February 12, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 12, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Lisa Feldstein, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:45 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Paul Maltzer; Amit Ghosh; Neil Hart; Mike Burkowitz; Larry McDonald; Diane Lim; Costolino Hogan; Rick Crawford; Glenn Cabreros; Isolde Wilson; Ben Fu; Dan DiBartolo; Lois Scott; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; 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. 2003.1254D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

170 ST. GERMAIN AVENUE - north side at Glenbrook Avenue; Lot 009 in Block 2708 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.31.0905, proposing to construct a horizontal and vertical addition to an existing single family dwelling in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-x Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for continuance to March 4, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 4, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

2. 2000.465E (R. COOPER: (415) 558-5974)

HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN - Appeal of the Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed revision of the Housing Element of the San Francisco General Plan, which is an update of the 1990 Residence Element of the San Francisco General Plan. The Housing Element is a public policy document that comprehensively addresses issues of housing needs for San Francisco residents and households. Included in the Housing Element is San Francisco population, employment and housing data analysis. Eight new policies are proposed to be added to the 63 policies and 11 objectives that have been modified or retained from the 1990 Residence Element.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

(Proposed for continuance to March 18, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

3. 2003.0106D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1910-12 STEINER STREET - east side between Wilmot and Bush Streets; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 0659 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.16.7169, proposing to merge two dwelling units to a single-family residence in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed dwelling unit merger.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2003)

(Proposed for continuance to March 25, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 25, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

4. 2003.1142D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1611 WALLACE AVENUE - south side between 3rd and Keith Streets; Lot 041 in Assessor's Block 5413 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to 1943 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2797 on the proposed 2-story horizontal rear addition to a single-family dwelling under Building Permit Application No. 2003.08.20.2646. The addition would extend the building by 24 feet in the rear, including 18 feet of interior space and a 6-foot rear deck. The site is in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

Note: This case was withdrawn per City Attorney's Zoning Administrator's decision.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Case Withdrawn

5. 2003.0183D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all residential demolitions of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.08.13.3876, proposing the demolition of a two-story, two-family dwelling within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal to construct a new, four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

NOTE: On September 25, 2003, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained two motions: 1) to take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition. The vote was +3 -3 with Commissioners Antonini, Bradford Bell, and Boyd voting no. The motion failed. 2) To continue the matter to October 16, 2003. That motion passed on a +6 -0 vote with Commissioner William Lee absent.

NOTE: On October 16, 2003, the Commission entertained two motions: 1) to take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition. The motion failed on a +3 -3 vote with Commissioners Antonini, Bradford Bell, and W. Lee voting no and Commissioner Boyd absent. 2) To continue the item to November 13, 2003. This motion passed on a +4 -2 vote with Commissioners Hughes and S. Lee voting no and Commissioner Boyd absent. The Commission requested that a representative from another City Department review the soundness report. The public hearing will be open to any new information presented to the Commission.

NOTE: On November 13, 2003, the Commission continued this item to

December 11, 2003 without hearing.

NOTE: On December 11, 2003, the Commission continued this item to January 22, 2004 without hearing.

NOTE: On January 22, 2004, the Commission continued this item to February 12, 2004 without hearing.

NOTE: the applicant has requested the withdrawal of the demolition permit application. Staff therefore withdraws its discretionary review request.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Commission requested that this item come back to them at a future date.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

6. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner W. Lee:

Re: Discretionary Reviews

- On December 11, 2003 there was a Discretionary Review for 500 Divisadero Street.

- The DR was filed by the project sponsor himself.

- He would like to know if this is legal?

- The problem he has with this is that the neighborhood was under the impression that there was a DR filed even though the DR was filed by the project sponsor himself.

- Was this information given to the Commission?

Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:

- It is perfectly legal for a project sponsor to file a Discretionary Review.

- He would stress to the public that if anyone has issues with a project, they need to file their own DR to preserve their right to be heard by the Commission.

