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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

December 8, 2005

December 8, 2005

 

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

  Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, December 8, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Sue Lee; Michael J. Antonini; Shelley Bradford Bell; Kevin   Hughes; William L. Lee; Christina Olague

                        

COMMISSIONER ABSENT:  Dwight S. Alexander

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:47 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Teresa Ojeda; Rick Crawford; Dan Sirois; Dan Dibartolo; Michael Li; Dan Sider; Sara Vellve; Isolde Wilson; Mary Woods; 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.         2005.0842D                                                                          (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

1135-1139 GREEN STREET, in Assessor's Block 125, Lots 115-116, Request for Discretionary Review on Building Permit Application No. 2005.06.16.5311 to construct a new subterranean basement and five car garage under three existing two-story townhouses.  A garage entrance door would be inserted into the far east side of the existing masonry retaining wall along the Green Street frontage.  A curb cut will also be constructed.  The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)

             (Proposed for Continuance to December 15, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:               S. Lee, Antonini, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and Hughes

 

2.          2004.0400D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

730 GREAT HIGHWAY - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1595 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2003.05.29.5813 and 2005.10.18.5856 proposing to construct two three-story, two-unit buildings (four units total) on the vacant subject lot in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The subject lot is bounded on three sides by the Ocean and Parc Village Planned Unit Development.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve      

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)                

            (Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Continued as proposed

AYES:               S. Lee, Antonini, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and Hughes

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

3.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. Like everyone else, I saw today’s article with regard to Rincon Hill and the comments that there was some question about the permitting process in regards to seismic issues in relation to this.
  2. I just wanted to ask staff if they had any reaction to that?  Why is this coming up at this time? It is sort of unusual.
  3. We have been a high rise building in San Francisco for a long time and I don’t ever remember this type of consideration, especially at this point in the process.  One would have thought it would have happened before it came to us for the approval.
  4. Maybe Director Macris can give me some information on that.

Dean Macris, Director of Planning:

  1. I have had an opportunity to talk to Amy lee, Director of DB I on this issue. 
    I don’t know that there’s anything to say yet on how this is all going to be resolved.  It is somewhat of a surprise that it is being raised at this point.  And the peer group that reviewed all the actions for safety here seem to be confident that this building is being built under the right set of rules.
  2. I had a conversation with a geotechnical engineer this morning to get some advice from him.
  3. I know the Mayor’s Office is very concerned about this, and I’m sure it’s going to be resolved.  We will keep the Commission informed on this.

Commissioner W. Lee:

  1. Had a question for the Director of the City Attorney’s Office.
  2. Two years ago, Supervisor Alioto-Pier sponsored a measure with the voters – it was Proposition “I” regarding economic impact against rules and regulations that affect the City.
  3. I guess my question to the City Attorney’s Office and to the Department, when we make decisions, or someone makes a decision regarding the impact of new ordinances or regulations, are we required to have the Controller’s Office look at the economic impact?

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney

  1. I don’t really know the answer to that.
  2. It has come up to a certain extent in the discussion that I was going to report to you a little later on about our experience with the Land Use Committee and the C-3 Residential Parking Issue.
  3. There’s been some discussion about how do you examine the economic impact of that, and whether those funds could be used for this purpose?
  4. I think we need to look into that and get back to you on it.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

  1. Director’s Announcements

 

            None

 

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

              

               BoS: 

