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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

December 1, 2005

December 1, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, December 1, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  Sue Lee;Michael J. Antonini; Kevin Hughes; Christina Olague

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:      Dwight S. Alexander; Shelley Bradford-Bell; William Lee

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1: 42 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Rick Crawford; Michael Li; Mary Woods; Ben Fu; Diana Sokolove; Isolde Wilson; Tom Wang; Jonas Ionin – Acting 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.

                       

            1a.        2005.0148DDV                                                                       (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side north of 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 4211 - Neighbor-Initiated Discretionary Review and Mandatory Discretionary Review under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all replacement structures following residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.23.9619 proposing the construction of a three-story-over-garage, three-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.   

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take DR and Disapprove the Replacement Building.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 21, 2005)

            (Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

 

            1b.        2005.0148DDV                                                                      (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE - west side north of 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 4211 - Front Setback Variance under Section 132 of the Planning Code to construct a three-story-over-garage, three-family dwelling within 6.5 feet of the front property line, whereas a 15-foot setback would be required under Section 132.  The property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Use District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.  

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 21, 2005)

                        (Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

 

2.         2005.0456EC                                                                      (K. Amdur:  (415) 558-6351)

55 Page Street - south side between Franklin and Gough Streets, Lot 9 (formerly Lots 7 and 8) in Assessor’s Block 854 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify conditions of approval for a previously approved residential project proposed for the subject site but not yet constructed.  That project would remodel an existing building at 49 Page Street demolish an existing building at 53 Page St., and construct an 8-story residential building with 128 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space and 126 parking spaces in a below-grade parking garage. The proposed modifications would change conditions of approval (1) related to the Below Market Rate (BMR) units, to allow them to be sold rather than restricting them to rental tenure only and (2) to "un-bundle" the residential parking spaces (to allow units to be sold without parking spaces).  This project is within an NC-3 District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval w/conditions to "un-bundle" parking and Disapproval of ownership tenure for BMR units.

                        (Continued from the Regular Meeting of October 27, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

3.         Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. Would like to comment on a procedural item.  While it has its genesis in a discussion of a particular issue, I think in general terms when we receive legislation or items that we consider from Supervisors or from other sources that have a number of different items, I think it would be well to try to have discussion of all the different bullet points.
  2. Admittedly, when you approve something, you approve the entire item--whether or not the Commission has discussed the bullet points, or different provisions, openly.  But, I think when we are dealing with something that has a lot of very different points, it would probably be a good procedure to try to somehow take commentary or try to discuss all of them.
  3. I think that in some instances, at least in this particular instance, that wasn’t the case.
  4. Although I think this Commission is very good in general about the findings and the fact that the things are vetted very thoroughly, but there have been a couple of instances where I think sometimes things may go through that are the result of perhaps not being completely considered.  I think that it is important that we try to do that wherever possible in the future.

Commissioner Hughes:

  1.   About six or eight weeks ago we had an informational hearing on the City’s First Source Hiring Program.  Since that hearing date I happened to catch a Budget and Finance Subcommittee meeting of the Board of Supervisors in which that was an item on the calendar.
  2. Supervisor Mirkarimi had proposed or has proposed an ordinance related to that, which essentially puts enforcement and compliance provisions in there in addition to raising the penalty for noncompliance.
  3. I would like to recognize him for his efforts on that. It’s a very important program.
  4. It’s kind of been sitting there for a long time without a real enforcement mechanism.  So I think I would just like to express my appreciation and thanks for his well thought out ordinance that tightens up compliance with that program.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

