June 16, 2005SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, June 16, 2005
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Dwight Alexander, Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee, Christina Olague
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:35 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Interim Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Kate Stacey – Deputy City Attorney; Jonathan Purvis; Geoffrey Nelson; Joy Navarrete; Kate McGee; Tina Tam; Dan Sider; Paul Lord; Tammy Chan; Matt Snyder; 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. (L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)
PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS – Consideration of amendment to Article IV, Sections 3 & 6 to address notice and voting; add a new Section 7 to address jurisdiction; and renumber remaining sections of Article IV.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 12, 2005)
(Proposed for Continuance to July 14, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued July 14, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
2. 2005.0372D (D. SIROIS 558-6313)
752 - 27th Street - north side, between Diamond & Douglass, Lot 010A, Assessor’s Block 6583 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2005.01.06.2691, to construct a one-story vertical addition on the existing single-family dwelling and to construct a four-level horizontal addition to the rear of the building. The subject property is located in an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
(Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Discretionary Review Withdrawn
B. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
3. Consideration of Adoption of Draft Minutes of May 12 and May 19, 2005
May 12, 2005 Minutes
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Bradford Bell
May 19, 2005 Minutes
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
4. Commission Comments/Questions
Commissioner W. Lee:
Re: Board of Appeals
- He requested that the Commission Secretary send a thank you letter to all the members of the Board of Appeals for the joint hearing previously held.
Commissioner Hughes:
Re: Board of Appeals
- He thanked the members of the Board of Appeals for taking the time to meet with the Planning Commission.
Re: PDR
- Is there a way to do a third party neutral determination of what is the current housing shortage in San Francisco? Is there one? To what extent?
- He would like a report on this.
Commissioner Olague:
Re: Board of Appeals
- She hopes that the demolition/merger policies are analyzed.
Re: Board of Supervisors – Land Use Committee
- Is there a packet available regarding the affordable housing needs in the City?
- She knows that this was researched recently.
Zoning Administrator responded:
- He will get information together and report in the near future.
Commissioner Antonini:
Re: Board of Appeals
- He thanked the Board of Appeals for meeting with them.
- It is important to have figures that are current on the vacancy rates particularly for rental housing.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
5. Director’s Announcements
6. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
BOS –
Paul Lord – Staff Planner Reported
Land Use Committee –
- There were three items of interest to the Commission which were related to pieces of legislation introduced by Aaron Peskin and involved rezoning.
- Block 139, 140, 141 – the Broadway Hotel site – this was a very lengthy hearing with a lot of testimony.
- The original piece of legislation minus the Commission’s recommendation for a special height district is what was forwarded out of the Land Use Committee.
- The recommendation to the full Board is to reduce the height on block 139 to 40 feet and blocks 140 and 141 to 65 feet from their 84E height designation.
Re: Southern Edge of Jackson Square
- This was also heard at the Land Use Committee.
- The recommendation to the Board was to maintain the base 65-foot height and then lower the heights to absolute maximum of 40 feet along Columbus Street on block 195.
Re: Pacific Avenue
- This was heard by the Commission in April and heard at the Land Use Committee this week.
- The recommendation to the full Board was to recommend the RM-1 Zoning.
Re: Schlage Site – Visitation Valley
- The Planning Department has prepared a concept plan that is awaiting environmental review.
- Leland Avenue, which is included in the survey area, is included for improvement in the Better Streets Program.
- The Board has appropriated a budget of about $800,000 for the planning, environmental review, and design development.
- A grant was also awarded to the department from the Haas Foundation for this work.
- An informational presentation before the Commission will be scheduled in the near future.
Kate Stacey – City Attorney reported:
Re: Transbay Terminal
- Earlier today, the City Attorney’s office heard from the California Court of Appeals that it had stayed judge Kinshay’s order against the City in the Transbay Terminal litigation and moved in favor of the City. There is no written order yet.