  1. Yesterday the Land Use Committee could not act on the Residential C-3 Parking issue, because the environmental review has been appealed.
  2. I did represent the Commission’s actions yesterday and stressed the two most critical points.  One being the .75 for the maximum amount of parking and expressed the basis for that action.
  3. Also, I talked about the notion of parking as a primary use downtown.
  4. The legislation as drafted by Supervisor Chris Daly would permit any addition to parking as a primary use downtown.
  5. The Commission did not support that notion
  6. I also indicated to them that the resolution you adopted also called for the Board to consider a study being done for parking so we could understand better how cars are being used by those who live downtown, and the extent to which people downtown have cars.
  7. Supervisors Maxwell and McGoldrick were the two supervisors present and they asked several questions of how that study could be done.  They gave no indication that that’s what they favored, but they were very interested in the idea of doing some analysis of this issue.
  8. I should also report that the Mayor’s Office sent a letter to the Board, saying that he would recommend that this study be done prior to any action.
  9. Now it has been put over until after the first of the year.
  10. There was also an appeal of your action at 80 West Portal – The Commission granted a conditional use for a mortgage broker at the old Toy Village site. 
  11. For many years this pseudo Victorian building had a toy village and toy store in it, and most recently it had a house and home furnishing store in it.
  12. You granted CU approval in October I think.
  13. It was a fairly controversial case.
  14. At the same time you had Sterling Bank at 115 West Portal and the Commission disapproved that. 
  15. In my understanding of your actions, I think you were particularly taken by the fact that the 80 West Portal was a very deep site, a fairly large space that had proven successful over the last number of years, in keeping tenants alive [?].   The space was not particularly flexible and I think that was one of the reasons why you took that action.
  16. The West Portal Association I believe appealed that.
  17. The Commission decision was overturned 11-0.
  18. It seemed that although the Board recognized why you took your action, the neighborhood was extremely opposed to this.
  19. The Board said essentially that we need to listen to the neighborhood on this.
  20. I believe there was also an environmental appeal at the full Board that was continued.
  21. On Tuesday, Supervisor Alioto-Pier introduced an ordinance that would modify the administrative code and expand the applicability of the Mills Act.

 

BoA:

  1. – Demolition/New Construction – The Board upheld the Commission decision by 4 to 1.
  2. Everyone agreed that the foundation of the building was inadequate.
  3. The other case that is of interest was 19th and Sloat—the pumpkin patch that I shut down and the Christmas tree farm that I refused to shut down.
  4. The Board, after a long hearing, essentially upheld the permit and opposed the conditions of approval because the permits are only temporary and the conditions would evaporate.
  5. We agreed that we would put them on notice of restriction.
  6. For the most part they said the project sponsor will obey the law and pay the department $1,000 for all the work that the extensive appeals cost.

 

ITEMS 6 AND 7 WERE CALLED AND HEARD TOGHETER

 

6.         2005.1036ET                                                                        (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNING  CODE TO EXPAND THE APPLICATION OF INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM - Informational Hearing -  Consideration of an ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number   051668] which would amend Planning Code Sections 315.2 and 315.3 to expand the application of the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program from buildings of 10 or more units to buildings of 5 or more units;  and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

SPEAKERS:    

Dick Millet

  1. I live in Potrero Hill
  2. I ‘m having a problem coming down to five units.
  3. If I do a project with five units, I would reduce it to four and make them luxury units.
  4. If I were doing a project for six units, I would reduce it to four and make them luxury units and make them bigger.
  5. We will just eliminate five and six unit buildings and get more of the four.
  6. We will hurt our housing stock whether it’s affordable or not.
  7. I think reducing is going to bite us.
  8. The other one-off site housing is going to bite us also.
  9. I think we’re building ghettos with some of that money.

Ted Lowenberg

  1. Inclusionary housing policies have generally been a failure. 
  2. They have fallen tremendously short of their stated goals, because it imposes another tax upon the people who build, and subsequently own or occupy this housing.
  3. Fewer housing units are built overall when the inclusionary zoning rules are imposed and that makes prices of all housing higher.
  4. If you support this requirement, what you’re going to be supporting is higher housing cost, increased displacement of tenants, driving small construction companies out of business, and you’re going to slow down the city’s economy.
  5. I urge you to reject any notion of adopting these two measures.

Sara Carlinski, San Francisco Urban Planning and Research Association

  1. SPUR, has concerns over the content and timing of Supervisor Chris Daly’s legislation.
  2. It’s an irrefutable fact that there is a need for market rate construction.   There should be encouragement of both.
  3. The question of how much inclusionary housing the market rate can bear requires a technical response.   It is important that we get the numbers right.
  4. If we set the percentage too high, we have the potential of shutting off production of housing.
  5. If we set it too low, we miss out on affordable housing that we might otherwise have gotten.
  6. SPUR is in support of the study that the Planning Department is currently undertaking, and we would really request that you consider putting off any decisions on either of these ordinances until you’ve had an opportunity to see what the results of these studies have been.
  7. With regards to Supervisor McGoldrick’s Legislation, SPUR is in support of the concept of expanding the inclusionary housing ordinance, to apply to projects of five or more units.
  8. We’re concerned about the mechanics of the legislation.   The way the ordinance is structured currently, you end up having to round up for units or projects that are between five and nine units, which creates a disproportionate burden on smaller project.
  9. We recommend a fractional fee.   Lets say you are taking a seven unit project and applying a 10% inclusionary requirement.  That project would be required to pay .7 or 70% of the in lieu fee for the project of that size.  You create sort of a graduated mechanism for dealing with the in lieu fees.  That creates a disincentive to create projects where you have to round out.  Instead you try to do projects that produces a proportional unit of .5 or less
  10. We really recommend that you defer any action on the Daly legislation until such time as the study is completed, and we request that you take a look at the fractional methodology in calculating the in lieu fee.

