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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

November 17, 2005

November 17, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, November 17, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sue Lee; Dwight S. Alexander; Michael J. Antonini;

Shelley Bradford Bell; William L. Lee; Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:45 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Dan Sider; Isolde Wilson; Jonathan Purvis; Sara Vellve; Ben Fu; Jim Miller; Nannie Turrell; Joshua Switzky; Johnny Jaramillo; Jasper Rubin; Charles Rivasplata; 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.

1a. 2005.0480CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354) 2814-2824 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 215(a) to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space into five dwelling units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

1b. 2005.0480CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2814-2824 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Off-street Parking, Open Space and Rear Yard Variances under Section 305 to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space into five dwelling units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

(Proposed for Continuance to December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

2. 2005.0481V (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2826-2838 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Fitzgerald Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Off-street Parking, Open Space and Rear Yard Variances under Section 305 to allow conversion of approximately 1,200 gross square feet of commercial space to three new dwellings units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Zoning Administrator continued this item to December 15, 2005.

3. 2004.0469C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

80 Digby Street (AKA John F. Shelley Fire Station #26) - north side, between Addison & Everson, Lots, 13, 14, 15 on Assessor's Block 7540 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 234.2 to mount three cellular panel antennas and associated equipment at the John F. Shelley Fire Station (Station #26) as part of wireless transmission network operated by Sprint PCS. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the subject site is a Preference1 Location (Preferred Location – Publicly-Used Structure). A General Plan Referral is required for this proposal because it is located on City-owned property. A finding of consistency with the General Plan is necessary. The Project Site is located in a P (Public) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

4. 2005.1270DDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

4231 & 4234 24TH STREET - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 6505 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.19.9187, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition on a nonconforming mixed-use building, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

5. 2002.1129E (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

San Francisco Marina Renovation Project - Public hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) -The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina at 3950 Scott Street (Assessor's Block 900, Lot 003). Water-side improvements would include installation and removal of breakwater structures; reconstruction of degraded rip-rap shoreline slopes; maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation and refurbishment of oily water and sewage pumpout facilities; and upgrade of electrical, water, and lighting services on the docks. Land-side improvements would include renovation of marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of the vacant former Navy Degaussing Station into office space; construction of a new 1,000-square-foot maintenance building; and restriping of existing parking lots. The project site is within a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required. Public hearing to receive comments only.

Note: A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on October 6, 2005. An additional hearing on the Draft EIR has been calendared at the request of the Planning Commission. The public review period has been extended to 5 p.m. on January 19, 2006.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

6. 2005.0750D (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

672 ARGUELLO BLVD - east side between Edward and Turk Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1141 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.02.14.5404, proposing to add two stories to the building; alter the façade; add 27'-6 to the rear of the existing single-family dwelling, located within an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

7. Commission Comments/Questions

None

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

  1. was before the Board's Land Use Committee. Sara Dennis, our staff member was present and we have had many conversations with the various supervisors on what the Commission's position was on this matter. I think we worked out a reasonably satisfactory way to proceed that meets the Commission's intent with Better Neighborhood Plus.
  2. [Director Macris, asked Deputy City Attorney, Susan Cleveland-Knowles to explained to the Commission what modifications were made and how we moved more towards the pilot-approach that the Commission recommended.]

Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney

  1. At the Land Use Committee hearing yesterday, there were amendments proposed by Supervisor McGoldrick. One was an amendment to have a policy that the Planning Department, to the extent possible, use in-house staff as opposed to outside consultants in conforming or meeting the requirements of the ordinance.
  2. The second group of amendments limits the accessing of the Better Neighborhood Plus further than when the proposed ordinance was in front of you. At this point the legislation was passed in committee with their recommendation of 3-0.
  3. As it stands now the Better Neighborhood's process would apply to a certain extent only to some existing planning activities. Those are the planning activities in the Market-Octavia, Central Waterfront, Mission, Potrero Hill, Showplace Square, and East Fillmore area. The only new planning effort that would be subject to the ordinance at this point is the planning effort in the Inner Geary.
  4. Only Inner Geary would apply from start to finish or the Better Neighborhoods ordinance would apply start to finish to the Inner Geary Neighborhood planning efforts.
  5. There was also an amendment made in Committee that further limited the application of the ordinance to the existing planning in the Octavia area.
  6. This was to satisfy some concerns from the Planning Department because they didn't want to have to re-do anything that was started for Marked and Octavia and especially didn't want to start over on the environmental review process.
  7. The interagency committee that I think was inadvertently drafted out of the legislation was a suggestion made by President Sue Lee at the hearing.
  8. Lastly, a section was added to evaluate the effectiveness of the Better Neighborhood's Program after 30 months. At that time the Planning Department is supposed to evaluate all of the provisions on whether the program should be continued and if so, how it could be modified and how it could be made better. Then the Planning Commission would pass on those recommendations that it deems worthy to the Board of Supervisors.

Ken Rich

  1. Balboa Park was one of the original three Better Neighborhoods and the plan seeks, in short, to develop an urban transit village around the district along Ocean Avenue and to improve passenger and pedestrian conditions around the Balboa Park Station--one the busiest transit hubs in the city aside from downtown.
  2. We released a draft of the plan in 2002--after three years of community work. And as Mr. Macris said, planning stopped due to the budget difficulties. We have our budget again for the EIR and we expect the EIR process to be completed in the summer of '06.
  3. While we've had this hiatus, a lot of this has continued on its own speed--including the location of a new Ingleside Branch Library, new improvements and lighting and sidewalk build-outs, the development of loop--county property that we are looking at re-developing, which is moving forward in the planning stages. Also economic revitalization along Ocean Avenue, which the Mayor's office is spurring.
  4. Last week we held a community meeting to re-introduce the plan to folks who were new to it and got over 100 people -- one-third of the people had previously worked with us and two-thirds were new people and there was a very positive atmosphere and a detailed review of the plan.
  5. We have a couple of remaining community issues around the heights and off-street parking requirements, but staff feels confident that we will get those resolved.
  6. In terms of our schedule for getting this adopted--moving forward from now--in February or March of '06 we plan to go talk to the community and do another one or two workshops to resolve those issues.
  7. In the spring of '06 we will publish the draft EIR and the Commission would hold a meeting on that and one more community outreach session to finalize the plan and proposed new zoning. In summer of '06 we will come back to this Commission to certify the EIR and adopt the plan and the new zoning followed by the Board of Supervisors to adopt the plan and new zoning.

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

BoS:

  1. Land Use Committee did pass the landmarking of the Golden Gate Park Music Concourse to the full Board of Supervisors. That was done without recommendation.
  2. There were concerns about Recreation and Park and the community that were felt to be adjudicated.
  3. 680 Illinois and the appeal of the document that was continued until next week.
  4. Supervisor Alioto-Pier's Penthouse Exemption Legislation, which would increase the permitted exception for elevator penthouse in lesser districts from 10-16 feet. That was unanimously adopted on first reading,
  5. Medical Cannabis Dispensary Legislation was passed on first reading to create a framework to regulate the use and dispensation of medical cannabis in the City.
  6. This is a very lengthy document. The significant Planning change is that generally speaking existing dispensaries are grandfathered in. They still need to go through the permitting process, including a discretionary review hearing here, but they are grandfathered in.

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.

None

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

10. (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Review of proposed Board of Supervisors Ordinance [File Number 051637]: Amendments to Section 1332 of the Subdivision code which would require the Planning Commission to hold hearings to address General Plan consistency for all condominium conversion applications subject to the City's condominium conversion lottery. Because this Draft Ordinance would not modify the Planning Code, it has not been referred to the Commission by the Board for formal review. As such, this item is before the Commission only for information, comment, and possible advisory action

SPEAKERS:

Ted Gullickson, San Francisco Tenant Union

  1. Spoke in support of this. He feels it is important to come before the Planning Commission specifically because of evictions.
  2. There is a provision in Section 1386 that provides that the tentative maps for building which defy the mysteries of eviction or displacement or eviction of senior or disabled tenants in the process of preparing the building for conversion, that the Planning Department, Planning Commission, specifically should deny the tentative maps of the building.
  3. So if a building had evictions, preparing it for condo conversion, it's the duty of the Planning Commission to deny that condo conversion.
  4. Based on my knowledge, even though the vast majority, if not pretty much all of them, all of the buildings in which there are condo conversions created the evictions which internally setup tenancy in common.
  5. The vast majority of condo conversions have had evictions over all tenants, not to mention senior and disable tenants.

Jeremy Paul

  1. If, in fact, the Department of Public Works lacks the staff necessary to fully review these applications, it is sort of an incorrect assumption to think it is a workload that could be shifted over to the Planning Department without effect.
  2. I think the effects were substantial and the workload increase on this Commission and the demands on time in preparation for these cases would be substantial.
  3. If it is not in the purview of this agency to be doing it, it is somebody else's responsibility.
  4. Fees are being increased massively for subdivisions.
  5. I do not believe there is a provision in the fee increase for additional funding for City Planning to be reviewing them and that is a necessary component of any change.

ACTION: Adopted a resolution to approve the proposal with amendments:

  • Of the 30-day action by the Commission;
  • To study the staff  s needs to implement such; and
  • To study the implementations of this and get back to the Board and this Commission on that proposed Resolution.