Re: Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority Project
- They received notice that judge Warren in the Superior Court had ruled in the City’s favor and had dismissed the last of the claims against the City. There is no written order yet.
Re: Bicycle Plan
- The general rule exclusion issued on this was appeal to the Board of Supervisors. The Board upheld it and they approved the amendments to the general plan. The Planning Commission no longer has jurisdiction unless there are further general plan amendments. The next step is development and implementation of the circulation method.
Re: Green Buildings
- This informational presentation will be scheduled on August 11, 2005.
BOA – None
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.
Marilyn Amini
Re: Bicycle Plan
- She stated various concerns.
E. 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.
None
F. 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.
7. 2005.0031ERZ (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)
425 MASON STREET - west side between Post and Geary Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0306 - Request for a Planning Code Amendment, altering Zoning Map 1 to reclassify the subject property from P (Public) to C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) zoning, and for findings pursuant to CEQA. The site is developed with a vacant, eight-story office building, rated Category IV under Article 11, and is located in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. The 80-130-F Height and Bulk designation of the property would not change.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 17034
8. 2005.0031ERZ (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)
425 MASON STREET - west side between Post and Geary Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0306 - Request for findings of consistency with the General Plan for the proposal to reclassify the subject property from P (Public) to C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) zoning. The 80-130-F Height and Bulk designation of the property would not change.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Findings of Consistency
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
EXCUSED: Bradford Bell
MOTION: 17035
9. 2004.1078D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
2417 BRYANT STREET- east side south of 22nd Street; Lot 023 in Assessor’s Block 4151 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.02.27.7308 proposing the addition of two full floors for two additional dwelling units to an existing single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Revisions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 9, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued July 21, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
10. 2005.0375D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)
1122 GREEN STREET - north side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0122 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.28.9990, proposing to 1) enlarge the garage (previously approved but not yet constructed) internally to accommodate three cars, 2) remove and reconfigure (replace) the exterior front stairs, 3) make several minor modifications to portions of the front and side facades, and 4) remodel portions of the interior of the building, primarily the lower floor apartment, of a three-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal would result in the creation of three off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 26, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued July 14, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Bradford Bell
11a. 2005.0175CV (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
146-148 21ST AVENUE, east side between Lake and California Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor’s Block 1380 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.1(g), 303 and 178 of the Planning Code to expand an existing dwelling unit located in a rear yard structure within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Because the project would also result in the expansion and relocation of the non-complying rear yard structure, the applicant is also seeking a Variance to the requirements of the Planning Code (Sections 134 and 188 of the Code).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Humphrey Chin – Project Sponsor
- He would like to have access for maintenance reasons.
- He would like to enclose the stairway as protection from the weather.
- He hopes the Commission will approve this project.
(-) Ron Miguel – Planning Association for the Richmond
- He did not know the changes to the project.
- There is a good-sized redwood tree that he is concerned about.
- The Conditions of Approval should state that nothing should be moved unless there is a certification from an arborist.
(-) Julie Leung
- He would like the addition moved to the left side. Their cottage is close so she will lose privacy.
(-) Abbey Shmear
- She has been working on a compromise.
- She is concerned with the Variance and making two drainage systems.
- The mid-block open space is very essential to the neighborhood.
- She is also concerned with the redwood tree and hopes that it will be protected.
- The possibility of making the stair part of the interior instead of enclosing it would allow for more space.
(+) Robert Medson – Project Architect
- Given the size of the revised proposal, the scope of the proposal is reasonable.
- The affects on the adjoining neighbors are minimal.
- The scale of the proposed cottage is small.
- The siding of the cottage has been carefully considered.
- Most of the neighbors are concerned about the redwood tree.
(-) Joel Tomay
- He lives in the neighborhood.
- He suggested that the building not be moved at all but do the renovations anyway.
