor of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning at UC Berkeley. What is really interesting is the history of how we got into the situation we're in. In the first place, I guess, the business part from 1942 when AT&T and Bell Telephone moved some of its offices from Lower Manhattan to somewhere near New Jersey, and that was the beginning of a trend that happened over the next 70 years or so, which is unfortunate, because in addition to the environmental waste in using private agricultural land, it also does some other really negative things. It segregates these people from the rest of the community, because they basically, if they do not get there by automobile, they cannot get there, and they do not leave the place during their working hours, because the cafeteria is there and there's no place to go. Sidewalks do not connect these to any other place where you can go. So you use the civic connection you have in cities with shopping, housing, recreation, and transportation. It points specifically to various places, certainly with reference to Silicon Valley. Some of the Silicon Valley business parks, but also Bishop Part in the East Bay and that is a classic example. But that did very poor land use, because they spread out what could be condensed into one City block over acres and acres over what used to be prime farmland. The author suggests a number of different things we can do and it would certainly help to stop Federal and State governments from paying for new highway extensions to make these kinds of business parks and other development of agricultural land possible.  And also, at least require exits to make connections between these parks to the nearest housing and near a town so people can take transit there, walk there, or bicycle there, not necessarily have to go by automobile, and perhaps even patronize those areas of little bit more. Third, which I think is a key point, provide favorable tax increments for businesses that locate within established urban areas and perhaps even have an extra tax for companies that should choose to promote further sprawl into suburban areas. And this is also true, to a large degree, for sports and entertainment complexes, and we have all seen the great success with AT&T Park and how people get in and out of there pretty easily.  It is truly a fabric of San Francisco and the entire Bay Area. Although Candlestick is much maligned, last Sunday, as I have done many times, I walked from the T-Line to Candlestick, an easy half mile walk, as is the case with Caltrain. Many people take buses. I notice probably 20% or more actually use public transportation to get in and out of games, which would not be the case if you built some complex in the middle of nowhere without any public transportation. Anyway, that being said, I think that it is a really good article and hopefully we can begin to influence sensible public policy in regards to relocating business into urban areas and helping the environment and also, you know, helping people to intermingle with each other and not be so isolated.

Commissioner Miguel:

Just to tier onto Commissioner Antonini's comment one of the other thing that business parks do is they have all of these jitney fleets that are exclusive to their particular businesses. There's no cooperation among them. They all operate roughly the same route. And it just clogs things even further. Aside from that, in the past week, I had discussions with people regarding Geary BRT, if that ever comes to pas; the item on our calendar today - the AT&T Towers on 14th Avenue; some of the aspects of America's Cup; and the project that is proposed for the old CALA Foods site at California and Hyde.

President Olague:

 I just wanted to ask that we close the meeting today in honor of Michael Goldstein.  He was an activist in the LGBT community, and he watched our broadcast here all the time and spent a lot of time educating me, at least, on issues that pertain to the need for affordable housing for different low-income communities and medical cannabis issues as well. It was a huge loss. He passed away last Friday. I would like to close in his memory.

Commissioner Moore:

 I assume that everybody has read in the paper that the W hotel filed an appeal on the Museum.  On another point, the AIA has created a website to connect tall projects with architects and investors.  That was a very interesting thing, actually a nationwide thing, and I thought that was projected to give people an ability to really look at what is on the board and what might be part of financing. I think it creates a message in regards to them being active in that. So we will be off a lot at the end of the year. Historically, we have always been.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

7.             Director’s Announcements

 

                        Director Rahaim:

Three announcements from me today: One is that at long last, our Communications Manager will be on board in about three weeks, by the middle of January. We had cleared the necessary arrangements to hire her, and we're pleased she will be joining us at long last. Second, in your packet that you will receive this afternoon is a memo on the budget. We're at that moment already - starting the budget process. Seems like we just ended, and we are starting again. In fact, we just ended. The memo is kind of looking at year to date, this fiscal year. It covers the data we have, which is the first four months of this year, and looked ahead to how we are doing for the current fiscal year. You will be having a series of hearings early in the year, including your first meeting on January 12, when we will be starting the budget discussions for next fiscal year. Third, is a reminder that, like last year, the Department's primary offices will be closed during the holiday week from December 26th.  The Permit Counter will be open, as well as DBI's, but the actual Department offices will be closed for that week.