Calvin Welsh

  1. The program it seems is rhetorically imbalanced. The Housing Element, a policy of the City and County of San Francisco – the Planning Department, Mayor’s Office of Housing, Mayor’s Office, the Board of Supervisors -- does not view inclusionary housing ordinance as the principal main, or even a large program to produce affordable housing.
  2. That may come as a shock because it is used rhetorically by developers and some members of this Commission to justify very high density, super-luxurious housing development.
  3. The inclusionary zoning ordinance was never designed to meet affordable housing needs, defined by the housing element of this Department, and of this City.
  4. It does not meet the needs of families, seniors, or people needing supportive housing.
  5. It must be seen as part of a spectrum of programs that produce affordable housing in San Francisco.

Steve

  1. I share SPUR’s concern about Supervisor McGoldrick’s legislation, but I think we need to look at the unintended consequences.
  2. Land prices per unit are much larger than a larger building.
  3. You need to consider whether imposing the inclusionary ordinance on units as small as five could severely impact the ability to tie up land for housing, particularly if for a five unit building, the requirement will be 20%.
  4. When the legislation was originally developed in 2002, there was a grandfathering provision in it so people that tied up land and submitted environmental review applications were subject to the existing rules and the new rules, when they went into effect went into effect gradually so that the integrity of land deals could be preserved.
  5. Secondly, when you do this study, I hope the assumption will not be at the beginning that market rate housing has a negative impact on the city, but rather start with the question does market rate housing have a negative impact on the city that needs to be mitigated.   What issues are negative and how do we mitigate that?
  6. Ask Supervisor Daly to extend the time frame within which you have so the study you are doing can inform your response.

Lou

  1. I think it’s been an ongoing problem with Section 315.   As long as your are doing the percentage for affordable housing based on the number of affordable units and then trying to have those affordable units reflect the market rate project, I don’t think you’re addressing the need of affordability in terms of the needs of mixes of various types of affordable units.  They may be different than the market rate mix.
  2. One way to address both the issue of fractional units and people trying to come below the next increment of a whole new unit requirement is to have Section 315 base as a percentage of the gross floor area of residential construction.   That’s a simple way of doing it.  That way you don’t get people playing games with trying to make numbers work in their favor.

Chris Durazo

  1.    In the Examiner’s Real Estate Section, they had the hot deal of San Francisco, and it was like 2.5 million for St Regis Condominium
  2. In SOMA, market rate is extravagant and it will only to up higher.
  3. We’re looking at mechanisms for balance, to try to have balance, and really to have that kind of integrity for policymakers to have that in their head. 
  4. They want the balance, and how are we going to do this in a fair way?
  5. We need a look at kind of building a different way of addressing this.
  6. Hopes the Commission takes this seriously and don’t make a decision that is going to tie your hands down in terms of larger planning changes that are happening in the SOMA.

Sue Hestor

  1. I think Lou’s idea of a percentage of gross floor area really should be considered and explored to eliminate manipulation.
  2. In Chris’ comments about St. Regis, the city doesn’t do monitoring of these.   No one tracks to see how many two and three bedroom units are actually occupied by families.  I can do it.  Why can’t you do it?  I can go into the Assessor’s records and pull up the sales prices.  Why doesn’t the Planning Department require that it be integrated into the database on first sale?
  3. It does not make sense that you do not know the houses that were approved five or four years ago that are already occupied.   What did they sell for? What market did we meet? Because the Planning Department has traditionally had an attitude that all housing is desirable.
  4. If what we are providing is housing that is only available to people making 300% of median I would challenge that is a valuable use of land in San Francisco.   But you don’t have any information.
  5. We are loosing families.
  6. We are loosing black families in particular.
  7. We are loosing any person who does make $100,000 a year.   That’s a very sad City!