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee and Olague

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17149

11. 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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 1, 2005

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes

12. 2005.0902DD (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

869 NORTH POINT STREET – south side between Hyde and Larkin Streets; Lot 019B in Assessor's Block 0026 – Staff-Initiated Request for Discretionary Review and Request for Discretionary Review from the Project Sponsor of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.24.3842, proposing to construct a new three-story over basement plus mezzanine building with three dwelling units and three off-street parking spaces. It is Staff's position that the proposed project is not consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, the Northern Waterfront Special Use District 2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

13a. 2004.1272DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3730, proposing to convert the existing single-family dwelling at 600 Kansas Street into a two-family dwelling following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots, with off-street parking provided on the newly created adjacent lot, subject to granting of a parking variance by the Zoning Administrator; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has been revised.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Joel Yodowitz, Representing Project Sponsor

  1. At the last meeting we committed to re-design the new building into an L-Shape to provide separation between the building and proposed project and put parking into the existing building that is proposed to be renovated into two units with a partial third-floor addition.
  2. The project's sponsor after the last hearing and at substantial additional cost to him hired a new architect who has totally re-designed the project with input from Jeremy Paul, the DR requestor's representative.

Toby Morris, Architect for the project

  1. Gave a detailed overall description of the redesign.

Jeremy Paul, representing Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Very please with Mr. Morris's re-design of the building.

John Carney

  1. I am very opposed to the 40-foot heights.

Bill Baillete

  1. I have to agree with Jeremy Paul; this is a much nicer building than the one before.

Mary Louise Green

  1. Concerned about the 40-foot height.

Stella Scott

  1. I have objections to the height of the building, plus the fact that there will be some loss of parking space.
  2. I have lived there long enough to have witnessed the growth of the area and the population of automobiles.

Babette Drefke

  1. Concerned about the height of the building and parking.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved revised project:

  • Reduce the curb cuts from four to three.
  • To continue to work with the Department in collaboration with DPW on the size and width of those curb cuts and the parking space.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

13b. 2004.1272DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2101-2103 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3740, proposing to construct a new two-family dwelling on a newly created lot at the southwest corner of Kansas and 18th Streets following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has been revised.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 13a.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as revised:

  • Reduce the height of the building by one foot;
  • Reduced the curb cuts from four to three
  • Will continue to work with Department in collaboration with DPW on the size and width of those curb cuts and the parking space.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

13c. 2004.1272DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Parking Variance to subdivide a 5,000 square-foot lot into two lots, with an existing single-family dwelling on one 2,950 square-foot-lot fronting solely on 18th Street and a proposed new two-family dwelling to be built at the corner on a 2,050 square-foot lot. Required off-street parking for both lots would be provided on the corner lot, requiring a parking variance; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This item will be heard by the Zoning Administrator following Commission action, on the discretionary review items.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

VARIANCE NO LONGER APPLICABLE

13d. 2005.0237V (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2101 -2103 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Front Setback and Rear Yard Variances to subdivide a 5,000 square-foot lot into two lots, with an existing single-family dwelling on one 2,950 square-foot-lot fronting solely on 18th Street and a proposed new two-family dwelling to be built at the corner on a 2,050 square-foot lot. The new corner building would front on Kansas Street with no front setback and its rear yard would be in the form of an inner court, requiring both front setback and rear yard variances; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This is a newly calendared item and will be heard by the Zoning Administrator following Commission action on the discretionary review items.

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 13a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

14a. 2004.0980CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

642 HARRISON STREET - north side at Hawthorne Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 818.14 to convert an office building into a mixed-use building with 43 dwelling units over retail commercial space, with a two-story vertical addition. A Rear Yard Modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space on balconies and a roof deck. The Zoning Administrator will hear the Rear Yard Modification immediately following the Planning Commission's hearing on the Conditional Use. The site is within the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District, an 80-K Height and Bulk District, and is within the Housing/Mixed Use Overlay District of Resolution No. 16202.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS:

Mr. Smotlz, Architect for the project.

  1. We think this change is appropriate because it's true downtown housing and truly walkable from downtown.
  2. It provides 43 new market rate units, including five below market rate, and we have a high proportion of two-bedroom units.

Jeff Poole

  1. Concerned about the loss of value to his property.

ACTION: Approved with a requirement that the design be further revised by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the site permit.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

MOTION: 17142

14b. 2004.0980CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

642 HARRISON STREET - north side at Hawthorne Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request for Rear Yard Modification under Planning Code Section 134(e) to convert an office building into a mixed-use building with 43 dwelling units over retail commercial space, with a two-story vertical addition, and rear yard open space provided on balconies and a roof deck. The site is within the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District, an 80-K Height and Bulk District, and is within the Housing/Mixed Use Overlay District of Resolution No. 16202.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance subject to Planning Commission review prior to issuance of the site permit.

15. 2004.0984C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-5263)

2690-2696 GEARY BOULEVARD - northeast corner of Geary Boulevard and Emerson Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1071 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 209.6 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) antennas and related equipment cabinets, on the existing 100-foot tall commercial structure (Public Storage Building) for AT&T's wireless telecommunications network within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)

ON THE REQUEST TO CONTINUE IT TO 12/1/05:

SPEAKERS:

George (no last name)

- Opposed the continuance

MOTION: To continue to December 1, 2005

AYES: Antonini and Bradford-Bell

NAYES: Alexander, W. Lee, Olague, S. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

RESULT: Motion failed

ON THE CASE:

SPEAKERS:

Sandra Steele, representing Cingular Wireless

  1. Respectfully requested the Commission to uphold staff's recommendation for approval of this conditional use project.
  2. This proposal will serve the purpose of providing coverage to the busy commuter and commercial corridors along Geary Boulevard and Masonic Avenue, as well as the surrounding residential areas.

Randall

  1. Read a letter from Ran Crowley supporting the antenna installation.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Olague, and W. Lee

NAYES: Bradford-Bell

ABSENT: S. Lee and Hughes

MOTION 17146

16. 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 October 27, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 1, 2005.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes

17. 2005.0748C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-63444)

1141 POLK STREET (a.k.a. 1145 Polk Street) - west side between Hemlock and Sutter Streets, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 691 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for addition of a  Bar , serving beer and wine only, to an existing art gallery ( Space Gallery ) (Planning Code Section 723.41), in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee and Hughes

MOTION: 17147

18. 2001.0636E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)

Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements - 2936 Hyde Street - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project is the demolition of an existing vacant fish processing building and wharf, located on the Fisherman's Wharf waterfront between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets, to abate an existing public health and safety hazard caused by the deteriorated condition of the structure and its potential for collapse. Following demolition, the Port of San Francisco would install guardrails and new riprap (rock to protect the shoreline). Existing Port tenants of Wharf J 10 could pursue reuse of the site, including a new fish processing building for use by F. Alioto Fish Company; an outdoor platform for use by California Shellfish Company; and possible Port-sponsored improvements that might include a public fish receiving dock at the east end or west end of Wharf J 10, a second new building for use by the fishing industry, and/or a new floating boat repair dock at Wharf J-10 or at the foot of Leavenworth Street. The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, Waterfront Special Use District No. 1, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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 November 29, 2005.

SPEAKERS:

Ed Bern

  1. I am a California structural engineer.
  2. I have 12 years of experience at the Port and over 20 years of experience in marine facility design.
  3. The purpose of my presentation to you this evening is to inform you of the unsafe and dangerous conditions we have in the Fisherman's Wharf Outer Harbor–The fisheries building at J10
  4. I've been involved with this building since August of 2000
  5. At that time I received a call from one of our field inspectors that we had a problem.
  6. I called in a consulting engineer to take a look. They came in and determined it was in a considerable deteriorated condition that was so bad we needed to eliminate or vacate the building.
  7. We informed the tenants that they needed to vacate within one week, which they did.
  8. The building is unsafe.
  9. [He showed pictures to show the condition of the substructure and foundations.]

David Cincotta, representing Frank Alioto Fish Company, tenant of this facility.

  1. I would say that this draft EIR speaks to the project described and should not have any significant impacts. I do not agree with that. We think it should not have any significant impact.
  2. It does refer several times to potential impacts as a result of the contamination from Mobile Exxon issues and hazardous waste.
  3. When the Draft EIR began to be prepared almost two years ago, we thought that there would be some more progress made by Mobile Exxon cleaning this up. We believe that there are things they should be doing.
  4. They should be processed in peril situations. They are independent of this project, but they should be going forward.
  5. There is evidence from the Regional Water Quality Board and BCDC.
  6. In fact, it is referred to on page 70 of the document that there is strong evidence of contaminated groundwater already that is discharging into the bay and having potential impacts on human receptors.
  7. There is no reasoning why testing should not be going on by Mobil Exxon, now under J 10, so that if there is going to be any demolition and construction taking place there, they should not disturb any of the potential impacts that may already be there.
  8. One another general comment is that there is some time given to the scheduling of this activity for preparing when the demolition/construction would take place, for herring and endangered bats.

Diane Oshima, San Francisco Port

  1. I wanted to spend a few minutes here to follow up on the comments that Ed Bern made.
  2. He was basically here to give you some background on the project that you m ay not have already had in terms of the emergency status of this project and that there was in fact a public emergency that we declared that triggers the Port's proposal to demolish this facility, which is the subject of this EIR.
  3. At the point that emergency was declared, your staff had issued a CEQA emergency exclusion to address the CEQA issues. That was appealed to the Board of Supervisors and this EIR was required as a result of that Board of Supervisors' hearing where they denied the emergency exclusion. So it was not clear to us that information had ever really been conveyed to you.
  4. We acknowledge that the loss of the J-10 facility would be a significant historical impact. And while it is still an emergency situation, which has been corroborated also by the Port's Fire Marshal who is extremely concerned about the tender dry condition of vacant creosote wood facility that could catch fire very easily and not only threaten the site, but the surrounding tenants and buildings around it.
  5. We have diligently worked with the community such that the scope of this EIR was expanded to include things beyond the demolition itself.
  6. So, to that end, we just wanted to make sure it was on the record for you to have that background understanding as the fuller context for why this EIR is being prepared.