4.         Director’s Announcements

  1. Board of Supervisors will be holding a Land Use Committee meeting on Wednesday and on the agenda would be the C-3 Residential Parking Legislation.
  2. Also, there was an article in the paper today that I found curious and a bit annoying.
  3. That article says, “Planners don’t want to block freeway views.”  When you read on into the article, it isn’t quite that.  I did send a short note to the Examiner about this.
  4. We’ve asked the sponsors of the project to provide use with various photo montages so we can understand this from the location.
  5. They are proposing to increase the height to 85 feet.
  6. I think this was a well thought out proposal on the Project Sponsor’s part to have a newspaper article that suggests some way or another the Planning staff is presenting some very narrow view there.
  7. We are concerned about commuters’ views from the freeway.     Quite the contrary.  We look and try to address all implications of a project.  I don’t want you to be misled by this.
  8. This is a project that is under review and we have made no decision whatsoever on what is the appropriate priorities that would say yes or not about an added 5 feet at this location.
  9. Finally, let me also point out two court cases that should be of some interest to you, 1) this was a Housing Element challenge, as you recall.  The City succeeded in that case and the case has been dismissed.
  10. There was a petition of a writ of mandate that was denied.  Which means that the petitioner has the right to appeal it, but they would have to go to the Court of Appeals on that.
  11. I do not think they’ve made that decision yet.  At this level the City was successful in sustaining its point of view.
  12. The City Attorney can mention the Department of Building Inspection case.

Susan Clevelandl-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney’s Office

  1. The second case the Director is referring to is the Superior Court validation of the City’s transfer from the Department of Building Inspection, building permit fees to the Planning Department for long range planning.
  2. The Superior Court validated that transfer and found that because long-range planning is related to the issuance of building permits, that is was appropriate to use building permit fees to fund long-range planning.
  3. Any time the City has to issue a building permit, it needs to find that it is consistent with the zoning and the general plan.

5.         Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BoS:

  1. On the November 22nd hearing the Board passed the Medical Cannabis Legislation on its second reading.  We expect it to be implemented right around the first of the year.
  2. CEQA appeal of 600 Illinois – The Sponsor and the Appellant in this case did reach an agreement.
  3. 680 Illinois – there was a de-facto withdrawal and the Board did uphold the Department’s and your determination that the project was eligible for a negative declaration.
  4. Music City Project – 1353 Bush Street -- a conditional used you reviewed several months ago was appealed to the Board.  There was a great deal of public comment.  The Board upheld your decision unanimously.
  5. Supervisor Daly introduced a draft ordinance not too long ago.  This time it is a formal proposed ordinance.  It will be forwarded to you for your consideration.  It is regarding modifications to the Planning Code with respect to inclusionary housing requirements.
  6. The Supervisors are interested in amending Section 135 of the Code to increase the percentages below market rate units required on a given property from anywhere between 3 and 8%.
  7. Supervisor Daly also introduced a proposed moratorium in the City of all condominium conversions.  This would be in place, should it be adopted, until the City could study the impact of TIC’S.
  8. The third and fourth and last items that I would like to talk about relate to Telegraph hill and the Historic District on Telegraph Hill.  The items are not related.  They are as follows: 1) Supervisor Alioto-Pier introduced an ordinance to expand the boundaries of the Telegraph Hill District; 2) Supervisor Daly would add criteria to the Historic District in order to include alterations and demolitions of three as issues requiring historic review.   This is of course in response, in part, to some issues that have been raised in the media and elsewhere regarding recent tree demolitions on the Telegraph Hill.

 

            BoA: None

 

6.                                                                                             (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

            Informational hearing on the City’s Green Building and Green Streets Initiatives.

 

SPEAKERS:

Patricia Vaughey

  1. In 1982 we suggested something similar to this.  I’m glad 26 years later someone thinks it’s the right idea.

Jeremy Paul

  1. Commented on the question raised by President Lee about implementation at the lowest level of our community.  The residential development and residential remodel construction and the way these ideas can permeate further.
  2. Time is all they care about [architects and builders].  Time is more than money.
  3. If they can make decisions driven by following some of the guidelines that the Department of the Environment has put so much effort into – putting it in writing – we are going to see some real results.
  4. If we start to change the way builders think about where their money is going, how they are spending their money to get their project done, we will see the recommendations in this book start to be implemented at all levels of our residential development.