ACTION: Approved with suggested language that would allow the tree to be saved through the Variance process.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
MOTION: 17036
11b. 2005.0175CV (G.NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
146-148 21st AVENUE, east side between Lake and California Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 1380 - Request for Variances from the rear yard and non-complying structure requirements of the Planning Code, per Sections 134, 188, and 305, to allow the alteration of a rear yard cottage apartment by moving it away from the south property line by 3’-0”, expanding the envelope of the structure approximately 4’ to the north side, and expanding the dwelling unit within the structure to occupy space on the ground floor currently used as storage and laundry areas, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 11a.
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance as modified: add the following language: “any recommendation that would require removal of the tree shall be reviewed and subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator.”
12. 2003.0869E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)
88 Fifth Street - The Old U.S. Mint - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the rehabilitation plus seismic upgrade and addition to the United States Old Mint located at 88 Fifth Street in downtown San Francisco (Assessor’s Block 3704, Lot 11). The existing three-story plus an occupied attic 99,921-gross-square-foot (gsf) building would be retained, and the first floor courtyard enclosed in 1973 for offices would be removed, (a deduction of 4,336 gsf), and additional circulation bridges, stairs and an elevator (addition of 2,642 gsf) would be added within the existing 4-story courtyard. The existing attic would be expanded on the roof along the south side of the courtyard to create a museum gallery (an addition of 1,554 gsf) with a view of the city skyline to the south. The courtyard removal and additions of bridges and roof gallery would result in an overall reduction of gsf, for a total floor area of 99,788 gsf. The building would include 79,957 square feet if usable space total including: 36,326 sf of City History Museum space, 2,082 sf of Museum office space, 2,045 sf of museum back of house space, 2,044 sf of museum retail, and 3,336 sf of museum theater space. Tenants in the building would be the 8,153 sf Gold Rush and Money Museum, 2,492 sf of small retail lease spaces, and 6,360 gsf of restaurant space and cafe. 3,987 sf would be used for the San Francisco Visitor Center, and the remaining 11,108 sf would be circulation, toilets and support spaces ancillary to the museum use. The project would include closure of Jessie Street to vehicles, between Mint and Fifth Streets, to be used for outdoor restaurant seating. The project site is approximately 47,515 sq. ft., is zoned P (Public) within a 90-X height and bulk district, and within the Mid-Market St. Revitalization and Conservation District. Transaction document approvals would be required from the Board of Supervisors, and a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 26, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued June 23, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
13a. 2003.1113CMK (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)
“Candlestick Cove,” Block 4991, Lots 241 & 279 - which together comprise the undeveloped, northwestern corner of the City’s Executive Park development - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 304 to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) with PUD exceptions including rear yard, parking, and freight loading, and to allow construction of up to 450 dwelling units, 14,000 square feet of commercial space, a 1,000 square-foot community center, and up to 600 off-street parking spaces. The site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, and 40-X, 100-G, 140-H, 165-I and 200-I Height and Bulk Districts. This project also includes a General Plan Amendment to change a portion of the Executive Park Subarea Plan, a part of the South Bayshore Area Plan that governs development on the site.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jared Igerman – Reuben and Junius
- If this proposal were approved today it would only change one side of the area.
- The other areas will remain the same.
(+) Erik Harrison – Signature Properties
- There have been a significant number of community meetings to discuss development concepts, bus tours, etc.
- The bus tours were instrumental to show the community members the type of products they provide.
- He gave a general description of the site plan.
(+) Espanola Jackson
- The developers of this project have really made an effort to communicate with the community.
- She has been working to develop this area for a long time.
- She has been in the area since 1948.
- She hopes the commission will pass this proposal.
(+) John King
- He is in support of this project.
- He hopes that this project is finished before his time is up.
(-/+) Anne Seeman – Visitation Valley Greenway Project
- They are a neighborhood group that creates parks that can function as outdoor classrooms.
- There is still time to improve this design and mitigate the impacts it will have.
- She feels that they are being held “hostage” by piece meal projects.