ACTION: Public hearing to receive comments only. No action required.

ITEM 19 WAS HEARD OUT OF ORDER. FOLLOWED REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 15.

19. 2005.0796T (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

c-3 District Parking Control Modifications - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 151, 151.1, 154, 155, 155.5, 166 and 167 to modify controls in C-3 Zoning Districts regarding required and permitted off-street parking and loading, design of access to off-street parking and loading, bicycle parking, car sharing, separating parking costs from housing costs and adopting environmental findings and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Chase Collins, Self-Marketing Community Action Network and Community Coalition

  1. We are here to support the recommendation that was brought before you this afternoon.
  2. This is a win-win situation for everyone.
  3. Even the area will win that have cars from maybe people that do not work in our City, but work outside of the City – they will still have access to park their cars and be able to use their cars.

Kevin Green, Director of Environmental Health Section

  1. Support the staff recommendation and ordinance.
  2. Pointed out three important health benefits of this ordinance: 1) Parking controls would reduce traffic and vehicle trips; 2) Improve air quality by reducing vehicle trips; and 3) Noise – traffic and noise are very highly correlated. Reducing traffic by reducing vehicle trips is going to reduce noise.

Patricia Breslin, Executive Director of the Hotel Council of San Francisco

  1. I'm here to voice our objection to two proposals within this proposed legislation.
  2. We urge you not to impose a minimum of one or less parking spaces in the District C-3.
  3. We also urge you to eliminate the proposed prohibition on the installation of porticka shares to accommodate passenger loading.

Robin Levitt

  1. I have come here to speak in favor of this legislation.
  2. Given the number of proposed developments, residential developments for the downtown area and the Mid-Market Area, it would be a real mistake to require one to one parking for these developments, this is a very transient-rich area. A very walkable area.
  3. Adding thousands of cars to the streets would diminish the quality of life in the area.

Tom – Executive Director of Transportation for a Livable City

  1. I'm here to speak in favor of staff recommendations

Mike Gleason, President of Teamster's 665

  1. We are here in opposition of the proposed modifications.

Hector Cardenas Oliveras, Local 122

  1. He is against the amendment to the Planning Code to reduce parking.

Kevin Westley, Executive Director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association

  1. He is against the legislation.

Tim Dunne

  1. Urged the Commission to support the legislation.

Mary Murphy

  1. My clients represent a business that is going to bring online a million new feet at the former Emporium site without any parking.
  2. If we starve the retailers of parking in this area, we will be starving the city's general fund of sales tax revenue
  3. We have to support the hotel users, retailers, and restaurants.
  4. I would absolutely urge you to say that any prohibition on parking in the downtown for commercial parking should be rejected.
  5. I urge you to reject this legislation.

Tim Coleman

  1. We support the broad intent of this legislation.
  2. We support projects that reduce parking, especially in transit-rich areas.
  3. We think the legislation is weakened by .5 to 1 maximum parking limit.
  4. We are worried that it's a pretty abrupt jump and risks jeopardizing building housing in this area.

Michael Sweet

  1. My wife and I moved south of market in 1998 and got rid of one of our cars.
  2. We walk to work.
  3. We have families that don't live in San Francisco so we still need a car.
  4. We now have two children. And when you have children you need a car.
  5. Our car is not on the street causing congestion, but is a quality of life issue for us and those who are willing to move in and revitalize and be part of this new renewal that we see developing.
  6. - Brian – current Chairman of the Mid-Market PAC
  7. This past July you passed Mid-Market SUD with a one to one parking ratio.
  8. For you to bring it down to .5 to one in C-3 is more burdensome for those who are willing to build
  9. This appears to handcuff the Commission in terms of your ability to make good decisions in terms of what can go in.
  10. Against legislation.

Lynn Sedway – an urban and real estate economist

  1. We have studied the issue of parking and limiting parking and condominiums.
  2. We have found that you can limit the number of parking places, but that doesn't limit the number of cars.
  3. So what you have is cars parking on the street, or taking spaces that would otherwise go to commercial uses.
  4. I would definitely recommend that you not pursue this action.

Robert Herr, Pillsbury Winthrop

  1. I'm confused about the staff position from one to one parking in the Mid Market SUD and now a .5 to one with this legislation.
  2. If a developer doesn't have an assurance of being able to provide one to one parking in an economical way, the financing will be at risk.
  3. We suggest that you conform this legislation to the Mid-Market C-3 proposals.

Andrew Senegal – real estate developer and investor

  1. There is no doubt that apartment buildings that have more parking are more valuable and therefore the financing that goes with them is going to be less expensive and there is going to be a greater pool of investors that are willing to invest or purchase these types of buildings.
  2. By limiting the amount of parking on future developments will act to raise the cost of those developments because the financing costs will be higher
  3. That will harm affordability and reduce the number of units that come about because of that.
  4. Urged the Commission to keep the rules the way they are now and not to act to limit parking.

Arthur Webb – a carpenter with Local 22

  1. If you reduce the parking more than one to one, you will have to a lot to improve MUNI.
  2. How can you bring a Christmas tree home?
  3. Against legislation.

From Ruben and Junius – representing developers throughout the city

  1. We represent developers throughout the City, including a number of developers that hope to bring development to the downtown areas and Mid-Market areas.
  2. Without exception our clients are opposed to these new restrictions.
  3. We join our colleagues in opposing these new controls.
  4. It is essential that you not do something that will discourage the location of housing in these areas.

Andrew Bay – Crest Condominiums

  1. People would not live in the area unless they had the ability to park a car.
  2. We have .7 to one ratio and some stacking in our building.
  3. We can accommodate most of our people because some don't drive.
  4. But this will reflect on the market value and the property tax roles of the values of these units being built.
  5. Against proposed legislation.

Steve Vettel - Morrison and Forrester

  1. I strongly recommend that you do not cap parking below one to one.

Steve Atkinson

  1. Asked Commission to consider the issues of families or disabled persons.
  2. As a parent of a disable child who uses a wheelchair, I cannot imagine living in a place I could not transport her to and from.
  3. I would like to endorse others who have spoken and who are opposed to the restrictions between one to one.

Geary Gee

  1. I am here to object to the restrictions in the C-3.
  2. We need the ability for one to one parking in the C-3 District.

Dick Miller

  1. I live in Port Rillo Hills
  2. I don't understand why you would want less than one to one parking.
  3. If they can't cut public transportation, maybe you could start talking about reducing parking.
  4. But until you have the transportation, you can't talk about it.

Mike Burke – Land Use Attorney

  1. An absolute prohibition will deny people opportunities to develop.

Peter Hartmann – President of Museum Park Homeowner's Association

  1. We are in opposition to the proposal.

Alice

  1. I object to the limits to parking of less than one to one.

Robert McCarthy

  1. You all took an oath and took it seriously
  2. But it is too bad that it didn't include the first line of the Hippocratic oath–first do no harm.
  3. The unintended consequences of this legislation, as you have heard, will do harm to those who build housing, those who might want to live in them, diminishment of the investment pool, and the city's tax rolls.

[Name was unclear] - Carpenter's Union

  1. Limiting the available spots will increase the price of parking and cost of living in San Francisco.
  2. It is already causing residents to flee the City.
  3. Why endorse a legislation that would increase the cost for the working class.

Andy Theronly - Program Director for the Bicycle Coalition

  1. We support this idea not only for the intrinsic benefits for bicycle enthusiasts, but the larger notion of making San Francisco a healthier, more livable city.

ACTION: Approved as amended with the two further resolves that are offered by staff, the articulation offered by Dr. Ghosh and Mr. Badiner, and the modification to exact mitigation fees for improved bike lanes offered by Commissioner Bradford-Bell

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17143

ITEMS 20 AND 21 FOLLOWED ITEM 19. THEY WERE CALLED AND HEARD TOGETHER

20. 2002.0805U (J. SWITZKY 575-6815 / D. ALUMBAUGH 558-6601)

DELEGATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT AREA - Consideration of a motion to authorize the Director of Planning to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency establishing delegation of authority between the two agencies regarding regulation of land use and permitting within the Mid-Market Redevelopment Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Approved with the amendments supplied by staff

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee and Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17144

21. 2004.1043U (J. Switzky: (415) 575-6815)

Delegation Agreement with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for the South of Market Redevelopment Area - Consideration of a motion to authorize the Director of Planning to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency establishing delegation of authority between the two agencies regarding regulation of land use and permitting within the South of Market Redevelopment Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee, Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17144

22. (J. JARAMILLO/ J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6818)/558-6310)

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL FOR REZONING IN THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD - Informational presentation will include an update on the status of the Eastern Neighborhoods planning effort and an overview of staff's proposed permanent controls. The Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning includes Showplace Square, Mission, Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront, Bayview, and parts of South of Market.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation, No action Requested

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 10, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Allison Poole

  1. I would like to speak about the freeway and the use of the freeway, specifically talking about the portion of the freeway that exists between 3rd Street and Fourth Street.
  2. I'd like to note that views toward downtown aren't part of this portion of the Eastern Neighborhood.
  3. I just wanted you to see tonight that the eastbound freeway going toward the Bay Bridge is completely blocked.

Robert Myers

  1. I'd like to remind you how this would fit into the neighborhood context.
  2. This is one of the few large sites in Eastern SOMA and perfect for housing that is 85 feet tall.
  3. We are pleased that staff agreed to analyze 85 feet for this site in the Eastern Neighborhoods DEIR, but we're disappointed that they still prefer 45 feet, which limits housing production and limits the amount of community benefits that can help the neighborhood. With 85 feet, we can get 509 units, but at 45 feet only 191 units are possible, with a corresponding loss of community benefits.