Andrew Junius

  1. A couple of brief points to wrap up on Supervisor Daly’s legislation.   As a general public policy we should back up.  I really question the wisdom of changing an ordinance this dramatically as soon as it was passed three years ago.
  2. That was a dramatic change on the market rate housing developers in the City.
  3. Mr. Welsh is right, the inclusionary policy is not to take care of the City’s problems.
  4. It took a couple of years to get to where we were on the Leno legislation that was finally adopted and we are working under right now.
  5. We need to let that legislation work.
  6. We have not been through one economic cycle for housing the City.
  7. It needs to mature and needs to be given some time.    There may be some tweaks but increasing the level of affordability requirement that this ordinance is looking to is irresponsible.
  8. If something is done, we need to have the study first.   I recommend you take the advice to ask the Board of Supervisors now to extend the time for you to consider the actions that the City might ultimately take.

ACTION:            Meeting held.  No Action.  However, staff was directed to write a letter to Supervisors Daly and McGoldrick informing them of our study related to this matter and seek their thoughts on the value of the study to their ordinances.

 

7.                                                                                                    (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNING  CODE TO ADJUST INCOME LEVELS FOR INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM,  TO INCREASE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS OF 10 UNITS OR MORE, AND MAKING FINDINGS  - Consideration of an ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number  051685] which would amend Planning Code Section 315.1 to adjust income levels for the Inclusionary Housing Program from Metropolitan Statistical Area calculations to City and County of San Francisco calculations, amend Sections 315.4 and 315.5 to increase inclusionary requirements for all residential developments of ten or more units to provide inclusionary units; and and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

 

SPEAKERS:      Same as Item #6

ACTION:            Meeting held.  No Action.  However, staff was directed to write a letter to Supervisors Daly and McGoldrick informing them of our study related to this matter and seek their thoughts on the value of the study to their ordinances.

 

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:

Katherine Howard, Friends of the Music Concourse

  1. One element on your Board of Supervisors, which we found extremely important, was left on you.
  2. That is this week, at the second reading before the Board of Supervisors, the Landmark legislation for the Music Concourse did pass with a vote of +11-0.
  3. Some amendments had been introduced at the last minute that weakened a little bit of the legislation, but overall we feel it is a very good piece of legislation that will help protect the Music Concourse for years to come.
  4. We appreciate all the time and attention that you all gave to landmarking the Music Concourse and protecting the historic trees.

Judy Berkowitz

  1. I understand that during Commissioner’s Questions there was a question from Commissioner Antonini about the Rincon Hill project in today’s paper.  I thought I would tell you the status of the case.
  2. You approved the 309.1 permit in August.  There was a demolition permit issued and the existing building was demolished.
  3. There was an excavation and shoring permit issued last month.  We are working under that excavation and shoring permit, doing site preparation work now.  The site permit itself has not yet been issued.
  4. We are in the process to resolving all the issues that DBI has with the structural review panel and other issues that are nothing out of the ordinary other than we are proceeding under the site preparation work with the excavation and shoring permit as opposed to a site permit.  But that site permit, we believe, will be issue by the end of the year and we will keep moving.

 

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.

 

            8.         2005.0861C                                                               (R. CRAWFORD:  (415) 558-6358)

2535 Taraval Street - south side between 35th and 36th Avenues, Assessor's Block 2390 Lot 043) - Request Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 711.54 for to develop a Massage Establishment on the ground floor of the existing three-story mixed-use building. This project lies within an NC-2 (Small Scale 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, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and Hughes

MOTION:           17154

 

9.         2004.1069C                                                                        (D. Sirois:  (415) 558-6313) 

1815-1817 Taraval Street - south side of Taraval between 28th & 29th Avenues, Lot 041 on Assessor’s Block 2397 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Section 161(j) to eliminate two required off street parking spaces at the ground floor as part of an alteration to an existing residential building. The proposal would include the construction of an 1,100 square foot street level commercial space and two dwellings units on the upper two levels. The proposal is to use the ground floor commercial space as a retail outlet geared for children called Cutie Inc. The Project Site is located in an NC-2 District  (Neighborhood, Small Scale) and in a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:               S. Lee, Antonini, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and Hughes

MOTION:            17155

 

10a.      2005.0818XV                                                              (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