- She is not against the development, she just wants it done right.
- There should be affordable housing on the site. The design is institutional looking.
(+) Fran Martin – Visitation Valley Planning Alliance
- She has three areas of concern: traffic, design and infrastructure.
- These areas should be looked at closely. They have not been adequately addressed in the reports.
- It does not make sense to make so much housing with little retail.
(-/+) Justyna To
- She supports the project because she supports more housing.
- She is concerned about traffic.
- There are large families that need public services like parks and libraries – this should be addressed.
(+) Cheny Chang – Top Vision Development, LLC
- They fully support this project.
- The open space will be a great asset to the community.
- They are willing to work together with the developer.
(+) Brian Baltimore – Young Community Developers
- They run training programs for local businesses to recruit locally.
- They were able to meet with the developer and start a program for training and jobs.
- This project will really benefit the area by providing employment; workers will join local unions; etc.
(-/+) Peter Cohen – Urban Solutions
- They have been working in Visitation Valley for many months—specifically on Leland Avenue.
- People in the neighborhood still need to know what the big picture is.
- There are still many aspects of the project to know and understand.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
RESOLUTION: 17037
13b 2003.1113CMK (K. McGEE: (415) 558-6367)
“Candlestick Cove,” Block 4991, Lots 241 & 279 - which together comprise the undeveloped, northwestern corner of the City’s Executive Park development - Consideration of an Ordinance to amend the San Francisco General Plan per Planning Code Section 340 to amend the Executive Park Subarea portion of the South Bayshore Area Plan. The site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, and 40-X, 100-G, 140-H, 165-I and 200-I Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 13a.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
RESOLUTION: 17038
14. 2004.0282L (T. Tam: (415) 558-6325)
1000 Great Highway (Golden Gate Park) - The Music Concourse area bounded by Concourse and Tea Garden Drives, including the Coxhead-designed pedestrian tunnel under John F. Kennedy Drive, plus a perimeter of land around the drives. Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1. Consideration to adopt a resolution with findings related to the approval of landmark designation and to recommend to the Board of Supervisors adoption of an ordinance designating the Music Concourse in Golden Gate Park as Landmark No. 249.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution.
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Robert Cherny
- The document the Commission has will be the basic preservation document for the Music Concourse and will be in effect for the future.
- There were four issues that were raised: management plan, benches, dumpsters and signage. The recommendations from the Commission are different from the Landmarks Board.
(+) Douglass Nelson – Recreation and Park Department
- They are working hard to make the Concourse a historical location.
- The department received National Register status for Golden Gate Park.
- The Recreation and Park department supports landmarks status and the approval of documents presented.
(+) Joyce Alicy – Recreation and Park Department
- There will be a lot of service improvements in the area like planting new trees, etc.
- Rec. and Park has a lot of arborists that will be available during this project.
- She submitted a document with signage information. The signs in Golden Gate Park should be consistent with graphic type and design structure.
(+) Ron Miguel – PAR
- He supports making this site a landmark.
- The Landmarks Board commented that the benches are sufficient.
- He commends the Rec. and Park department on the signage.
- There should be no delays on the changes proposed.
(+) Mary Ann Miller – SPEAK
- They are the originator of the Landmark study.
- Because the tunnels and the stair cases will be redone they will not be designated a landmark.
(+) Johannes Posthumus – Music Concourse
- He supports the designation of landmark and hopes that it will be a historic continuity of the park.
- The protection of the trees should be included in the documents.
(+) Katherine Howard – Friends of the Music Concourse
- They support the landmark designation.
- If a tree is removed they would like to see a new tree planted within six months.
(+) Margaret Mori – Friends of the Music Concourse
- Regarding the dumpsters, it is important that they are not visible.
- She displayed several photos of dumpsters.
(+) Roy Leggitt – Friends of the Music Concourse
- He does not believe in cutting down trees.
- There are various types of trees that would be inexpensive and manageable that could be planted when trees are removed.