Bob Herr

  1. I'm here to address the issue of the height map that is included as a part of the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning proposals.
  2. In particular, the block bounded by Third, Fourth and Harrison Streets. As Bob Myers just demonstrated, it would be totally consistent to rezone that to a height of 85 feet, consistent with the heights running to the north.
  3. The only rationale that has been advanced for not doing that, for leaving it at 40 or 50 feet, is to protect views from commuters on the freeway – on the skyway as they are traveling to and from the Bay Bridge.
  4. I would submit that the city's urban design should not be unduly influenced by the fleeting few moments that someone in a car has to look back towards the downtown.
  5. To describe the downtown high-rises as sort of a dramatic aspect of San Francisco, is certainly correct

Keppa Askanazi

  1. I live and work on Potrero Hill.
  2. Most of you have seen me over the years working with the neighborhood coalitions to save Potrero Hill.
  3. I am happy to be able to say to you that the neighbors are very much on board with this new map that the Planning Department is presenting to us.
  4. We'd very much like to have the design area intact.
  5. We are calling it design PDR at the time, and you are calling it our technology district. We have called commercial – cultural institutional with CCAC being the anchor building down there.
  6. We would like to ask you to modify your maps to include the DogPatch Triangle.

John Barrett

  1. As you heard at a previous commission meeting, our family has been on the property the last 60 years.
  2. Let's not taint the memory of San Francisco experience with graffiti from World War II.
  3. There is an incredible amount of housing in the Bay Area; more people are commuting in order to maintain their jobs in San Francisco.
  4. The stress of sitting in a car, bus, and train, today is taking a terrible toll on our workers.
  5. The resultant pollution is a detriment to the environment.

Joe Boss

  1. I just want to make a comment on Ms. Askanazi's observations.
  2. There have been a number of meetings that have gone on in the last six months regarding how to make CCAC work. How to blend with Potrero Hill using the map that the Potrero Boosters had come up with some time ago. I wouldn't want to see a restriction at this point until we have some public meetings.
  3. I think the staff has come up with new descriptions, the arts and technology which works very flexible for CCAC and the urban mixed-use which includes PDR, as well as housing above.

Fernando Marti

  1. I haven't had a chance to look at what is being proposed for Interim Controls, but we have had many sessions in the past year.
  2. I wanted to remind folks of what we want to see.
  3. If I may explain, there is no proposal that is before the Commission. It will have to be initiated.
  4. We will bring them and draft them only if the Commission requests that we do so.
  5. So in considering this, I think the idea--and it's something that we have been wanting--is to see real interim controls that reflect those sorts of priority policies from proposition M to create a balanced neighborhood.
  6. What we're looking for is within the map that was shown before, a balance of affordable housing, a balance of jobs retention and so forth.
  7. A couple weeks ago the PDR study was presented. There really is a balance of what we're looking for.

[No name stated]

  1. We need to wait until you have a better feel before we adopt a resolution of intent.
  2. Don't tie your hands up with controls with these many questions unanswered
  3. Please adopt the policies.

C. J. Higley - Ruben and Junius

  1. We do represent a number of property owners in this area.
  2. But I am not speaking this evening about any particular project. Rather, I am addressing, as Mr. Macris said, the land use question along 3rd Street and what will soon be the Third Street Light Rail in the Central Waterfront District.
  3. As you note, Third Street will soon host the City's newest light rail project.
  4. It is my understanding that residential uses will be excluded along Third Street, along the Central Waterfront.
  5. I'd like to say excluding residential along this light rail would be a huge mistake.
  6. Not only would it be bad public policy, but also it would be counter to what in recent years we have tried to achieve.
  7. It is a vibrant area now where people are constantly walking up and down these points.
  8. I urge you to take a careful look at uses along this new Third street light rail. We believe that sound and widely accepted principles or urban design would support the notion of mixed-uses here and would be strongly opposed to precluding residential uses along this.

Charlene Smythe

  1. I live in the Bayview and I live off of the Third Street Corridor.
  2. My concern is that I don't know if I really want my Third Street Corridor to look like the pedestrian friendly sites I've seen so far, because I don't know how relevant it is to my community.
  3. We are all about housing, but affordable for us is living on that in my community.
  4. We are concerned about the type of businesses that will come through.

Bob McCarthy

  1. First I'd like to acknowledge and thank the staff for first agreeing to analyze the 24-foot height. I'd like to thank the staff for determining this is appropriate.
  2. At this juncture, the debate we have is whether this should be 45 feet or 85 feet.
  3. That has consequences.
  4. I  d also like to talk about this whole concept of view corridors from the freeway. I know there is a famous book from its roadways.
  5. But the reality is that nobody comes before this Commission and nobody comes before the Board of Supervisors and pounds the table, and says we've got to have hearings on the views from the freeways.
  6. They do come in and pound the table and say we need affordable housing. We need housing. That is a priority.
  7. Prop M talks about increasing the opportunity for affordable housing, increasing the opportunity for resident employment--retail based and industrial based.
  8. Those would be served by increasing the height as proposed for this site to 85 feet.
  9. There is nothing in Prop M that suggests that the views of commuters on the freeway ought to be preserved.

Sue Hester

  • -While you spent those hours debating on the C-3 parking standards, I found it very interesting that so many of the Commissioners were talking about building neighborhoods, building a neighborhood context.
  • -I want you to do the same thing however you go. And I really think it should be interim controls on this because I have found the lack of analysis of building a neighborhood to be monumental, gigantic, a huge hole in how you've analyzed all these projects that have come before you.
  • -South of Market may have been doing this since '97, and I've been doing this for the Mission and Potrero Hill in the context of live/work and dot coms since that period as well.
  • -I have learned that we've had policy after policy and nothing has happened except every project gets approved.

Gary Gee – Gary Gee Architects

  • -I am here to talk about a particular block in Eastern Neighborhood block 4228. It's proposed to be core PDR use.
  • -I am here to request this be changed to a residential mixed-use area for this particular block.
  • -If you take a look at the diagram here, you'll notice that most of the area in red is already either under proposed use or approved units.
  • -The whole entire area is live/work and residential units.
  • -To come in and designate this block [something else] we feel is not in keeping with the existing use of the block as core PDR. It should be residential mixed-use.

Fred Snyder

  • -Asked the Commission not to go to interim controls until we really understand what the areas are going to be.

Alice Barkley

  1. I'd like to talk a little more about 4228.
  2. The Commission in July of last year approved this 71-unit project. You approved it on the basis of testimony of the individuals that lived around there.
  3. They talk about the fact that there was a sense of community. There is retail on Indiana Street and on the Minnesota Street with still PDR uses.

- I remember very distinctly that Commissioner Hughes talked about the fact that, that particular project came before you and had community support and strengthened the sense of that particular block. That's already a mixed-use and will create a sense of community and enhance that sense. And that's the reason why this Commission approved that 71-unit project.

ACTION: Meeting held. Informational Only. No formal action. But by consensus through deliberation, the Commission directed staff to go and prepare a set of controls that they [the Commission] can react to and possibly begin initiation on – whether it's interim that turns into controls or policies – just go back and put that together.

23. 2005.0028R (C. RIVASPLATA (415) 558-6255)

624 LAGUNA STREET - east side of Laguna Street at Ivy Street; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 807 - Request for a General Plan Referral to consider a staff finding made on February 2005 that the proposed major encroachment to install and operate a new sub-sidewalk elevator in the Laguna Street public right-of-way fronting the subject property at 624 Laguna Street, is not in conformity with the General Plan, pursuant to San Francisco Charter Section 4.105 and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 2A.53.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution finding the proposal not in conformity with the General Plan.

SPEAKERS:

Steve Vettel, Morrison and Forrester

  1. The project was completed earlier this year.
  2. It is now occupied by 28 frail elderly, many of whom have Alzheimer's disease.
  3. I really wanted to thank the staff who have over the last week been working this out with us–the mitigation measures--which we believe led to this elevator safe that is consistent with the General Plan and would encourage your to adopt the staff recommended resolution.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee, Hughes

MOTION: 17148

  1. 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))

Bob McCarthy

  1. Before, I spoke only about the map. Now I'm going to speak about a specific project before you.
  2. During the conversation about the map, Mr. Alumbaugh made a comment about something we had not provided and it is not what the situation is.
  3. We met with Long-range Planning on October 12th.
  4. They told us they had concerns about the zoning involving the viewshed.
  5. We responded and said would you please tell us where you'd like the pictures taken.
  6. We got no response.
  7. Then the Director wrote us a letter dated October 27th and said, we understand you have issues about whether or not this height should be raised, but we have concerns about the viewshed.
  8. We received that letter on Friday, the 28th, and on the next business day, October 29th, we wrote back to the Director and we said we'd be happy to provide you with any new studies you'd like as long as you tell us where you'd like the pictures taken from.
  9. To date we have not gotten any response to that.
  10. I don't think it is the fault of the Director, but I want to correct the record and I want to correct it early on that we have been responsive in every way to what staff has asked for and any suggestion to the contrary is simply incorrect.

Adjournment: 10: 19 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, November 17, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Sue Lee; Dwight S. Alexander; Michael J. Antonini;

Shelley Bradford Bell; William L. Lee; Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:45 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Dan Sider; Isolde Wilson; Jonathan Purvis; Sara Vellve; Ben Fu; Jim Miller; Nannie Turrell; Joshua Switzky; Johnny Jaramillo; Jasper Rubin; Charles Rivasplata; 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.