- It may be possible that the Commission could request to see the details of the case.

Commissioner W. Lee:

- Has this situation happened before?

Acting Director Larry Badiner responded:

- He could not think of specific cases but is aware that this has happened before.

Commissioner W. Lee:

- Was the Commission notified?

Acting Director Larry Badiner responded:

- No, as a matter of course, he does not believe the Commission was notified.

- The Commission is not always told either when someone withdraws a DR.

Commissioner W. Lee:

- He requested that the Commission be notified in writing if a project sponsor files his or her own Discretionary Review.

- The reason for this is mostly [to know] if someone is challenging the project.

Re: Housing Builder News

- A report card was given to San Francisco based on the fair share numbers for housing.

- San Francisco was given a D+.

- This is for years 1999 to 2003.

- It is his understand that the this Commission has approved more housing in a given year than the previous Commissions.

- He requested the number of housing units that this Commission has approved.

Commissioner Antonini:

Re: Housing

- He agrees with the Comments from Commission Bill Lee.

- He would like added to the information any net increase in public housing that might also be part of it.

Re: SPUR report

- The latest report from SPUR includes factors relating to choices of businesses and various other projects in choosing their locations.

- One part of this report included local factors, area factors, national and international factors such as taxation, such as labor costs, such as land costs, political climate, transportation and housing.

- This information would be good for the Commission to receive.

Commissioner Feldstein:

Re: Discretionary Reviews

- She wants to receive additional clarification on filing Discretionary Review on ones own property.

- Her understanding is that the applicant can do this if they disagree with what staff is asking them to do. This would allow the Commission to review staff's decision.

- She realizes that one could abuse the process on ones own property.

Acting Zoning Administrator Craig Nikitas responded:

- It is very explicit in the 311 notice.

- It states: "The project sponsor of a building permit application may request Discretionary Review by the Planning Commission to resolve conflicts between the Director of Planning and the project sponsor concerning requested modifications to comply with the Residential Design Guidelines."

Commissioner Feldstein:

- How would this hide something from the neighbors?

Acting Director Larry Badiner:

- He believes that on the particular project in question, the sponsor did not have any problems with the recommendation.

- He believes that there could be a perception from the public that if a DR is filed it will be heard by the Commission.

- If a member of the public was not well versed in the Planning Code, they might assume that if the project was advertised it will automatically be heard by the Commission.

- The ZA states that if someone has a concern about a project, do not rely upon someone else filing a Discretionary Review.

- He believes that is what happened with the case mentioned previously.

SPEAKER(S):

Patricia Voughey

Re: Housing

- The Department is ignoring something that should be remedied.

- If 10,000 more affordable housing units is wanted, Diane Feinstein rezoned all of the NC-1 zones to NC-2 zones, and the NC-2 zones to NC-3 zones.

- There are a lot of three story buildings in the NC-2 zones that are being used as offices and they should be rezoned back to housing.

Re: 500 Divisadero

- The DR was scheduled to be heard on December 11, 2003.

- The neighbors called and were told that it was going to be heard.

- No one was notified that it had been withdrawn.

- If a 312 is issued, then the members of the public should be notified that there will not be a hearing.

Re: Planning Code misunderstanding

- Mr. Badiner is correct to state that the public does not understand the procedure.

- When the public calls and asks if a DR was filed and staff fails to mention that it was by the project sponsor, the department has failed in their outcome.

- In this case, the project sponsor did not file for an entertainment license so a 312 notice has to be filed again.

- The project should have a complete 312 notice so that it does not appear before the Board of Appeals.

Commission Secretary:

Re: Form 700 - Statement of Economic Interest

- She reminded the Commission that their deadline to submit these forms is April 1, 2004.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

None

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

Land Use Committee Meeting - February 9, 2004

Re: Ordinance Prohibiting the Demolition of 20 Dwelling Units or More

- This was forwarded to the Planning Department.