(+) Isadora Morris – Friends of the Music Concourse
- She agrees that this location should be a landmark.
- She is concerned with the trees that are being removed.
- It is important to save the Music Concourse.
(+) Jennifer Myers – Friends of the Music Concourse
- She lives in the Richmond District.
- Protecting the Concourse trees is quite important.
- The language stating what should be protected, although lengthy, it is very important.
(+) Anna Myers – Friends of the Music Concourse
- She is concerned about the trees.
- She hopes that the trees will be designated a landmark.
(+) Natalie Morris – Friends of the Music Concourse
- She cannot imagine the concourse without the historical trees.
(+) Greg Miller – San Francisco Tree Council, Inc.
- He lives in the Richmond District.
- He submitted a letter from James Urban who is an arborist and states his concerns about the removal of the trees.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve the landmark status.
- If any trees are removed, they should be replaced within a six month period.
(+) Terry Milmn
- He supports the landmark status.
ACTION: Approved as modified:
- In Revised Attachment G (dated June 16, 2005), under the Management Plan, 5th line should state: The LPAB shall review, comment and advise the Plan within six months of the date of designation.
- Regarding portable benches shall be no less than 150 in the Concourse area.
- Minimum tree size shall be 24 inch box.
- Add language in Section 3 that trees be replaced within six months of removal.
- Under section titled: Alternations within the landmark boundary that do not require a Certificate of Appropriateness, Item 1.a.(i), language should read: Emergencies: All trees posing an imminent hazard within 10 days of removal of a trees from the bowl, the Department of Recreation and Park shall submit to the Landmarks Board a report written by an ISA Certified Arborist specifying the technical reasons for removal,
including potential removal without public notification.
- Same as above: Item 2.b: Trash receptacles (with the exception that no dumpster are allowed within the Concourse Bowl, except for temporary purposes)
- Same as above: Item 2.c.: add language : Signage should not be allowed without approval by the Landmarks Advisory Board.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague
NAYES: Bradford Bell and S. Lee
RESOLUTION: 17039
15. 2005.0500T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
Cost Recovery for Appeals to the Board of Supervisors- Consideration of an Ordinance amending Article 3 of the Planning Code and Section 32 of the Administrative Code in order to increase application fees and add a surcharge to compensate the City for the costs of appeals to the Board of Supervisors.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(-) did not state name
- He wants to know if the developer or person applying for the permit is paying this fee, or is applicant of the appeal paying the fee?
- Are appeals being subsidized?
- Because appellants seem to be clogging the entire system.
(-) Alice Barkley
- She feels that this is outrageous.
- There are various charges in the different project types.
- With the fees that are being charged, it would seem that a planner should be at the “beck and call” of the developer/project sponsor.
(-) Joe Cassedy – Residential Builders
- He is shocked at this charge.
- He knows exactly what it costs so the surcharge is just too much.
(-) Charles Brenninger
- It would be good to get something if one is paying this fee.
- Time is money and construction.
- A lot of people will not be building in San Francisco because of so many fees.
(-) Gary Gee
- Because of the backlog it does not seem logical to charge more.
- Staff should charge the supervisors for the time they have to process the [appeal] applications.
- The staff time to process an appeal takes time from other applications.
(-) Sue Hestor
- The Board of Supervisors should be the ones to pay these fees.
- This is ridiculous.
ACTION: Approved the “clean up” language in the ordinance and NOT the surcharge recommendation.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague
RESOLUTION: 17040
16. 2005.0460T (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
FINANCIAL SERVICES IN THE SLI ZONING DISTRICT- Consideration of an Ordinance adding Section 817.32 to the Planning Code in order to allow a financial service use under certain circumstances within the Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Mixed Use Zoning District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jeffrey Leibovitz
- He is in favor of this because this is where one is headed in the environmental review process for the rezoning of the Eastern part of SOMA.