1a. 2005.0480CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354) 2814-2824 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 215(a) to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space into five dwelling units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

1b. 2005.0480CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2814-2824 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Egbert Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Off-street Parking, Open Space and Rear Yard Variances under Section 305 to allow conversion of approximately 4,000 gross square feet of commercial space into five dwelling units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, the Restricted Light Industrial Special Use District, and an Industrial Protection Zone pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.

(Proposed for Continuance to December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

2. 2005.0481V (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2826-2838 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Fitzgerald Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Request for Off-street Parking, Open Space and Rear Yard Variances under Section 305 to allow conversion of approximately 1,200 gross square feet of commercial space to three new dwellings units without access to parking or open space. The site is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to December 15, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Zoning Administrator continued this item to December 15, 2005.

3. 2004.0469C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

80 Digby Street (AKA John F. Shelley Fire Station #26) - north side, between Addison & Everson, Lots, 13, 14, 15 on Assessor's Block 7540 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 234.2 to mount three cellular panel antennas and associated equipment at the John F. Shelley Fire Station (Station #26) as part of wireless transmission network operated by Sprint PCS. As per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Transmission Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the subject site is a Preference1 Location (Preferred Location – Publicly-Used Structure). A General Plan Referral is required for this proposal because it is located on City-owned property. A finding of consistency with the General Plan is necessary. The Project Site is located in a P (Public) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

4. 2005.1270DDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

4231 & 4234 24TH STREET - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 6505 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.19.9187, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition on a nonconforming mixed-use building, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

5. 2002.1129E (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

San Francisco Marina Renovation Project - Public hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) -The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina at 3950 Scott Street (Assessor's Block 900, Lot 003). Water-side improvements would include installation and removal of breakwater structures; reconstruction of degraded rip-rap shoreline slopes; maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation and refurbishment of oily water and sewage pumpout facilities; and upgrade of electrical, water, and lighting services on the docks. Land-side improvements would include renovation of marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of the vacant former Navy Degaussing Station into office space; construction of a new 1,000-square-foot maintenance building; and restriping of existing parking lots. The project site is within a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required. Public hearing to receive comments only.

Note: A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on October 6, 2005. An additional hearing on the Draft EIR has been calendared at the request of the Planning Commission. The public review period has been extended to 5 p.m. on January 19, 2006.

(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

6. 2005.0750D (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

672 ARGUELLO BLVD - east side between Edward and Turk Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1141 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.02.14.5404, proposing to add two stories to the building; alter the façade; add 27'-6 to the rear of the existing single-family dwelling, located within an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

7. Commission Comments/Questions

None

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

  1. was before the Board's Land Use Committee. Sara Dennis, our staff member was present and we have had many conversations with the various supervisors on what the Commission's position was on this matter. I think we worked out a reasonably satisfactory way to proceed that meets the Commission's intent with Better Neighborhood Plus.
  2. [Director Macris, asked Deputy City Attorney, Susan Cleveland-Knowles to explained to the Commission what modifications were made and how we moved more towards the pilot-approach that the Commission recommended.]

Susan Cleveland-Knowles, Deputy City Attorney

  1. At the Land Use Committee hearing yesterday, there were amendments proposed by Supervisor McGoldrick. One was an amendment to have a policy that the Planning Department, to the extent possible, use in-house staff as opposed to outside consultants in conforming or meeting the requirements of the ordinance.
  2. The second group of amendments limits the accessing of the Better Neighborhood Plus further than when the proposed ordinance was in front of you. At this point the legislation was passed in committee with their recommendation of 3-0.
  3. As it stands now the Better Neighborhood's process would apply to a certain extent only to some existing planning activities. Those are the planning activities in the Market-Octavia, Central Waterfront, Mission, Potrero Hill, Showplace Square, and East Fillmore area. The only new planning effort that would be subject to the ordinance at this point is the planning effort in the Inner Geary.
  4. Only Inner Geary would apply from start to finish or the Better Neighborhoods ordinance would apply start to finish to the Inner Geary Neighborhood planning efforts.
  5. There was also an amendment made in Committee that further limited the application of the ordinance to the existing planning in the Octavia area.
  6. This was to satisfy some concerns from the Planning Department because they didn't want to have to re-do anything that was started for Marked and Octavia and especially didn't want to start over on the environmental review process.
  7. The interagency committee that I think was inadvertently drafted out of the legislation was a suggestion made by President Sue Lee at the hearing.
  8. Lastly, a section was added to evaluate the effectiveness of the Better Neighborhood's Program after 30 months. At that time the Planning Department is supposed to evaluate all of the provisions on whether the program should be continued and if so, how it could be modified and how it could be made better. Then the Planning Commission would pass on those recommendations that it deems worthy to the Board of Supervisors.

Ken Rich

  1. Balboa Park was one of the original three Better Neighborhoods and the plan seeks, in short, to develop an urban transit village around the district along Ocean Avenue and to improve passenger and pedestrian conditions around the Balboa Park Station--one the busiest transit hubs in the city aside from downtown.
  2. We released a draft of the plan in 2002--after three years of community work. And as Mr. Macris said, planning stopped due to the budget difficulties. We have our budget again for the EIR and we expect the EIR process to be completed in the summer of '06.
  3. While we've had this hiatus, a lot of this has continued on its own speed--including the location of a new Ingleside Branch Library, new improvements and lighting and sidewalk build-outs, the development of loop--county property that we are looking at re-developing, which is moving forward in the planning stages. Also economic revitalization along Ocean Avenue, which the Mayor's office is spurring.
  4. Last week we held a community meeting to re-introduce the plan to folks who were new to it and got over 100 people -- one-third of the people had previously worked with us and two-thirds were new people and there was a very positive atmosphere and a detailed review of the plan.
  5. We have a couple of remaining community issues around the heights and off-street parking requirements, but staff feels confident that we will get those resolved.
  6. In terms of our schedule for getting this adopted--moving forward from now--in February or March of '06 we plan to go talk to the community and do another one or two workshops to resolve those issues.
  7. In the spring of '06 we will publish the draft EIR and the Commission would hold a meeting on that and one more community outreach session to finalize the plan and proposed new zoning. In summer of '06 we will come back to this Commission to certify the EIR and adopt the plan and the new zoning followed by the Board of Supervisors to adopt the plan and new zoning.

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

BoS:

  1. Land Use Committee did pass the landmarking of the Golden Gate Park Music Concourse to the full Board of Supervisors. That was done without recommendation.
  2. There were concerns about Recreation and Park and the community that were felt to be adjudicated.
  3. 680 Illinois and the appeal of the document that was continued until next week.
  4. Supervisor Alioto-Pier's Penthouse Exemption Legislation, which would increase the permitted exception for elevator penthouse in lesser districts from 10-16 feet. That was unanimously adopted on first reading,
  5. Medical Cannabis Dispensary Legislation was passed on first reading to create a framework to regulate the use and dispensation of medical cannabis in the City.
  6. This is a very lengthy document. The significant Planning change is that generally speaking existing dispensaries are grandfathered in. They still need to go through the permitting process, including a discretionary review hearing here, but they are grandfathered in.

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.

None

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

10. (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Review of proposed Board of Supervisors Ordinance [File Number 051637]:Amendments to Section 1332 of the Subdivision code which would require the Planning Commission to hold hearings to address General Plan consistency for all condominium conversion applications subject to the City's condominium conversion lottery. Because this Draft Ordinance would not modify the Planning Code, it has not been referred to the Commission by the Board for formal review. As such, this item is before the Commission only for information, comment, and possible advisory action

SPEAKERS:

Ted Gullickson, San Francisco Tenant Union

  1. Spoke in support of this. He feels it is important to come before the Planning Commission specifically because of evictions.
  2. There is a provision in Section 1386 that provides that the tentative maps for building which defy the mysteries of eviction or displacement or eviction of senior or disabled tenants in the process of preparing the building for conversion, that the Planning Department, Planning Commission, specifically should deny the tentative maps of the building.
  3. So if a building had evictions, preparing it for condo conversion, it's the duty of the Planning Commission to deny that condo conversion.
  4. Based on my knowledge, even though the vast majority, if not pretty much all of them, all of the buildings in which there are condo conversions created the evictions which internally setup tenancy in common.
  5. The vast majority of condo conversions have had evictions over all tenants, not to mention senior and disable tenants.

Jeremy Paul

  1. If, in fact, the Department of Public Works lacks the staff necessary to fully review these applications, it is sort of an incorrect assumption to think it is a workload that could be shifted over to the Planning Department without effect.
  2. I think the effects were substantial and the workload increase on this Commission and the demands on time in preparation for these cases would be substantial.
  3. If it is not in the purview of this agency to be doing it, it is somebody else's responsibility.
  4. Fees are being increased massively for subdivisions.
  5. I do not believe there is a provision in the fee increase for additional funding for City Planning to be reviewing them and that is a necessary component of any change.

ACTION: Adopted a resolution to approve the proposal with amendments:

  • Of the 30-day action by the Commission;
  • To study the staff  s needs to implement such; and
  • To study the implementations of this and get back to the Board and this Commission on that proposed Resolution.