- Unfortunately, the time period expired in late January without the Department acting upon it. Staff was out of the country.

- He requested an extension for about a week.

- The Commission could have been able to hear it February 5, 2004.

- The Land Use Committee did not grant the extension.

- He argued that rather than a prohibition of 20 units there should be Conditional Use with very explicit criteria.

- This was approved and went to the full board the next day.

- The full Board of Supervisors passed the Ordinance +8-3 with Supervisors Alliotto-Pierre, Ma and Hall dissenting.

Re: 799 North Point - Categorical Exemption

- This was a project for 5 dwelling units on an old gas station that had been used for parking.

- It was before the Commission in December 2003.

- About eight minutes before the hearing, a negative declaration was issued.

- The item was continued several times.

- The Board heard it. The main issue was how well the remains of the gas station had been remediated.

- There was a letter dating from the early to mid-1990s from the Health Department that the site was off the environmental hazardous list. It had been remediated for a parking lot but was it remediated enough for housing?

- The Health Department did correct and that it was remediated enough for housing.

- The Board overturned the Categorical Exemption +11-0 to require further testing, initiate studies and for the Department to determine if further environmental review was required.

Re: 701 Lombard Street

- This project was approved by the Commission for 9 dwelling units.

- The Board voted +8-3 to proceed with imminent domain and acquire the property (Dufty, Hall and Ma voted against).

Re: Legislation to Amend the Planning Code to Encourage Comprehensive Community Plans to Bonus Housing Projects

- Until the development of these plans are done it would require the prohibition of public benefits.

BOA -

- He thanked Jones Ionin for attending the Board of Appeals meeting last night.

- There was not a full board, many items were continued.

- The request for a re-hearing for 8 Washington Street was denied on a +3 -1 vote.

- Regarding 111 Lobos Street, the Board continued this item to February 18, 2004.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

9. (C. HOGAN: (415) 558-6610)

PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET FOR FY 2004-2005 - Presentation of the San Francisco Planning Department Work Program and Budget, and consideration of approval of a draft resolution adopting the Planning Department's proposed work program and budget for fiscal year 2004-2005.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S):

Alexis Harte - Coordinator of the Urban Forest Council

- Council members represent full range of organizations.

- Staff member Ann Marie Rogers is vital in urban forest planning.

- 2004 will be an extremely difficult fiscal year.

- He is asking the support from the Planning Commission to request funds for this issue.

- The Urban Forest Council and the Department of the Environment are eager to work together with the Planning Department and Planning Commission.

Patricia Voughey

- She feels that the important thing is efficiency.

- There are certain planners who the public can really know when to get a hold of.

- There are a lot of ways to be efficient.

- The computer systems at the Planning Department should have the Building Department application lookup systems on their computers. This would allow the planners to look up all the information on a certain block/lot.

- This would eliminate the public to have to call back and call back.

Lois Scott - Local 21 - Professional and Technical Engineers

- This is a very clear and understandable work program.

- The area of weakness would be on how the department is doing.

- There is not much information on how much "backlog" there is.

- To be a better performance document, the targets need a baseline.

- It would be helpful to put "percentage complete" and "percentage proposed".

- Cost recovery would be very minimal.

- She proposes to work together on the targets and develop more specific targets.

Kate White - San Francisco Housing Coalition

- She congratulated staff on putting this budget information together.

- She seconded all the comments from the Commission on obtaining funds from the general fund.

- She expressed her support and that of the coalition for this.

- There is one big hole she is very concerned about: EIR money for the Better Neighborhoods Plans.

- These plans have a tremendous amount of community consensus.

- With all the support from the public, it is a shame if there is no money for these plans.

Terry Milmne - Bernal Heights

- He seconded what the first speaker said.

- Ms. Ann Marie Rodgers is a very important member in the Urban Forest Council.

- Planning is something that drives the whole City and all the money Planning needs should be provided as soon as possible.

- He suggested to anyone who is listening to transmit this information to the Mayor.