149 FELL STREET - through to Hickory Street, between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street, Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 0834 - Request for Determination of Compliance and Exceptions under Section 309 of the Planning Code, pursuant to a Building Permit Applications to demolish the existing one-story commercial structure and construct a new five-story, mixed-use building approximately 67-foot high. The new building would contain: approximately 1,000 square feet of retail space fronting Fell Street, and two residential parking spaces (accessed via Hickory Street) at the ground floor level; approximately 6,600 square feet of office use at the second and third levels; and, two residential townhouse style units at the fourth and fifth levels. The project would cover the entire lot, and requests an exception to the rear yard requirements for the fourth and fifth residential levels. The Zoning Administrator will concurrently consider a variance from the public open space code provisions of Section 138. The site is located in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 80-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:               S. Lee, Antonini, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and Hughes

MOTION:           17156

 

10b.      2005.0818XV                                                                (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

149 FELL STREET -through to Hickory Street, between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street, Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 0834 - Request for a Variance pursuant to a Building Permit Application to construct a new 5-story mixed use building with approximately 6,600 square feet of office space at the second and third floors. Section 138 of the Planning Code requires on-site provision of public open space for newly created office space in C-3-G zoning districts at a ratio of 1 square foot of open space to 50 square feet of office space. The open space requirement for the project is 132 square feet and the project sponsor is applying for a variance to provide none. The site is located in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 80-E Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            The Zoning Administrator approved the variance subject to the standard conditions of approval and conditions that allow us to compensate essentially payment into the Downtown Open Space Fund for lack of open space actually created on the site.

 

11.        2005.0978C                                                                                   (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1636-1656 Powell Street (aka 585 Columbus Avenue) - southeast corner at Union Street, Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 0117 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to add a wine tasting area (Type 42 ABC license) to the existing liquor store (dba “Coit Liquor”).  There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.  The project site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                         Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:               S. Lee, Antonini, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and Hughes

MOTION:           17157

 

F.         REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

12.        2005.1037ET                                                                      (D.Sider at (415) 558-6697)

[Board File No. 051676 - Allowing Certain Additional Eating and Drinking Uses in the 24th Street–Noe Valley NCD] - Ordinance amending Planning Code Sections 728.41 and 728.42 of the 24th Street - Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District to provide for a limited number of new full-service restaurant and bar uses that satisfy specific requirements and obtain conditional use authorization; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. Under certain circumstances, the proposed Ordinance would (1) allow up to three new full-service restaurants to be authorized within a five-year period and (2) allow full-service restaurants to seek a permit from the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in order to serve liquor, beer, and wine on the premises.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Approved

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

ABSENT:           Alexander and Bradford-Bell

            MOTION:           17158

 

 

13.        2005.0999C                                                                                   (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

627 Vallejo Street - southwest corner at Columbus Avenue, Lots 019 and 020 in Assessor’s Block 0146 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a full-service restaurant (dba “King of Thai Noodle House”) of approximately 1,850 square feet.  The subject commercial space was previously occupied by a small self-service restaurant of approximately 940 square feet that operated within a now-vacant supermarket.  The space will be enlarged to accommodate the proposed restaurant, but there will be no physical expansion of the existing building.  The project site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

 

SPEAKERS:    

Moshe Dinar, Project Architect

  1. Would to speak on behalf of the property owners.
  2. They have established restaurants that are of high quality.
  3. What we would like to present to you, and ask for your consideration, is that this restaurant is not an intensification of the restaurant use in the area.
  4. This is North Beach.   This is the area where people in San Francisco, and people from all over the world, come to have dinner and lunch.
  5. Gave a very brief description of the project.

Siriana, Property Owner

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the application.

Tony, Property Owner

  1. Urged the Commission to approve the application.

Mark, Sponsor’s Attorney

  1. This is not a different size restaurant.   It is essentially the same size as the one that was there.
  2. It is reasonably priced.

- I believe you have received a letter from Marsha Garland from the North Beach Association saying that they now support this proposal.

Tony Gantner, Vice President, North Beach Merchants Association

  1. We support your Department’s recommendation of disapproval.

Patricia Vaughey

  1. If you don’t have a good mix, if you don’t keep an equal amount of retail or restaurants, then all of a sudden you lose your everyday traffic. When you start losing your everyday traffic, then you lose your rent money and eventually close down.
  2. You need hardware stores.   You need retail stores.
  3. North Beach used to have that mix, but they don’t have it now.
  4. Think about what the future is of this neighborhood serving area.