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee and Olague

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17149

11. 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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 1, 2005

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes

12. 2005.0902DD (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

869 NORTH POINT STREET – south side between Hyde and Larkin Streets; Lot 019B in Assessor's Block 0026 – Staff-Initiated Request for Discretionary Review and Request for Discretionary Review from the Project Sponsor of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.24.3842, proposing to construct a new three-story over basement plus mezzanine building with three dwelling units and three off-street parking spaces. It is Staff's position that the proposed project is not consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, the Northern Waterfront Special Use District 2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

13a. 2004.1272DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3730, proposing to convert the existing single-family dwelling at 600 Kansas Street into a two-family dwelling following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots, with off-street parking provided on the newly created adjacent lot, subject to granting of a parking variance by the Zoning Administrator; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has been revised.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Joel Yodowitz, Representing Project Sponsor

  1. At the last meeting we committed to re-design the new building into an L-Shape to provide separation between the building and proposed project and put parking into the existing building that is proposed to be renovated into two units with a partial third-floor addition.
  2. The project's sponsor after the last hearing and at substantial additional cost to him hired a new architect who has totally re-designed the project with input from Jeremy Paul, the DR requestor's representative.

Toby Morris, Architect for the project

  1. Gave a detailed overall description of the redesign.

Jeremy Paul, representing Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Very please with Mr. Morris's re-design of the building.

John Carney

  1. I am very opposed to the 40-foot heights.

Bill Baillete

  1. I have to agree with Jeremy Paul; this is a much nicer building than the one before.

Mary Louise Green

  1. Concerned about the 40-foot height.

Stella Scott

  1. I have objections to the height of the building, plus the fact that there will be some loss of parking space.
  2. I have lived there long enough to have witnessed the growth of the area and the population of automobiles.

Babette Drefke

  1. Concerned about the height of the building and parking.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved revised project:

  • Reduce the curb cuts from four to three.
  • To continue to work with the Department in collaboration with DPW on the size and width of those curb cuts and the parking space.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

13b. 2004.1272DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2101-2103 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.21.3740, proposing to construct a new two-family dwelling on a newly created lot at the southwest corner of Kansas and 18th Streets following the subdivision of an existing lot into two lots; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the building permit as it has been revised.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 13a.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as revised:

  • Reduce the height of the building by one foot;
  • Reduced the curb cuts from four to three
  • Will continue to work with Department in collaboration with DPW on the size and width of those curb cuts and the parking space.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

13c. 2004.1272DDV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2111 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Parking Variance to subdivide a 5,000 square-foot lot into two lots, with an existing single-family dwelling on one 2,950 square-foot-lot fronting solely on 18th Street and a proposed new two-family dwelling to be built at the corner on a 2,050 square-foot lot. Required off-street parking for both lots would be provided on the corner lot, requiring a parking variance; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This item will be heard by the Zoning Administrator following Commission action, on the discretionary review items.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005)

VARIANCE NO LONGER APPLICABLE

13d. 2005.0237V (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

600 KANSAS STREET (AKA 2101 -2103 18TH STREET) - west side south of 18th Street; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 4029 - Request for Front Setback and Rear Yard Variances to subdivide a 5,000 square-foot lot into two lots, with an existing single-family dwelling on one 2,950 square-foot-lot fronting solely on 18th Street and a proposed new two-family dwelling to be built at the corner on a 2,050 square-foot lot. The new corner building would front on Kansas Street with no front setback and its rear yard would be in the form of an inner court, requiring both front setback and rear yard variances; in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This is a newly calendared item and will be heard by the Zoning Administrator following Commission action on the discretionary review items.

SPEAKERS: Same as Item 13a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

14a. 2004.0980CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

642 HARRISON STREET - north side at Hawthorne Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 818.14 to convert an office building into a mixed-use building with 43 dwelling units over retail commercial space, with a two-story vertical addition. A Rear Yard Modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space on balconies and a roof deck. The Zoning Administrator will hear the Rear Yard Modification immediately following the Planning Commission's hearing on the Conditional Use. The site is within the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District, an 80-K Height and Bulk District, and is within the Housing/Mixed Use Overlay District of Resolution No. 16202.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS:

Mr. Smotlz, Architect for the project.

  1. We think this change is appropriate because it's true downtown housing and truly walkable from downtown.
  2. It provides 43 new market rate units, including five below market rate, and we have a high proportion of two-bedroom units.

Jeff Poole

  1. Concerned about the loss of value to his property.

ACTION: Approved with a requirement that the design be further revised by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of the site permit.

AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

MOTION: 17142

14b. 2004.0980CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

642 HARRISON STREET - north side at Hawthorne Street; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request for Rear Yard Modification under Planning Code Section 134(e) to convert an office building into a mixed-use building with 43 dwelling units over retail commercial space, with a two-story vertical addition, and rear yard open space provided on balconies and a roof deck. The site is within the SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District, an 80-K Height and Bulk District, and is within the Housing/Mixed Use Overlay District of Resolution No. 16202.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance subject to Planning Commission review prior to issuance of the site permit.

15. 2004.0984C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-5263)

2690-2696 GEARY BOULEVARD - northeast corner of Geary Boulevard and Emerson Street; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1071 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 209.6 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) antennas and related equipment cabinets, on the existing 100-foot tall commercial structure (Public Storage Building) for AT&T's wireless telecommunications network within an NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)

ON THE REQUEST TO CONTINUE IT TO 12/1/05:

SPEAKERS:

George (no last name)

- Opposed the continuance

MOTION: To continue to December 1, 2005

AYES: Antonini and Bradford-Bell

NAYES: Alexander, W. Lee, Olague, S. Lee

ABSENT: Hughes

RESULT: Motion failed

ON THE CASE:

SPEAKERS:

Sandra Steele, representing Cingular Wireless

  1. Respectfully requested the Commission to uphold staff's recommendation for approval of this conditional use project.
  2. This proposal will serve the purpose of providing coverage to the busy commuter and commercial corridors along Geary Boulevard and Masonic Avenue, as well as the surrounding residential areas.

Randall

  1. Read a letter from Ran Crowley supporting the antenna installation.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Olague, and W. Lee

NAYES: Bradford-Bell

ABSENT: S. Lee and Hughes

MOTION 17146

16. 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 October 27, 2005)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to December 1, 2005.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell, Hughes

17. 2005.0748C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-63444)

1141 POLK STREET (a.k.a. 1145 Polk Street) - west side between Hemlock and Sutter Streets, Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 691 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for addition of a  Bar , serving beer and wine only, to an existing art gallery ( Space Gallery ) (Planning Code Section 723.41), in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee and Hughes

MOTION: 17147

18. 2001.0636E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)

Wharf J-10 Demolition and Improvements - 2936 Hyde Street - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project is the demolition of an existing vacant fish processing building and wharf, located on the Fisherman's Wharf waterfront between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets, to abate an existing public health and safety hazard caused by the deteriorated condition of the structure and its potential for collapse. Following demolition, the Port of San Francisco would install guardrails and new riprap (rock to protect the shoreline). Existing Port tenants of Wharf J 10 could pursue reuse of the site, including a new fish processing building for use by F. Alioto Fish Company; an outdoor platform for use by California Shellfish Company; and possible Port-sponsored improvements that might include a public fish receiving dock at the east end or west end of Wharf J 10, a second new building for use by the fishing industry, and/or a new floating boat repair dock at Wharf J-10 or at the foot of Leavenworth Street. The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, Waterfront Special Use District No. 1, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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 November 29, 2005.

SPEAKERS:

Ed Bern

  1. I am a California structural engineer.
  2. I have 12 years of experience at the Port and over 20 years of experience in marine facility design.
  3. The purpose of my presentation to you this evening is to inform you of the unsafe and dangerous conditions we have in the Fisherman's Wharf Outer Harbor–The fisheries building at J10
  4. I've been involved with this building since August of 2000
  5. At that time I received a call from one of our field inspectors that we had a problem.
  6. I called in a consulting engineer to take a look. They came in and determined it was in a considerable deteriorated condition that was so bad we needed to eliminate or vacate the building.
  7. We informed the tenants that they needed to vacate within one week, which they did.
  8. The building is unsafe.
  9. [He showed pictures to show the condition of the substructure and foundations.]

David Cincotta, representing Frank Alioto Fish Company, tenant of this facility.

  1. I would say that this draft EIR speaks to the project described and should not have any significant impacts. I do not agree with that. We think it should not have any significant impact.
  2. It does refer several times to potential impacts as a result of the contamination from Mobile Exxon issues and hazardous waste.
  3. When the Draft EIR began to be prepared almost two years ago, we thought that there would be some more progress made by Mobile Exxon cleaning this up. We believe that there are things they should be doing.
  4. They should be processed in peril situations. They are independent of this project, but they should be going forward.
  5. There is evidence from the Regional Water Quality Board and BCDC.
  6. In fact, it is referred to on page 70 of the document that there is strong evidence of contaminated groundwater already that is discharging into the bay and having potential impacts on human receptors.
  7. There is no reasoning why testing should not be going on by Mobil Exxon, now under J 10, so that if there is going to be any demolition and construction taking place there, they should not disturb any of the potential impacts that may already be there.
  8. One another general comment is that there is some time given to the scheduling of this activity for preparing when the demolition/construction would take place, for herring and endangered bats.

Diane Oshima, San Francisco Port

  1. I wanted to spend a few minutes here to follow up on the comments that Ed Bern made.
  2. He was basically here to give you some background on the project that you m ay not have already had in terms of the emergency status of this project and that there was in fact a public emergency that we declared that triggers the Port's proposal to demolish this facility, which is the subject of this EIR.
  3. At the point that emergency was declared, your staff had issued a CEQA emergency exclusion to address the CEQA issues. That was appealed to the Board of Supervisors and this EIR was required as a result of that Board of Supervisors' hearing where they denied the emergency exclusion. So it was not clear to us that information had ever really been conveyed to you.
  4. We acknowledge that the loss of the J-10 facility would be a significant historical impact. And while it is still an emergency situation, which has been corroborated also by the Port's Fire Marshal who is extremely concerned about the tender dry condition of vacant creosote wood facility that could catch fire very easily and not only threaten the site, but the surrounding tenants and buildings around it.
  5. We have diligently worked with the community such that the scope of this EIR was expanded to include things beyond the demolition itself.
  6. So, to that end, we just wanted to make sure it was on the record for you to have that background understanding as the fuller context for why this EIR is being prepared.