ACTION: Intent to Approve. Final Language: February 19, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

10a. 2003.1251D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

187-189 LOWER TERRACE - south side between Roosevelt Way and Levant Street. Assessor's Block 2627 Lot 033 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.1104.0731, to construct a new three story two family dwelling on a vacant lot in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Cathy Mosbrecker - Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

- The DR requestor has been living at this location since 1981.

- If the project is approved in its current form, she requests that the conditions stated in the report be imposed.

- One of the neighbors will also address the issue of lifting the property.

(-) Ann Garcia

- She lives on Lower Terrace.

- She inherited the house she has been living in since the 1980's.

- Her plumbing is on the outside of the house and there is very limited access to it.

- The proposal will impede a plumber from inspecting the pipes on her house.

- A "monstrosity" has recently been built in the neighborhood.

(+) Amad Larizadeh - Representing Project Sponsor

- He has been working on this project for two years.

- They have made various offers to the Discretionary Review requestor, to no avail.

- The project sponsor is loosing money on this project.

- He has also tried to deal with the issues of Ms. Garcia.

- The project sponsor would like to have this project move forward.

(+) (first name unclear) Larizadeh

- He is the co-owner of the property.

- He and a friend bought the two properties.

- They have made a good-faith offer to the Discretionary Review requestor.

- What he is offering is fair and exceed what the law requires.

- He hopes that the Commission will approve this request.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved project.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

10b. 2003.1256D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

191-193 LOWER TERRACE - south side between Roosevelt Way and Levant Street. Assessor's Block 2627 Lot 032 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.0828.3384, to lift the existing two story, two family residential building five (5) feet to develop a new floor of occupancy beneath the existing building, and develop a two car garage on the street level in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 10a.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review (DR) with the following conditions: 1) The owners shall pay the DR requestor's actual relocation and return costs to a maximum of $5,000; 2) The owner shall pay the difference in rent for a comparable dwelling unit during any period of relocation to a monthly maximum differential of $1,500; and 3) provide an electric lift in the DR requestor's new unit.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

11. 2003.1093D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2258 BEACH STREET - north side between Baker and Broderick Streets; Lot 009D in Assessor's Block 0915 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.02.8662, proposing to consolidate several previous building permit applications and to authorize construction beyond the scope of said permits in order to achieve final inspection by the Department of Building Inspection. Construction under these previous building permit applications includes, but is not limited to, a new third floor, a horizontal addition to the rear of the building, and new windows and skylights added to the existing single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Ed Houtkooper - Discretionary Review Requestor

- He is concerned with the height of the building.

- The project is just four feet too high.

- This request has been ignored.

- The proposed greenhouse has views to all the neighboring houses.

- Everything done by the project sponsor has been done without proper procedures.

(-) Nancy Bouton

- She has lived on Beach Street for over 36 years.

- She has never witnessed such a remodeling job.

- She is aware of certain projects done without permits.

- There is a history of inconsistencies with what is actually being constructed.

- This project would set a dangerous precedent for projects that are allowed to be constructed and obtaining permits after construction.

(-) Nancy Houtkooper

- She contacted the Building and Planning Department many times and was told that she did not need permits.

- She had a Building Department inspector at her house because of an anonymous caller. The inspector reviewed the project and did not issue any citations.

- A few days later the same inspector came and then issued a citation specifying that he had not seen the project completely.

- The project has been a financial hardship on her.

(+) Graham Maloney - Representing Project Sponsor

- The last speaker told what is really going on here.

- The project has been completed for over a year.

- There have not been any variances issued on this project. None were sought, non were issued.

- The increased height occurred by the recommendation of the structural engineer.

- To remove the parapet, the project sponsor would suffer a hardship because it would affect his bedroom.

- He requests that the Commission not take DR and approve the project as proposed.

(+) Larry Paul - Project Architect

- The entire project has been built according to code and one in the proper fashion.

- The height of the third floor addition is relatively small.