 

(1)         MOTION:           Intent to approve 100 sq. ft + 250 sq. for ADA compliance.   

             AYES:              Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

             NAYES:            S. Lee and Olague  

ABSENT:          Alexander and Bradford-Bell

                        RESULT:           Motion failed

 

(2)         ACTION:           Continued to January 5, 2006. 

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

             NAYES:            Olague  

ABSENT:          Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

14.        2005.0773D                                                                       (S. vellve: (415) 558-6263)

130 26TH AVENUE - east side between El Camino Del Mar and Lake Street; Lot 1333, Assessor's Block 032 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2005.03.23.8227 proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition to the rear of a single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

 

            15.        2005.0940D                                                                        (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6614)

24 19TH AVENUE - east side between Lake Street and the Presidio; Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 1340 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.08.7140, proposing to build a two-story over basement addition at the rear of the two-story over basement single-family dwelling. The property is located within 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.

 

SPEAKERS:    

Elva, Discretionary Review applicant

  1. I represent the neighbors on either side of the permit applicant.
  2. Ms. Wilson expressed our initial concerns.   But since looking at the project, it’s become apparent that probably this hearing is premature.
  3. We have two major concerns at this point.   The initial one is with the space that’s considered – or labeled an office.  We considered that it might be used as an illegal unit.
  4. The reason we are concerned about it, is that it has a full bath.
  5. Mr. Stores was approached by Mr. Harrison about installing a gate in a fence he was building.   This gate coincides with the door to this downstairs space and it would provide street access to this space if it were separated from the main building.
  6. Mr. Harrison has explained the he does intend to use it as housing for either a nanny or his mother-in-law.   It seems he is looking for some sort of independent unit.
  7. By adding this space, he is creating a third story of occupancy.
  8. When they create that extra story, they are required to build emergency egress from the top story, and they haven’t provided for that in these plans.
  9. There is also an error in Mr. Gladstone’s brief.
  10. He claims that the Harrison’s have the smallest building on the block.
  11. In fact, it’s the Stores who are on the south side that have the smallest on the block.   Their building is 1680 square feet.  Right now the Harrison’s have a building that is 2200 square feet.  Their addition is about 1400 square feet—or almost the same size as the Stores property.
  12. If this addition is allowed to go through, they will have one of the largest buildings on the block.

Brett Gladstone, representing Project Sponsor

  1. First of all, I am a little surprised because I have mentioned what I am about to mention many times to the Stores’ Attorney.
  2. There will be no trespassing.   The Architect thought that we would, and we have told them many times it is not necessary.
  3. Number two: we are not going to need a gate. We have a way out to the street. 
  4. It was true nine months ago.   Our clients considered it but we have told them it’s not needed and it’s not in the plans before you.  If we need a restriction to do that, that’s fine.
  5. The bedroom downstairs is a bedroom/home office.    It’s not just an office.
  6. The proposal that the Stores have to cut back the rear addition by seven feet would make that bedroom about seven feet deep, which is hardly room for a bed.

Harriet Sullivan

  1. My daughter is Susan Harrison (the project sponsor).
  2. I have been battling cancer.   The last time I had radiation treatment, my doctor told me that my cancer would return and would become more aggressive.
  3. I decided to relocate to be near my daughter and her family.
  4. When my cancer returns, it will likely make living on my own almost impossible.   Thus the need for me to occupy the ground level room in the new extension.
  5. If it is cut back seven feet as the Stores have requested, it would only be eight feet long.
  6. I don’t think my queen bed will fit in there.

Susan Doherty

  1. My husband and I live across the street and three houses down from the Harrison’s.
  2. As interested amateurs, my husband and I have studied architecture.   We care about out neighborhood and are horrified by the trend toward mansions.
  3. We especially appreciate the Harrison’s interest in maintaining the beauty and character of our street.
  4. We have studied the plans and believe they will be in character with the rest of the neighborhood.
  5. Their completed project at 3400 square feet remains considerably smaller than our house at 4600 square feet.