 

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

 

LAND USE COMMITTEE:

§  Hearing on the Status of Formula Retail.  This week the Committee heard a request from Supervisor Mar on the growth of formula stores in the City and County of San Francisco and their impacts on our small businesses, neighborhoods, workers, and economy.  Planning Department staff had conferred with the Supervisor in advance of the hearing and he had requested that we provide an updated version of the report we shared with this commission over the Summer.  Staff updated that report on the basic definition of formula retail, a history on how the City has legislated the issue since 2004, and a status on the number, type and results of permit applications for formula retail.  Staff from the Small Business Commission spoke on the economic impact of chain stores vs. local stores as did a number of community advocates included representatives from locally-owned hardware stores, pet stores, and a group title “San Francisco Locally Owned Merchants Alliance or SFLOMA”.  Other speakers from outside SF included employees of Wal-Mart who had organized a group titled “Save our Wal-Mart” who sought living wages for Wal-Mart employees. Members of the public questioned both the appropriateness and the methods by which the Department interprets PC language that asks us to consider the FR concentration within the NC District. The Committee members expressed sentiments in support of economic equity with Supervisor Cohen seeking certain formula retail opportunities in her district, and Supervisor Mar concluding that the City should sensitive to economic impacts of these stores on local businesses and that the issue is ripe for revisitation.  Supervisor Mar will be asking for a study on economic impacts in the future.  The hearing was concluded without action to the call of the chair.

 

                                                          

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

 

·         Appeal of CU for wireless antennas at 2041 Larkin StreetThis Commission approved the CU with a 6-0 vote on 9/22. In this case, the appellants' questioned the “necessity and desirability” of the installation. They claimed that the Preference one location was not the best location for these antennas and the a better location would have been somewhere within the Polk NC District. At the hearing, Department staff presented the material that had been presented to the Commission when you granted the CU unanimously on October 6th.  Staff explained that Public sites such as this Church have been the City’s First Preference for Antenna siting since 1996 and that while the Board of Supervisors had asked for some changes to the lesser preference criteria, both the Board and the Commission have maintained that these sites provide the best alternative for securing cell coverage in otherwise residential districts.  At the hearing appellants claimed that open DBI enforcement complaints should have prevented issuance of the CU.  Staff explained that we had checked with the DBI Deputy Chief of Inspections and Enforcement and that we were assured by DBI that there were no active violations or issues that warranted withholding the permit.  The appellants compared AT&T’s coverage maps presented to the Commission which showed coverage gaps vs. coverage maps shown by AT&T’s marketing arm which shows good coverage in the Russian Hill area.  After public comment the district Supervisor, Board President and the District Supervisor Chiu asked Planning Staff about this conflicting information.  Staff described that these maps were not specifically presented to the Commission for their consideration but that the Commission had found AT&T’s coverage maps to be compelling.  The Board then rigorously questioned AT&T about the coverage maps.  Supervisor Wiener moved to reject the Commission’s CU but to approve a new CU with a new condition that Planning Staff pick an independent, state-licensed engineer to make an objective evaluation of AT&T’s cell coverage in this area.  Planning staff is to consult with both the appellants and the project sponsor on this selection and any potential consultant would have to sign a confidentiality agreement acceptable to AT&T.  If this evaluator finds a gap that would be improved by the new antennas the CU will be approved.  If there is no gap or a gap that is not improved by this antennae installation, the antennas will be disapproved.    AT&T will fund the costs charged by this independent evaluator. With that new condition, the Board voted  8-3 (Avalaos, Mar, Mirkarimi voted no) to add this to the Conditional Use authorization.

 

·         The Board then heard an appeal of a subdivision at 1138 Page street that had some planning issues.  The Planning issues revolved around the number of units at the property and whether CEQA review had been completed.  In this case there were two units but only one permitted residential unit and one commercial unit.  The appellant had claimed that if there were two residential units, the property should have gone thru the condo-conversion lottery prior to subdivision.  Staff informed that Board that since this property was a single family dwelling with a commercial unit and not two residential units, the subdivision was permitted.  Staff also presented evidence that CEQA had been performed twice on this permit: once on the building permit and once on the subdivision: both times the same Cat Ex determination was reached.  The Board voted 11-0 to uphold the subdivision.

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTIONS: 

 

·         111315 Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code Section 713.61 to: 1) allow an automobile sale or rental use in NC-S Districts as a conditional use. Elsbernd.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS:

No Report

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

There were a number of items on their calendar. Most of them were pretty routine. Just three items I want to bring to your attention. They heard a Certificate of Appropriateness for 940 Grove Street, lovingly called the “Painted Men”.  Most of the Commissioners expressed that they were not overly “wowed” by the proposal before them. Part of the conversation included comments that they
could be differentiated in three proposals: the three buildings could be differentiated by their exterior
painting; the design of the center windows could be call out differently; and they definitely wanted the roof overhang on the north side set back by 3 feet. They also wanted the garage color to not be painted gray. With those suggestions and a few others, they did approve it. They also heard the proposed legislation by Supervisor Chiu on building uses; floor-area ratio; parking, and compliance by use districts.  This is an item that will be coming before you. They had a very robust discussion of the item. Ultimately, they agreed to continue the item to a later date, but did direct staff to write you a letter with some of their comments. The last item was a discussion on the extension of the F-Line Streetcar service. They also directed staff to write a letter indicating their support of that proposal. But they did want to point out that they wanted to have particular attention paid to platform design and landscaping, as well as some other issues.