John Bardis

  1. The Mayor has a nice visionary concept that is proposed to you.  I am sort of concerned and I think people should be concerned that in trying to expand, what we’re trying to have as a resource in terms of trees in neighborhoods in the City and greening our City, one would hope there would be some mention in this proposal, that the existing trees – Mr. Hughes referred to the ones on Shasta Street – would somehow be addressed.
  2. That is the resource.  If we allow those to either deteriorate or be removed, we will in effect be canceling whatever efforts this proposal is supposed to be putting together.

Sue Hestor

  1. I find this all very interesting and think of the people behind me as resources to the Planning Department and the Planning Commission.  Because one of the issues you have all the time is sunlight.
  2. It would be very helpful if the Department of the Environment would be helpful to work through the dilemma that you have which is infill buildings and existing neighborhoods that have lot line to lot line coverage.  What is the value of sunlight to the property that is next door?
  3. It doesn’t do anyone any particular good if the building next to you is green certified but it cuts off all the light to your garden and all the light to your windows.
  4. It is not only sunlight in the window; it’s also sunlight in gardens.
  5. These are big issues you deal with every week at the Planning Commission and the Department of the Environment has to think through these issues if they really want to claim the green credential.

 

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:

Chris Duderstadt

  1. Worked with SPEAK on preparing the land marking.  Sadly your staff didn’t point out that on last Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors approved unanimously the land marking of the Concourse, or at least what will be left of the Concourse after the current project completes.
  2. I must express outrage at the conduct of one of your commissions. 
  3. You impaneled the Concourse Advisory Commission to serve as a vehicle for the public to communicate with what turns out to be a private group of developers.  As the Concourse Authority itself has move to a bi-monthly meeting scheduled, and they will not meet again until the project will be bought off entirely, I went to the Concourse Advisory Committee.
  4. I sad and listened to they follow no agenda.
  5. I am asking that in the future, in the acceptance of an EIR when you establish advisory committees, that you take a little more interest in how these will impaneled and how they will function.

David (unclear last name)

  1. Spoke in regard to block book notations and enforcement priorities.

Patricia Vaughey

  1. This greening idea is a very good idea and I think it is a wonderful concept.
  2. Every neighborhood really should have a say in what their neighborhood looks like.
  3. We have to have outreach to discuss what is going to work, otherwise we’re going to have a debacle.

No name stated

  1. Spoke in regard to Supervisor Chris Daly’s proposed moratorium on condo conversions.

 

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.

 

7.         2005.0281C                                                                (R. CRAWFORD; (415) 558-6358)

415 Judah Street - south side between 9th and 10th Avenues, Assessor's Block 1844 Lot 048) - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 161.j to remove existing parking for a residential unit to allow development of 1,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space.  This project lies within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

            MOTION:         17150

 

            8.         2004.0563EKC                                                                             (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

990 Columbus Avenue - southeast corner at Chestnut Street, Lot 048 in Assessor’s Block 0065 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless (consisting of three antennas and  three equipment cabinets) on the existing three-story office building.   The equipment cabinets will be located on the roof of the building.  The project site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The proposed facility meets Location Preference 2 of the WTS Facilities Siting Guidelines.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

MOTION:           17151

 

            ITEM #9 WAS TAKEN OFF CONSENT CALENDAR

 

9.         2005.0564C                                                                       (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2101 LOMBARD STREET - southwest corner of Lombard and Fillmore Streets; Lot 1, in Assessor’s Block 510  - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 712.43 of the Planning Code to allow the demolition and reconstruction of a large fast-food restaurant (Kentucky Fried Chicken/Taco Bell), which is also a formula retail use, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would include the demolition of the existing one-story KFC/Taco Bell building with four surface parking spaces, and the construction of a new one-story building with six surface parking spaces, containing approximately 2,000 square feet of floor area, and ranging in height from 20 feet (to the top of the roof) to 26 feet tall (to the top of the cupola).

                  Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:    

Patricia Vaughey

  1. All trash recycling containers shall be stored and locked on-site.
  2. At night we have a homeless problem concerning trashcans.
  3. We clean the public areas three times a day.
  4. We have a problem with a wind tunnel factor where if anything is dropped in front of KFC its flies over Lombard and lands in front of a Dentist’s office.  I hear about it every morning.