 

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

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

ABSENT:           Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

16.        1999.385C                                                                        (M. WOODS: (4150 558-6315)

3839 Washington Street - south side between Maple and Cherry Streets; Lot 34 (formerly Lots 1A, 24 and 25), in Assessor’s Block 992 - Request for authorization to increase the maximum student enrollment from 186 to 200 students at the Presidio Hill School pursuant to a previously approved Conditional Use authorization by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2000 under Motion No. 15031 for Case No. 99.385C, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts. The proposal does not involve any physical changes to the existing School site. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve request to increase student enrollment from 186 to 200.

 

SPEAKERS:    

Ann Missner, Interim Director for Presidio Hills School, Project Sponsor

  1. Would like to thank the Planning Department for past support of the school remodeling and expansion and appreciate the opportunity to be here today to complete this final step of the work.
  2. Our conditional use permit approved enrollment of 200 and put into place a mechanism to phase in the enrollment increase over four years as a check to insure no serious harm to the neighborhood.
  3. The school has undertaken the traffic and noise studies and indicates the moderate increase in enrollment has not had a negative impact on the neighborhood.   We have engaged a sound consultant, who conducted the studies to be available today.
  4. The school has worked in collaboration with the neighborhood association and the conditions of the permits by limiting number of evening and weekend meetings, asking visitors to the school to park on a street nearby, instituting a supervised drop off to insure the traffic line moves as quickly as possible.
  5. I is our intent to maintain and continue to improve our relationship of active cooperation on issues of concern to the neighbors.
  6. The school’s plan is to expand enrollment within the range of 195 to 200.
  7. The increase is intended to be in our middle school where it is important to give students an influx of new friends.
  8. Charles Ferguson, President of Presidio Heights Neighbors
  9. He asked the Commission to go ahead and approve the increase from 186 to 200 with two conditions stating that he believed that they would not have any kind of serious impact on the school and the neighborhood whatsoever. 
  10. But first he gave a very detailed history of the neighborhood, its character and the school.   [He ran out of time before he stated the two conditions.]

Jill Jordan

  1. I am opposed to the increased enrollment.
  2. The school’s noise and traffic report are not accurate.
  3. The true measure of the impact that the school has had on the neighborhood should come from those of us who live nearby.

Dianne Bower

  1. I live on Clay Street, right behind the school
  2. It’s very noisy.   There seems to be more noise there than there ever is up on the top playground.
  3. I would rather not see it expand.

Francis Petracelli

  1. The school is in the middle of the block and is surrounded on three sides with little space between the school and existing homes.
  2. The school is in violation of the current student limit of 186.
  3. We feel the school does not follow rules and that there have been no consequences for their actions.

Edgar Stone

  1. I’ve lived in my present location, on Washington Street since 1954, which is about 51 years.   The reason somebody is speaking for me is because I’m visually handicapped and I can’t see the paper.  She will proceed.

Marilyn Massa

  1. I live next door to Edgar and he’s asked me to read his statement.
  2. He asks the Planning Commission to deny Presidio Hills School request to increase enrollment from 186 to 200.
  3. The site at 3839 Washington is too small for the number of students and the school is surrounded on all sides by neighborhood homes.
  4. Those of us who live here can tell you it is unpleasant to live in the adjacent homes.
  5. It is unfair for the city to allow the school to expand.
  6. I ask that the school be kept to the 186 limit and be required to stick to it.
  7. Speaking for myself:
  8. With increased enrollment come increased autos.
  9. When parents come to pick up their children they are not thinking about the neighbors but thinking about their kids, dropping something off, or needing to talk to Johnny’s mother.   This will increase with more students.
  10. Another problem is the noise.
  11. When the play area was on ground level, I rarely heard the children.
  12. None of us are supportive of an increased enrollment.
  13. But if you decide to go in favor of the school, please stop the growth at 200.

Gwen Anderson

  1. I live across the street from the school.
  2. In 2000, we were told that going higher would allow the noise to dissipate into the air from the playground.   It doesn’t.
  3. Now it is in my house, in my backyard and the back yards on Jackson Street as well.
  4. Traffic is a hazard and grows more dangerous as the school year progresses.
  5. Someone needs to tell them that enough is enough..

James Shapiro

  1. I live across the street and was assigned to be one of the neighborhood liaisons.
  2. I’m interested in a positive relationship with them.
  3. I’ve put a lot of time into drafting what is intended to be a constructive proposal.
  4. The conditions would increase harmony and make relationships easier between the school and the neighbors.
  5. I would ask that you condition your decision on any increase on the completion of these agreements.
  6. Currently there are no consequences for the school violating its agreements with us or with the city.