- At the time of the construction of the third floor addition, there were no Discretionary Reviews applied for.

- If the parapet is reduced, it would cause major alterations to have to be done to the house.

- They were asked by the Building Department to consolidate the building permits. Most of these permits are mostly renewals.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Hughes

NAYES: Feldstein, S. Lee, W. Lee

12. 2003.1264D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

3264 LYON STREET - east side between Richardson Avenue and Bay Street; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0925 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.09.4264 proposing to construct a rear horizontal addition and deck at the second floor and a new third floor, to the existing two-story, single-family residence 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 as submitted.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) David Locala - Discretionary Review Requestor

- He realizes that everyone has the right to improve their property. It improves neighborhoods.

- He has a problem with the proposed deck because it will have views into his children's bedroom.

- He has made several reasonable proposal to try to resolve this.

- He proposed moving the deck to the third story, closer to the Project Sponsor's children's bedroom.

- He is still willing to try to resolve this.

- He does not understand why the project sponsor has stated that the deck is a necessity for his children.

- Do the project sponsor's three children absolutely need this deck?

- The deck also contradicts the Residential Design Guidelines.

(-) John Winder - Architect

- He went over the proposed project and tried to understand the concerns of the DR requestor.

- The deck isn't going to encroach over the DR requestor's home.

(+) Ivone Torocca, Project Sponsor

- She and her husband have recently purchased the home.

- They have met with the neighbors to discuss the project.

- She has received support from various neighbors.

- There are about five other homes that have decks that are even larger than the one proposed.

(+) Patricia Voughey - Cow Hollow Neighbors in Action

- She has been following this project for a while.

- All of the houses have very interesting and similar fronts.

- The project sponsor and DR requestor's homes are the same length.

- The DR requestor made an addition with a setback.

- This is the most frivolous Discretionary Review she has seen in a very long time.

(+) Jonathan Ennis - Project Architect

- In every way, he has tried to accommodate the comments from the DR requestor.

- They have tried everything to try to stay out of this forum.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the following modifications: Provide a trellis along the northern edge of the proposed deck to afford privacy to the adjacent building at 3170 Lyon Street (Locala Residence).

AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell

13. 2003.1110T (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE TO ALLOW A REQUIRED SECOND MEANS OF EGRESS - Initiation of an ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code, proposing a new section 136(c)(4)(A)(i-v) to allow a stairway that is a required second means of egress under the Building Code, as a permitted obstruction in the rear yard. The California Building Code no longer allows fire escapes as a second means of egress in most cases. This proposed text amendment provides an exemption to meet the requirements of the Building Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of intent to initiate.

(Continued from Regular Meeting January 22, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

Alice Barkley

- She urges the Commission to initiate the ordinance since it is extremely difficult to do units with more than two bedrooms when a second means of egress needs to be designed.

ACTION: Approved Initiation.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

MOTION: 16728

14. 2003.1282D (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)

609 CORTLAND AVENUE north side between Bocana and Bennington Streets. Assessor's Block 5667, Lot 017 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.30.6176, to add "Other Entertainment," per Planning Code Section 711.48, to the existing bar "Charlies Club," located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to April 22, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

15a. 2003.1141DDDDV (B . FU: (415) 558-6613)

1218 MARIPOSA STREET north side, between Missouri and Texas Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 3985. Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.04.10.2000 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new single-family dwelling) in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Steve Vettel - Representing Project Sponsor

- He is available for questions.

- They were able to work out the issues with the neighbors on the new construction.

(+) Kepa Askenazy

- She lives on the block and has worked with the project sponsor for several months.

- She submitted a letter with the specifics of the project and the agreement.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved project.

AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell

15b. 2003.1141DDDDV (B . FU: (415) 558-6613)

1218 MARIPOSA STREET north side, between Missouri and Texas Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 3985. Three Discretionary Review requests for Building Permit Application No. 2003.04.10.1998 have been filed for the construction of a replacement single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 15a.