- This will enhance the pedestrian experience.
- There might be banks in the area, which is a growing need.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: W. Lee
RESOLUTION: 17041
17. 2005.0345T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)
North Beach NCD Use Size Limitations - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending sections 121.2, 178, 186.1, 722.21 and 722.46 concerning use size limitations and their relationship to subsequent new uses in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District; to amend sections 186.2, 604 and 722.42 to address antiquated provisions concerning specified signs and uses in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District; to amend 722.10 to delete provisions superceded by Ordinance No. 20-88; and to make conforming changes to the chart titled “Specific Provisions for the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District” in Section 722; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
(-) Chuck Tomas – North Beach Association
- His group hasn’t really heard anything about this.
- The aid of the Supervisor sponsoring this legislation is a member of their association.
- It should go before the Board of Supervisors without approval from the Commission.
(+) Martin Kurkwood
- There is specific mention of a theatre. There are also various amendments that would limit his ability to do construction.
- It would be good to extend this for a lot further than July 14.
MOTION: To continue to July 14, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Hughes, S. Lee
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Olague
ABSENT: W. Lee
RESULT: Motion Failed
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Merits of Legislation
(-) Martin Kurkwood
- 1731-1741 Powell Street is located in one of the nicest areas of the City.
- The building is a blight on the neighborhood.
- There are a lot of different options to renovate it.
- There would be a need to go higher if a restaurant is built there.
- There are a lot of groups who supports this.
- A theatre screen would not be feasible for this location.
- They want something that will look good for the neighborhood.
- This legislation will kill many of the projects that they have.
(-) Joel Campos
- He saved for years to purchase this piece of property.
- He wants to have the best looking building in North Beach.
- If this piece of legislation goes forward, he will leave the building as is.
- The building has been empty for years. This is not the way to help the city.
- An improved building there will increase property taxes, improve tourist traffic, etc.
(-) Alice Barkley
- The process or the lack thereof is mandating this decision from the Commission.
- There is a need to talk to neighbors and get their approval.
- If a deal is cut with somebody, they will come back with yet another amendment after a deal is cut.
ACTION: Hearing Held. Item Continued to July 14, 2005. The Commission Secretary is to request an extension from Supervisor Peskin.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: W. Lee
18. 2005.0394T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)
Planning Code Section 311 Amendments - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending section 311 to clarify that the project notification requirements apply to building permits for demolition and change in the number of dwelling units as well as to building permits for new construction and alteration and to require that the notification package sent to neighboring property owners include specified information; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Marilyn Amini
- She has concerns about process.
- She just learned about this on Friday.
- A courtesy would be to send notice to all neighborhood organizations and involved them in the process.
- Notification should be required as it is specified in the code.
(-) Sue Hestor
- {She passed up language she suggests.}
- She offers an amendment that can be sent to the Board of Supervisors.
- This amendment would allow for this to move forward.
- Staff should be required to modify projects.
ACTION: Approved as Amended:
1) Page 5, Line 5 shall strike: 11 x 17 and change to 8 ½ x 11...
2) Page 5, line 7, should add the following sentence: 11 x 17 shall be made available upon request of the Project Sponsor of the 311 packet.
2) Page 5, section (E), line 8 should read: ...existing and proposed floor plans...
2) Page 2, subsection (b), line 11 should read: ...use or change in the number of dwelling units, or removal of more than 75 percent of the building’s existing internal structure frame work or floor plates as per section 1005(f)(4) of a...
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: W. Lee
RESOLUTION: 17042
19. 2005.0459T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)
Planning Code Section 260 311 Amendments - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending section 260 to increase the height exemption for elevator penthouses from 10 to 16 feet, to allow the Zoning Administrator to grant further exemptions for buildings with height limits of more than 65 feet where such an exemption is required to meet state or federal laws or regulations; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Theodore Brown – Architect
- Under the present code, it is very difficult to do elevators because of the height limit.