ACTION: Public hearing to receive comments only. No action required.

ITEM 19 WAS HEARD OUT OF ORDER. FOLLOWED REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 15.

19. 2005.0796T (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

c-3 District Parking Control Modifications- Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 151, 151.1, 154, 155, 155.5, 166 and 167 to modify controls in C-3 Zoning Districts regarding required and permitted off-street parking and loading, design of access to off-street parking and loading, bicycle parking, car sharing, separating parking costs from housing costs and adopting environmental findings and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 3, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Chase Collins, Self-Marketing Community Action Network and Community Coalition

  1. We are here to support the recommendation that was brought before you this afternoon.
  2. This is a win-win situation for everyone.
  3. Even the area will win that have cars from maybe people that do not work in our City, but work outside of the City – they will still have access to park their cars and be able to use their cars.

Kevin Green, Director of Environmental Health Section

  1. Support the staff recommendation and ordinance.
  2. Pointed out three important health benefits of this ordinance: 1) Parking controls would reduce traffic and vehicle trips; 2) Improve air quality by reducing vehicle trips; and 3) Noise – traffic and noise are very highly correlated. Reducing traffic by reducing vehicle trips is going to reduce noise.

Patricia Breslin, Executive Director of the Hotel Council of San Francisco

  1. I'm here to voice our objection to two proposals within this proposed legislation.
  2. We urge you not to impose a minimum of one or less parking spaces in the District C-3.
  3. We also urge you to eliminate the proposed prohibition on the installation of porticka shares to accommodate passenger loading.

Robin Levitt

  1. I have come here to speak in favor of this legislation.
  2. Given the number of proposed developments, residential developments for the downtown area and the Mid-Market Area, it would be a real mistake to require one to one parking for these developments, this is a very transient-rich area. A very walkable area.
  3. Adding thousands of cars to the streets would diminish the quality of life in the area.

Tom – Executive Director of Transportation for a Livable City

  1. I'm here to speak in favor of staff recommendations

Mike Gleason, President of Teamster's 665

  1. We are here in opposition of the proposed modifications.

Hector Cardenas Oliveras, Local 122

  1. He is against the amendment to the Planning Code to reduce parking.

Kevin Westley, Executive Director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association

  1. He is against the legislation.

Tim Dunne

  1. Urged the Commission to support the legislation.

Mary Murphy

  1. My clients represent a business that is going to bring online a million new feet at the former Emporium site without any parking.
  2. If we starve the retailers of parking in this area, we will be starving the city's general fund of sales tax revenue
  3. We have to support the hotel users, retailers, and restaurants.
  4. I would absolutely urge you to say that any prohibition on parking in the downtown for commercial parking should be rejected.
  5. I urge you to reject this legislation.

Tim Coleman

  1. We support the broad intent of this legislation.
  2. We support projects that reduce parking, especially in transit-rich areas.
  3. We think the legislation is weakened by .5 to 1 maximum parking limit.
  4. We are worried that it's a pretty abrupt jump and risks jeopardizing building housing in this area.

Michael Sweet

  1. My wife and I moved south of market in 1998 and got rid of one of our cars.
  2. We walk to work.
  3. We have families that don't live in San Francisco so we still need a car.
  4. We now have two children. And when you have children you need a car.
  5. Our car is not on the street causing congestion, but is a quality of life issue for us and those who are willing to move in and revitalize and be part of this new renewal that we see developing.
  6. Brian – current Chairman of the Mid-Market PAC
  7. This past July you passed Mid-Market SUD with a one to one parking ratio.
  8. For you to bring it down to .5 to one in C-3 is more burdensome for those who are willing to build
  9. This appears to handcuff the Commission in terms of your ability to make good decisions in terms of what can go in.
  10. Against legislation.

Lynn Sedway – an urban and real estate economist

  1. We have studied the issue of parking and limiting parking and condominiums.
  2. We have found that you can limit the number of parking places, but that doesn't limit the number of cars.
  3. So what you have is cars parking on the street, or taking spaces that would otherwise go to commercial uses.
  4. I would definitely recommend that you not pursue this action.

Robert Herr, Pillsbury Winthrop

  1. I'm confused about the staff position from one to one parking in the Mid Market SUD and now a .5 to one with this legislation.
  2. If a developer doesn't have an assurance of being able to provide one to one parking in an economical way, the financing will be at risk.
  3. We suggest that you conform this legislation to the Mid-Market C-3 proposals.

Andrew Senegal – real estate developer and investor

  1. There is no doubt that apartment buildings that have more parking are more valuable and therefore the financing that goes with them is going to be less expensive and there is going to be a greater pool of investors that are willing to invest or purchase these types of buildings.
  2. By limiting the amount of parking on future developments will act to raise the cost of those developments because the financing costs will be higher
  3. That will harm affordability and reduce the number of units that come about because of that.
  4. Urged the Commission to keep the rules the way they are now and not to act to limit parking.

Arthur Webb – a carpenter with Local 22

  1. If you reduce the parking more than one to one, you will have to a lot to improve MUNI.
  2. How can you bring a Christmas tree home?
  3. Against legislation.

From Ruben and Junius – representing developers throughout the city

  1. We represent developers throughout the City, including a number of developers that hope to bring development to the downtown areas and Mid-Market areas.
  2. Without exception our clients are opposed to these new restrictions.
  3. We join our colleagues in opposing these new controls.
  4. It is essential that you not do something that will discourage the location of housing in these areas.

Andrew Bay – Crest Condominiums

  1. People would not live in the area unless they had the ability to park a car.
  2. We have .7 to one ratio and some stacking in our building.
  3. We can accommodate most of our people because some don't drive.
  4. But this will reflect on the market value and the property tax roles of the values of these units being built.
  5. Against proposed legislation.

Steve Vettel - Morrison and Forrester

  1. I strongly recommend that you do not cap parking below one to one.

Steve Atkinson

  1. Asked Commission to consider the issues of families or disabled persons.
  2. As a parent of a disable child who uses a wheelchair, I cannot imagine living in a place I could not transport her to and from.
  3. I would like to endorse others who have spoken and who are opposed to the restrictions between one to one.

Geary Gee

  1. I am here to object to the restrictions in the C-3.
  2. We need the ability for one to one parking in the C-3 District.

Dick Miller

  1. I live in Port Rillo Hills
  2. I don't understand why you would want less than one to one parking.
  3. If they can't cut public transportation, maybe you could start talking about reducing parking.
  4. But until you have the transportation, you can't talk about it.

Mike Burke – Land Use Attorney

  1. An absolute prohibition will deny people opportunities to develop.

Peter Hartmann – President of Museum Park Homeowner's Association

  1. We are in opposition to the proposal.

Alice

  1. I object to the limits to parking of less than one to one.

Robert McCarthy

  1. You all took an oath and took it seriously
  2. But it is too bad that it didn't include the first line of the Hippocratic oath–first do no harm.
  3. The unintended consequences of this legislation, as you have heard, will do harm to those who build housing, those who might want to live in them, diminishment of the investment pool, and the city's tax rolls.

[Name was unclear] - Carpenter's Union

  1. Limiting the available spots will increase the price of parking and cost of living in San Francisco.
  2. It is already causing residents to flee the City.
  3. Why endorse a legislation that would increase the cost for the working class.

Andy Theronly - Program Director for the Bicycle Coalition

  1. We support this idea not only for the intrinsic benefits for bicycle enthusiasts, but the larger notion of making San Francisco a healthier, more livable city.

ACTION: Approved as amended with the two further resolves that are offered by staff, the articulation offered by Dr. Ghosh and Mr. Badiner, and the modification to exact mitigation fees for improved bike lanes offered by Commissioner Bradford-Bell

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Hughes and S. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17143

ITEMS 20 AND 21 FOLLOWED ITEM 19. THEY WERE CALLED AND HEARD TOGETHER

20. 2002.0805U (J. SWITZKY 575-6815 / D. ALUMBAUGH 558-6601)

DELEGATION AGREEMENT WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE MID-MARKET REDEVELOPMENT AREA - Consideration of a motion to authorize the Director of Planning to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency establishing delegation of authority between the two agencies regarding regulation of land use and permitting within the Mid-Market Redevelopment Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Approved with the amendments supplied by staff

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee and Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17144

21. 2004.1043U (J. Switzky: (415) 575-6815)

Delegation Agreement with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for the South of Market Redevelopment Area - Consideration of a motion to authorize the Director of Planning to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency establishing delegation of authority between the two agencies regarding regulation of land use and permitting within the South of Market Redevelopment Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee, Hughes

RESOLUTION: 17144

22. (J. JARAMILLO/ J. RUBIN: (415) 558-6818)/558-6310)

BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL FOR REZONING IN THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD - Informational presentation will include an update on the status of the Eastern Neighborhoods planning effort and an overview of staff's proposed permanent controls. The Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning includes Showplace Square, Mission, Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront, Bayview, and parts of South of Market.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation, No action Requested

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 10, 2005)

SPEAKERS:

Allison Poole

  1. I would like to speak about the freeway and the use of the freeway, specifically talking about the portion of the freeway that exists between 3rd Street and Fourth Street.
  2. I'd like to note that views toward downtown aren't part of this portion of the Eastern Neighborhood.
  3. I just wanted you to see tonight that the eastbound freeway going toward the Bay Bridge is completely blocked.