ACTION: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project with Plans dated February 12, 2004.

AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell

15c. 2003.1141DDDDV (B . FU: (415) 558-6613)

1218 MARIPOSA STREET - north side, between Missouri and Texas Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 3985. A front setback Variance is requested to reconstruct an existing garage within the front setback. The project is located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2004)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 15a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator Closed the Public Hearing and Granted the Variance.

16. 2003.0946D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

458-460 35TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Street: Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 1466 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.02.21.8034, proposing to; (1) construct a 3' 4" deep, three-level rear horizontal addition and a two-story deck and stairs; and, (2) add a new, approximately 830 square foot, partial third floor to a two-story over ground floor structure containing two dwelling units in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project with Modifications.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 11, 2004

AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell

17. 2003.1145D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1021 FRANCISCO STREET - south side between Larkin and Polk Streets: Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 0477 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.05.30.5840, proposing to merge two dwelling units to a single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed dwelling unit merger.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Amad Larizadeh - Project Sponsor

- The unit has been empty since 1997.

- The property only has two bedrooms. They would like to merge the units to have a single-family home.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and denied the dwelling unit merger.

AYES: Antonini, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford Bell and Boyd

6:00 7:30 p.m.

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

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

SPEAKER(S):

Luis Granados

- With controls all of the uses will be there.

- Controls do not allow flexibility within a parcel area but does provide flexibility for an entire area.

Kyle Fiore - Mission Community Council

- Controls are very important in the Mission District.

- The Mission is tough and the residents know how to fight back.

- Agencies have brought services and resources for families and single room occupancies.

- Last summer was the first year in many that there were no youth deaths.

- The neighborhood needs controls.

Cris Selig - MAC

- She appreciates that the Commission is listening to testimony again.

- The Mission District needs controls.

- There is a split around the issue of controls and policies.

- The NEMIZ is very important to have controls as well. They will set up a way to plan and look at the whole neighborhood together.

- Guidelines are too loose and leave it to developers who could afford to fight expensive battles.

- A plan should be instituted that will benefit the entire community and not just one lot.

Bill Murphy - Mission Agenda

- He is a third generation San Franciscan.

- He recently was disabled by a stroke.

- He has been living in a very small SRO hotel.

- Controls should be instituted and not guidelines.

- Affordable housing for middle to low income and seniors is very much a need.

- There is a need to be safe, to have open space, to have artist space, etc.

Richard Marquez

- The facts remain that although controls are not perfect have temporarily saved their communities from big money savagery.

Rosabela Suffont

- She was born and raised in the Mission District.

- She has always worked in the Mission District.

- Many of the projects the Planning Commission has approved has caused evictions and businesses to leave.

Curtis Eisenberger - Mission Coalition for Economic Justice and Jobs (MCEJJ)

- His group supports policies, not controls for the Mission.

- He does not think that the current proposed zoning for the NEMIZ is correct or proper.

- The policy should not be adopted in its present form.

- There is a lot of inaccurate information and inappropriate designation of use by size.

Andrew Wood - Director of the International Art Festival/ODC Theatre

- There are a lot of artists that have been displaced.

- The only live/work situation that was stopped completely was the one for ODC.

- It took him hundreds of hours to organize, petition etc. to fight for ODC.

- Policies do not work because they can be broken.

Mary Murphy - Farella, Braun and Martell

- She represents Bay West Corporation who is the owner and developer of most of the designer showrooms for the Showplace Square District.

- She urged the Commission to vote for policies and not controls.

- The City does not have the authority under State law to pass controls.

- The findings on the resolutions are inadequate under State law which was recently amended to become far more stringent.

Jeffrey Lievobitz

- He is representing the South Beach/Rincon Point CAC and the SOMA Leadership Council.

- He is in support of policies.

- He wants policies because they need flexibility. His neighborhood does not have the pressure that the Mission District has.

- Housing is very necessary in this City.