 

D.         GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

 

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.  With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

SPEAKERS:     Linda Chapman

                        Re: 1800 Van Ness Avenue

                        Rose Hillman

                        Re: Supervisor Chiu’s Use legislation

                        Jo Butler

                        Re: Affordable housing

                        Peter Warfield

                        Re: demolition of library buildings and partial deterioration of assets of the City

 

E.            REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

9.         2011.0167T                                                                    (S. Hayward: (415) 558-6372)

Amendments to the Planning Code including but not limited to Articles 10 and 11 - Ordinance sponsored by the Planning Department that would amend the Planning Code including but not limited to Articles 10 and 11.  The Planning Commission reviewed proposed amendments on August 5, 2010 and recommended approval with minor modifications of various Code Sections to the Board of Supervisors.  The Historic Preservation Commission began a parallel review of the proposed amendments in 2010 on the following dates: July 21st, August 4th, 18th, September 1st, 15th, and 29th, October 6th 15th, and 21st, November 3rd and 17th

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval

                                (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 10, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Lucia Bogatay, Sarah Karlinsky, Mike Buhler, Paul Wermer, Inge Horton, F. Joseph Butler, Suzanne Ruecker, John Gaul, Gideon Kramer, Peter Lewis, Denise D’Anne, Linda Chapman, Judith Hoyem, Jim Warshell, Joan Wood, Stewart Norton, Katherine Petrin, Walter Donner, Susan Englaner, Alan Martinez, Eddie Ann, Katherine Howard

ACTION:           Following hearing, continued to 2/2/12. Public hearing remains open

AYES:              Miguel, Antonini, Fong, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT:          Olague and Borden

 

10.        2011.0198C                                                                        (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

601 - 14th AVENUE - southwest corner of Balboa Street and 14th Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1630 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.6 and 303, to allow AT&T Mobility to locate up to six (6) WTS panel antennas in three separate faux chimney elements on the roof and related equipment in the building’s basement of the three-story institutional (Jewish Educational Society of San Francisco) building, within a RM-1 (Mixed, Low Density) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The site is a Location Preference 1 (school/institutional structure).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Teddi Verdersin, for AT&T, George Holz, Elise RousseauHers Ravkin, David Mostovoy, Olga Novak, Mila Shylyar, Vitaly Morozr, Katheryn Schopp, Lara-Miya Milrod, Yeva Masluk Inna Shpitalnik, V adim Heytitch, Ms. Mor Gilboa, Rabbi Pinchas Lehner, Rabbi Mryouv, Peter Keane, Maxz Starubinskiy, Aaron Karpel, Vladimir Shyitalnik, Stephen Sherman, Nikali Gusenkov, Anat Pilovsuy

ACTION:           Approved as modified with the reduction of 2 antennas (from 6 to 4)

AYES:              Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT:          Olague

MOTION:           18503

 

11.        2011.0949D                                                                            (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

1737 POST STREET SUITE 300 (AKA 11 PEACE PLAZA) - south side between Webster and Buchanan Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 0700 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2011.06.01.7183, proposing the change of use of an approximately 490 square-foot vacant ground floor commercial space (previously occupied by a retail store) into a small self-service restaurant (d.b.a. KB Café) within the interior of Japantown Center Kintetsu Mall in the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale) Neighborhood Commercial District, Japantown Special Use District, and 50-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal will involve interior tenant improvements to the commercial space.

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with conditions

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of November 10, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     David Gottard - representing Project Sponsor, Tommy Wu - Project Architect, Robert Rusky, Robert Hamaguchi, Ryan Kimura, David Girraud, Paul Wermer, Rose Hillson

      1) ACTION:        Take Discretionary Review and approve w/ modifications per staff recommendations

AYES:              Antonini, Borden and Fong

NAYES:            Moore, Sugaya and Miguel

ABSENT:          Olague

MOTION FAILED

 

2) ACTION:        Continue to 2/2/12. Public hearing remains open.

AYES:              Miguel, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES:            Antonini,

ABSENT:          Olague

 

                12a.      2008.0224D                                                                              (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

42 MIRAMAR AVENUE - east side between Grafton and Lake View avenues; Lot 033 in Assessor’s Block 7016 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.05.16.2509, proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved demolition

AYES:              Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Fong, and Moore

ABSENT:          Sugaya and Olague

DRA:                0246

]

12b.      2005.0844DD                                                                           (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

42 MIRAMAR AVENUE east side between Grafton and Lake View avenues; Lot 033 in Assessor’s Block 7016 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d) and one public request for Discretionary Review, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.05.16.2506, proposing to construct a two-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

 

NOTE:              The public request for DR was withdrawn

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved construction

AYES:              Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Fong, and Moore

ABSENT:          Sugaya and Olague

DRA:                0247

 

F.         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))

None

 

Adjournment: 7:01 PM – Adjourned in memory of Michael Goldstein

Adopted:          January 12, 2012

 
Last updated: 1/19/2012 2:51:04 PM