Jim Nickle

  1. Concerned about the constant problem with a newspaper rack that is in front of his establishment and trash.
  2. We pick up our trash, but the newspaper in the rack is free to the public and they pull everything out and drop it on the ground when they’re waiting for the bus.

 

ACTION:            Approved as amended:  Condition C(3) should read – All trash and recycling containers shall be stored and locked on-site until pick-up by the waste disposal company.  Condition C(4) should read – The Project Sponsor shall maintain the entrance to the Project Site and all sidewalks abutting the subject property in a clean and attractive manner.  Waste receptacles shall be provided on both sidewalks fronting on Lombard and Fillmore Streets, and within the parking lot.  Restaurant staff would clean the public areas three times a day within one block, and the sidewalks would be steam-cleaned twice a month.

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

            MOTION:           17152

 

  • REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

10.        2004.0546C                                                                                (B. Fu: (415) 558-6613)

680 Illinois Street - northwest corner of Illinois and 18th Streets, Lots 003 & 007 in Assessor's Block 3994 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 215, 303, and 304 to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the construction of up to 35 dwelling units, 7,000 square feet of commercial space, and 41 independently accessible off-street parking spaces within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation, and in the Housing/Mixed Use Zone as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.  Exceptions are requested from density, off-street parking, and permitted obstructions, as mandated by the Planning Code.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 17, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:    

Manny Flores, Local 22 representative

  1. We have reached an agreement and are now in support of the project.

Joe Boss

  1. Speaking on behalf of the Dogpatch Chamber Association
  2. We have reached an understanding with the Project Sponsor and we have joined in an appeal at the Board of Supervisors and we resolved the issues.

Sue Hestor

  1. When you have projects that are coming through before; you have a circulation plan for parking, pedestrians, traffic and amenities, you don’t know how, you don’t have the tools before you to sort it out.
  2. We don’t have a resolution of the circulation plan for this neighborhood.
  3. You all have to do it now.  You can’t defer it.

ACTION:            Approved with an amendment to condition #10 without a reference to Illinois Street

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

            MOTION:           17153

 

            11.        2001.1149E                                                                  (D. Sokolove: (415)  558-5971)

Sunol/Niles Dam Removal Project - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission is sponsoring the proposed project, which consists of the partial removal of Sunol and Niles dams to allow fish passage in the Niles Canyon reach of Alameda Creek and to address liability and public safety issues.  In association with the removal of the dams, impounded sediment would either be left in place, or would be off-hauled except for a portion of the sediments to fill in the plunge pools downstream of the dams. The proposed project is located in unincorporated Alameda County. 

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  No Action Required.  Public hearing to receive     comments

                        only.

Note:  Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2005.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Meeting held to receive public comment only.  No Action Required.

 

 

12.        2005.0881D                                                                               (i.WILSON (415) 558-6163

667 3RD AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 1641 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.03.07.6870, proposing to construct a three-story addition at the rear of the building and to add a second dwelling unit to the existing three-story single-family dwelling, located within 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 November 17, 2005)

            DISCRETIONRY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

 

13.        2005.0528DDD                                                                        (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

1810 36TH AVENUE- east side between Noriega and Ortega Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor’s Block 2072 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.09.15.4196 to construct a partial third story vertical addition, at the existing one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            Philip Gao.

SPEAKERS:    

(Kwong Yuen, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Concerned about the devaluation of his property and loosing his privacy.

Philip Gao, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. My family and I don’t want them to build a third story on their house because it will affect our privacy.

Jennifer Tran, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1.   Concerned about her privacy, light and view.

Donald Lu, Architect for Project Sponsor

  1. Gave an overall description of the project’s design.
  2.   Asked the Commission to approve the project.

Timy Yan, Homeowner

  1.   My proposed addition is based on the need that I have for my parents.  I do not wish to cause any inconvenience to my neighbors.

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

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell, W. 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))

 

             None

 

Adjournment:   5:14 P.M.

 

 

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2006.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              S.Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, Bradford-Bell and W. Lee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:18 PM