- Neighborhoods need to be protected.

- This process should be moved forward to get on with Environmental Review.

My Do - Mission Economic Development Association

- There have been a lot of discussion about economics -- more so than Planning.

- At the previous hearing she introduced data which showed that PDR businesses in the City are healthy and that the economics surrounding them support efforts to retain them.

- She urged the Commission to adopt controls instead of policies to help protect PDR businesses and promote a more balanced development.

Jose Morales

- One cannot serve God by slaving for riches.

- Controls are needed to protect people.

- It is important to preserve affordable housing for seniors and low-income people.

Fred Snyder

- He owns property in the NEMIZ.

- He is in favor of the policies.

- This situation is really about jobs.

- His business tries to create places that have good rent.

- A lot of this planning that has been done is very confusing.

- It is important for everyone to sit at the table and analyze things instead of just passing things.

Charlie Sciammas

- There are a lot of development proposals to build and rebuild the land in the Southeast Industrial Zones.

- These spaces mean a lot to him, to the youth, the families and the elders that live there. These spaces mean opportunities to fill the City with the things that are important to them: decent and affordable family-sized housing, good living-wage jobs, neighborhood-serving businesses, public open spaces and community services.

- The Planning Department allows permits to developers that could be used to protect uses that are vital to the City such as production, distribution and repair services.

- These provide hundreds of jobs for local residents.

Marty Borrego - Mission Agenda

- He requested that we keep the interim controls.

- Right now, it is the only thing that people can do to protect themselves from greedy developers.

- It is important to protect the land that their forefathers fought for.

- There are many people in the City who suffer so much.

Julie Milbourne - Facility Director for the California College of Arts at the San Francisco Campus

- She is in support of interim policies for the Showplace Square.

- Her college is expanding and remodeling.

- She is investing in the City and hopes that the Commission will do the same.

- Although the Mission feels they need controls, they should be given controls but both districts should be separated because the Showplace Square requires policies.

Fritz Maytag - Anchor Brewing Company

- They have been hoping and praying to protect existing industry.

- One of the lessons he has learned is that zoning should have to do with zones and not with "Hodge Podge" here and there.

- Zoning should be painted with a large brush.

- It is important that people feel comfortable with zones.

Lisa Terrani

- She is asking for support of the interim controls for the Eastern Neighborhood.

- Interim controls are important because they guide development.

- Interim controls reduce the need to avoid development projects on a case by case basis.

- She requests revisions to the map of Showplace Square/Potrero. Some of the areas on the map should be changed from housing/mixed use to housing/PDR.

- These changes would ensure PDR spaces while the environmental review process is going on.

- The housing/mixed-use is not preferable in this area.

Kepa Askenazi - Coalition to Safe Potrero

- She would like interim controls for this area.

- They are asking for controls because it provides the exact designation of what people can do and cannot do while the environmental review process is going on.

Mike Burke

- His remarks are specifically to the NEMIZ.

- The neighborhood around 16^th and Bryant is viable proof that there could be a combination of housing, businesses and restaurants.

- He is asking that "if it's not broken then don't fix it!"

- He proposed exemption language if this is the route that the Commission would like to take.

Teresa Garcia - Business Planning Manager for the Mission Economic Association

- Controls would provide a level of certainty.

- It is difficult enough to run a small business. It would be worse to have a developer force a small business to close.

- Controls would provide PDR businesses.

- She urged the Commission to pass controls and not policies.

Steve Atkinson

- He is against interim controls because it will impose an illegal housing moratorium.

- If the Commission trusts themselves they would not need controls.

- Controls would destroy many housing projects.

- Interim controls will reduce housing production and that includes affordable housing.

- State law requires special findings to be made to support a moratorium on family housing.

Eric Quezada

- Tonight he is asking the Commission about accountability.

- The controls are well thought out from the many, many meetings there have been in the communities.

- There is no affordable housing component in the document.

- They have been fighting for so long and so hard for permanent zoning in order to protect them.