- This will enable us to provide access go through the entire building and allow the handicapped to access elevators.
(-) Sue Hestor
- The Commission needs to take some time and ask questions from DBI.
- They will certainly be giving their perspectives.
- This will encourage elevators and encourage roof top open spaces.
- There should be a total ban on using this extra height if a project will be right up next to people’s properties.
- The Commission does not have enough information to decide on this legislation.
(+) Charles Breninger
- San Francisco has tremendous scenery and the best place to see this at the top of a roof.
- Roofs are very valuable and people should be allowed to go to the roof.
- This legislation allows people and those with handicaps to have access to the roof.
(+) Joe Cassidy
- He is in favor of this legislation and how it will affect new buildings.
- People should have full access to roofs.
- Without having that four foot area, a developer cannot comply under CAL OSHA rules.
(+) Gary Gee
- This legislation is very significant for various reasons, including elderly housing that will be constructed in the future.
- This legislation will be very beneficial in the RC-3 and RC-4 zoning districts.
- Sixteen feet is not the entire roof. It is only a small portion.
(+) Alice Barkley
- She supports this legislation and hopes the Commission will pass it.
- CAL OSHA implemented this requirement because of a previous accident.
- It is really essential that this legislation be adopted so that when there is a need to go to the roof an elevator will be available.
ACTION: Hearing Held. Public hearing remains open for any new information. Item continued to June 23, 2005.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: W. Lee
20. 2002.1263E (T. Chan: (415) 558-5982)
333 Fremont Street - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report - The proposed project is an 85-foot-tall, eight-story, residential building of approximately 131,340 gross square feet (gsf) consisting of 88 dwelling units and about 88 underground parking spaces. Two existing two-story buildings on the site, which total approximately 30,417 square feet, would be demolished. The 329-333 Fremont Street building, constructed in approximately 1930, contains a basement level, which is accessible from a driveway on Zeno Place. The smaller, 347-349 Fremont Street Edwin W. Tucker & Co. building constructed in 1913 is a rated historic structure on the California Register of Historic Resources. The project site is located about mid-block on the eastern side of Fremont Street in the block bounded by Folsom, Fremont, Harrison, and Beale Streets. Vehicular access to the parking garage would be from Fremont Street on the northern side of the building. Pedestrian access would be from the south side of the building from a courtyard facing Fremont Street. The site is within the RC-4 (Residential/Commercial High-Density) zoning district, and a 200-R height/bulk district. This site is within the newly adopted Rincon Hill Downtown Residential (DTR) District and is awaiting final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Should the Board of Supervisor adopt the propose Rincon Hill DTR, the proposed project would be in the new 85/250-R height and bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.
NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on December 14, 2004. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: EIR Certified
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: W. Lee
MOTION: 17043
21. 2002.1263C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
329-349 Fremont Street - east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 3747 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow the construction of a building over 40-feet in an R District (Planning Code Section 253) and to allow full lot coverage on a sloping lot in the Rincon Hill Special Use District (Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B). The subject property is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combine, High Density) District, a Rincon Hill Residential Special Use Sub-district, and a 200-R Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 2, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Steve Vettel – Representing Project Sponsor
- Introduced Mark Hinshaw who will give a brief design presentation.
- There will be one-to-one parking because 88 units are not enough to have a valet.
- All the parking is underground.
- There will be bicycle parking and City Car Share.
- The unit mix will be 20 percent two bedrooms or more.
- He urges the Commission to approve this.
(+) Mark Hinshaw
- He gave a presentation on the architectural aspects of the project.
- The project will comply with the codes and the Rincon Hill District.
(+) Richard Koffman – Project Sponsor
- They have eliminated all the studio units.
(+) Jeff Freland
- He is in support of the project because it fits in with the neighborhood.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: W. Lee
MOTION: 17044
H. 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: 10:45 p.m.
THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2005.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: S.Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee
ABSENT: Alexander, Olague