Louise Bloomberg, parent of a middle school student at Presidio Hills School

  1. Spoke in support of the proposed increased.
  2. It will help the school remain as affordable as it can be to as many people and also helps support diversity of the school by supporting its tuition assistance program
  3. Expanding the middle school even by 14 students is important
  4. We live in the city.   We are a community.  The school has been in the neighborhood and the community for a long time.
  5. The school makes a critical contribution to life in the city.
  6. I think it enhances the neighborhood.

Bob Baum, project architect

  1. He put a picture up to show what the school looks like and remind everyone of what we are talking about.
  2. When we designed the project, we worked for a year and a half with the neighbors.
  3. This project is the result of quite a bit of interaction and a lot of compromise on both sides.

Lisa Honig, Parent of a student and on the Board of Directors

  1. As a parent, I’ve been quite impressed with the length the staff has gone to about concerns of residents in our neighborhoods and to instruct them on ways that we can be considerate of the neighbors.
  2. We are constantly reminded about the pick up and drop off rules so we don’t create any difficulties with the neighbors.
  3. We are repeatedly directed about where we should and where we should not park.
  4. The school does need to strive for full enrollment to ensure the economic viability and best possible environment for the students.
  5. I hope you will approve the expansion to 200.

Amy Pearson

  1. We are required to manage the bulge in our population as these students move through the grades.
  2. In fact, while our enrollment is 191 this semester, we are anticipating an enrollment of 188 after the winter break.
  3. The majority of admissions work is finished by late February, which makes the cap imminently important.
  4. Having the flexibility to enroll to 200 allows us to focus on the Middle School.
  5. This is where we add additional students to sixth grade, which includes outreach efforts to fulfill diversity.
  6. I urge you to allow the increased enrollment to 200 as we were originally granted.

Max Pear

  1. In speaking with neighbors, I found that there a number of them that do understand that our neighborhood needs to be a vibrant community.
  2. They do understand the mission of the school and support it.
  3. There are other neighbors beside myself that do support the school expanding to 200.

David Lahar

  1. I’m critically aware of the need for additional middle school spaces here in the area.
  2. This is not a minor issue.
  3. 200 will help ensure the financial stability of the school
  4. I urge you to approve the recommendation.

Charles Salter

  1. I have been an engineer in San Francisco for over 30 years.
  2. I was acoustical engineer for the school prior to 2000.   I met with the neighbors because of the neighborhood noise issues.
  3. I measured noise levels inside their bedrooms.
  4. I became intimately aware of a lot of issues.
  5. I talked to the school now we found the increase in noise.   They are going to develop means by which to reduce that noise of the children gathering so the people across the street on Washington Street will have a noise increase along with what our results show a decrease in the rest of the neighborhood.

Harry O’Brien

  1. I represented the Presidio Hill in 2000 when the project was originally approved.
  2. I want to reiterate this is an unusual condition that’s in this motion.
  3. I believe the intent of the Commission in 2000 was that there should be a presumption that this last stage in the phased enrollment cap would be – would go forward from 186 up to 200 unless these follow-up studies demonstrated that there was a real unexpected impact on the neighborhood.
  4. I think this stud has demonstrate that’s clearly not the case

 

ACTION:            Approved

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

ABSENT:           Alexander and Bradford-Bell

MOTION:           17159

 

17.        2004.0646E                                                                           (R. DEAN: (415) 558-5980)

263-265 Dolores Street - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - construction of three-unit residential building. The proposed project is the construction of a new four-story, three-unit residential building to the rear of an existing three-story, three-unit residential building.  The project would result in a total of six off-street parking spaces provided at ground level in the new building. The proposed project includes demolition of an existing carport/storage structure. The proposed project site is located on the eastside of Dolores Street between 15th and 16th Streets, Assessor’s Block 3556, Lot 30.  The project site is located in the RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and within the 40-x Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation:  Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:      None

ACTION:            Without a hearing, continued to January 26, 2006

AYES:               S. Lee, Antonini, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:           Alexander, Bradford-Bell, and Hughes

 

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: 6:43 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, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Alexander, W. Lee

 

 

 

 

 

 

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