Joe Boz

- There are various areas that have various requirements. Each one should be looked at separately.

- It is best to pass interim controls in Showplace Square and move into environmental rather quickly.

- It is important to split them into three and do the right thing.

Shawn Gorman

- The Showplace square was brought up before the Land Use Committee in November of last year.

- The area along 17^th Street calls for NC. All the community maps called for NC along there.

- 17^th Street should be mixed use housing.

Richie Hart - Residential Builders and Potrero Boosters

- The maps are not consistent.

- He supports interim policies.

- The EIR should begin now.

- The Commission has the discretion to approve or not to approve projects.

Alice Barkley

- The map from staff on appendix B was defectively produced.

- On 17^th Street, it makes no sense to have [commercial] property across the street from a park.

- Parks are very precious to a community.

- From a Planning perspective, housing should be maximized so there is as much housing as possible.

- The plans should be changed to reflect this.

John Roach

- He lives in the Potrero Hill area.

- He supports interim policies because it will free up opportunity for small businesses.

- This area has changed dramatically with residential and there is a desperate need for small businesses.

Sean Kiegran

- There is a parcel on 17^th Street and Carolina. The current zoning calls for housing.

- All three plans put forward by the neighborhood groups call for neighborhood commercial.

- Who wants PDR across from a park?

18. (M. CHION: (415) 558-6314)

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF INTERIM POLICIES OR A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT INTERIM CONTROLS FOR SECTIONS OF THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS: Mission (generally bounded by Guerrero, Division, Potrero, and Cesar Chavez Streets), SoMa (generally bounded by Mission, 7^th Street, Freeway 80, 4^th Street, the Embarcadero, and Folsom), and Showplace Square (generally bounded by 7^th, Bryant, Potrero and 25^th Streets). Public hearing on the adoption of interim policies or a resolution of intent to adopt interim zoning controls that would establish areas for Housing and Mixed Use, Core PDR, and Housing/PDR in sections of the Mission, South of Market and Showplace Square. The Housing and Mixed Use zoning overlay will encourage residential development; the Core PDR zoning overlay will primarily support production, distribution and repair activities; and the Housing/PDR zoning overlay will promote a mix of residential and other uses while preserving existing PDR space. The initiation of interim zoning controls would require the adoption of a resolution of intent to initiate that will enable the publication of a formal notice for a future public hearing at which hearing the Planning Commission would consider the adoption of interim controls.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 18, 2003)

NOTE: On December 18, 2003, following public testimony and Commission deliberation, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this item to February 12, 2004 to allow the absent commissioner to participate. Commissioner Boyd was absent.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Adoption of interim policies for SOMA, NEMIZ of the Mission and the Showplace Square.

MOTION NO: 16726

Approved initiation of interim controls for the Mission (exempting the NEMIZ).

RESOLUTION NO: 16727.

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee

NAYES: Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee

G. 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))

Eric Quezada

Re: Public Benefit Zoning

- This concept is about when rezoning happens in development by increasing density and give increased value to the landlords.

- Neighborhoods are entitled to recapture some of that value through public benefits in order to offset the impact of the added density. This will ensure that the new development will contribute to creating complete vibrant and healthy neighborhoods.

- Public Benefit Incentive Zoning gives developers incentives to build good housing in neighborhoods while recognizing the need to preserve the cultural and economic diversity of San Francisco's neighborhoods.

- It will also be a more predictable real estate environment.

- This is what they will be pursuing.

Luis Granados

- He is very disappointed with Director Larry Badiner.

- Mr. Badiner has robbed the Department and has brought it to another low.

- He hopes that a new director is hired as soon as possible.

- Mr. Badiner has shown a lack of understanding for planning principals for political expediency.

- He is so upset with Commissioners Boyd and Bradford Bell.

- It is shameful the way they have turned their backs on working class people.

Adjournment: 10:56 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 11, 2004.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Boyd and Feldstein