Robert Myers

  1. I'd like to remind you how this would fit into the neighborhood context.
  2. This is one of the few large sites in Eastern SOMA and perfect for housing that is 85 feet tall.
  3. We are pleased that staff agreed to analyze 85 feet for this site in the Eastern Neighborhoods DEIR, but we're disappointed that they still prefer 45 feet, which limits housing production and limits the amount of community benefits that can help the neighborhood. With 85 feet, we can get 509 units, but at 45 feet only 191 units are possible, with a corresponding loss of community benefits.

Bob Herr

  1. I'm here to address the issue of the height map that is included as a part of the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning proposals.
  2. In particular, the block bounded by Third, Fourth and Harrison Streets. As Bob Myers just demonstrated, it would be totally consistent to rezone that to a height of 85 feet, consistent with the heights running to the north.
  3. The only rationale that has been advanced for not doing that, for leaving it at 40 or 50 feet, is to protect views from commuters on the freeway – on the skyway as they are traveling to and from the Bay Bridge.
  4. I would submit that the city's urban design should not be unduly influenced by the fleeting few moments that someone in a car has to look back towards the downtown.
  5. To describe the downtown high-rises as sort of a dramatic aspect of San Francisco, is certainly correct

Keppa Askanazi

  1. I live and work on Potrero Hill.
  2. Most of you have seen me over the years working with the neighborhood coalitions to save Potrero Hill.
  3. I am happy to be able to say to you that the neighbors are very much on board with this new map that the Planning Department is presenting to us.
  4. We'd very much like to have the design area intact.
  5. We are calling it design PDR at the time, and you are calling it our technology district. We have called commercial – cultural institutional with CCAC being the anchor building down there.
  6. We would like to ask you to modify your maps to include the DogPatch Triangle.

John Barrett

  1. As you heard at a previous commission meeting, our family has been on the property the last 60 years.
  2. Let's not taint the memory of San Francisco experience with graffiti from World War II.
  3. There is an incredible amount of housing in the Bay Area; more people are commuting in order to maintain their jobs in San Francisco.
  4. The stress of sitting in a car, bus, and train, today is taking a terrible toll on our workers.
  5. The resultant pollution is a detriment to the environment.

Joe Boss

  1. I just want to make a comment on Ms. Askanazi's observations.
  2. There have been a number of meetings that have gone on in the last six months regarding how to make CCAC work. How to blend with Potrero Hill using the map that the Potrero Boosters had come up with some time ago. I wouldn't want to see a restriction at this point until we have some public meetings.
  3. I think the staff has come up with new descriptions, the arts and technology which works very flexible for CCAC and the urban mixed-use which includes PDR, as well as housing above.

Fernando Marti

  1. I haven't had a chance to look at what is being proposed for Interim Controls, but we have had many sessions in the past year.
  2. I wanted to remind folks of what we want to see.
  3. If I may explain, there is no proposal that is before the Commission. It will have to be initiated.
  4. We will bring them and draft them only if the Commission requests that we do so.
  5. So in considering this, I think the idea--and it's something that we have been wanting--is to see real interim controls that reflect those sorts of priority policies from proposition M to create a balanced neighborhood.
  6. What we're looking for is within the map that was shown before, a balance of affordable housing, a balance of jobs retention and so forth.
  7. A couple weeks ago the PDR study was presented. There really is a balance of what we're looking for.

[No name stated]

  1. We need to wait until you have a better feel before we adopt a resolution of intent.
  2. Don't tie your hands up with controls with these many questions unanswered
  3. Please adopt the policies.

C. J. Higley - Ruben and Junius

  1. We do represent a number of property owners in this area.
  2. But I am not speaking this evening about any particular project. Rather, I am addressing, as Mr. Macris said, the land use question along 3rd Street and what will soon be the Third Street Light Rail in the Central Waterfront District.
  3. As you note, Third Street will soon host the City's newest light rail project.
  4. It is my understanding that residential uses will be excluded along Third Street, along the Central Waterfront.
  5. I'd like to say excluding residential along this light rail would be a huge mistake.
  6. Not only would it be bad public policy, but also it would be counter to what in recent years we have tried to achieve.
  7. It is a vibrant area now where people are constantly walking up and down these points.
  8. I urge you to take a careful look at uses along this new Third street light rail. We believe that sound and widely accepted principles or urban design would support the notion of mixed-uses here and would be strongly opposed to precluding residential uses along this.

Charlene Smythe

  1. I live in the Bayview and I live off of the Third Street Corridor.
  2. My concern is that I don't know if I really want my Third Street Corridor to look like the pedestrian friendly sites I've seen so far, because I don't know how relevant it is to my community.
  3. We are all about housing, but affordable for us is living on that in my community.
  4. We are concerned about the type of businesses that will come through.

Bob McCarthy

  1. First I'd like to acknowledge and thank the staff for first agreeing to analyze the 24-foot height. I'd like to thank the staff for determining this is appropriate.
  2. At this juncture, the debate we have is whether this should be 45 feet or 85 feet.
  3. That has consequences.
  4. I  d also like to talk about this whole concept of view corridors from the freeway. I know there is a famous book from its roadways.
  5. But the reality is that nobody comes before this Commission and nobody comes before the Board of Supervisors and pounds the table, and says we've got to have hearings on the views from the freeways.
  6. They do come in and pound the table and say we need affordable housing. We need housing. That is a priority.
  7. Prop M talks about increasing the opportunity for affordable housing, increasing the opportunity for resident employment--retail based and industrial based.
  8. Those would be served by increasing the height as proposed for this site to 85 feet.
  9. There is nothing in Prop M that suggests that the views of commuters on the freeway ought to be preserved.

Sue Hester

  1. While you spent those hours debating on the C-3 parking standards, I found it very interesting that so many of the Commissioners were talking about building neighborhoods, building a neighborhood context.
  2. I want you to do the same thing however you go. And I really think it should be interim controls on this because I have found the lack of analysis of building a neighborhood to be monumental, gigantic, a huge hole in how you've analyzed all these projects that have come before you.
  3. South of Market may have been doing this since '97, and I've been doing this for the Mission and Potrero Hill in the context of live/work and dot coms since that period as well.
  4. I have learned that we've had policy after policy and nothing has happened except every project gets approved.

Gary Gee – Gary Gee Architects

  1. I am here to talk about a particular block in Eastern Neighborhood block 4228. It's proposed to be core PDR use.
  2. I am here to request this be changed to a residential mixed-use area for this particular block.
  3. If you take a look at the diagram here, you'll notice that most of the area in red is already either under proposed use or approved units.
  4. The whole entire area is live/work and residential units.
  5. To come in and designate this block [something else] we feel is not in keeping with the existing use of the block as core PDR. It should be residential mixed-use.

Fred Snyder

  1. Asked the Commission not to go to interim controls until we really understand what the areas are going to be.

Alice Barkley

  1. I'd like to talk a little more about 4228.
  2. The Commission in July of last year approved this 71-unit project. You approved it on the basis of testimony of the individuals that lived around there.
  3. They talk about the fact that there was a sense of community. There is retail on Indiana Street and on the Minnesota Street with still PDR uses.

- I remember very distinctly that Commissioner Hughes talked about the fact that, that particular project came before you and had community support and strengthened the sense of that particular block. That's already a mixed-use and will create a sense of community and enhance that sense. And that's the reason why this Commission approved that 71-unit project.

ACTION: Meeting held. Informational Only. No formal action. But by consensus through deliberation, the Commission directed staff to go and prepare a set of controls that they [the Commission] can react to and possibly begin initiation on – whether it's interim that turns into controls or policies – just go back and put that together.

23. 2005.0028R (C. RIVASPLATA (415) 558-6255)

624 LAGUNA STREET - east side of Laguna Street at Ivy Street; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 807 - Request for a General Plan Referral to consider a staff finding made on February 2005 that the proposed major encroachment to install and operate a new sub-sidewalk elevator in the Laguna Street public right-of-way fronting the subject property at 624 Laguna Street, is not in conformity with the General Plan, pursuant to San Francisco Charter Section 4.105 and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 2A.53.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution finding the proposal not in conformity with the General Plan.

SPEAKERS:

Steve Vettel, Morrison and Forrester

  1. The project was completed earlier this year.
  2. It is now occupied by 28 frail elderly, many of whom have Alzheimer's disease.
  3. I really wanted to thank the staff who have over the last week been working this out with us–the mitigation measures--which we believe led to this elevator safe that is consistent with the General Plan and would encourage your to adopt the staff recommended resolution.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT: S. Lee, Hughes

MOTION: 17148

  1. 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))

Bob McCarthy

  1. Before, I spoke only about the map. Now I'm going to speak about a specific project before you.
  2. During the conversation about the map, Mr. Alumbaugh made a comment about something we had not provided and it is not what the situation is.
  3. We met with Long-range Planning on October 12th.
  4. They told us they had concerns about the zoning involving the viewshed.
  5. We responded and said would you please tell us where you'd like the pictures taken.
  6. We got no response.
  7. Then the Director wrote us a letter dated October 27th and said, we understand you have issues about whether or not this height should be raised, but we have concerns about the viewshed.
  8. We received that letter on Friday, the 28th, and on the next business day, October 29th, we wrote back to the Director and we said we'd be happy to provide you with any new studies you'd like as long as you tell us where you'd like the pictures taken from.
  9. To date we have not gotten any response to that.
  10. I don't think it is the fault of the Director, but I want to correct the record and I want to correct it early on that we have been responsive in every way to what staff has asked for and any suggestion to the contrary is simply incorrect.

Adjournment: 10: 19 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MAY 4, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee and Olague

ABSENT: Hughes

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:19 PM