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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

April 13, 2006

April 13, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 13, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:     Dwight Alexander

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:40 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Neil Hart – Acting Zoning Administrator; Adam Light; Edgar Oropeza; Ben Fu; Teresa Ojeda; Dan Sider; 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.         2005.0713D                                                                                 (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET -north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No.2005.03.11.7350 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new single-family dwelling) in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 9, 2006)

                        (Proposed for Continuance to May 4, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

1b.        2005.1070D                                                                                 (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET    - north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin streets; lot 006 in assessor’s block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the planning commission’s policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, of building permit application no. 2005.03.11.7348 for the new construction of a single-family dwelling in an rh-1 (residential, house, one-family) district with a 40-x height and bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 4, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

2a.        2005.0488CEV                                                                          (T. Tam: (415) 558-6325)

25 LUSK STREET - north side between Townsend and Brannan Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor’s Block 3787 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 817.16 and 890.88(c) to allow construction of up to 26 single room occupancy units.  The project will include a two-story vertical addition to and conversion of an existing two-story-above-basement building with the existing Business -Service use in the basement retained. The property is in an SLI (Service, Light Industrial) District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

                                Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 4, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

2b.        2005.0488CEV                                                                         (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

25 Lusk Street - north side between Townsend and Brannan Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor’s Block 3787- Request for a Variance from the Minimum Rear Yard, Parking, and Minimum Dimensions for Usable Open Space requirements set forth in Planning Code Sections 134, 151, 135(f)(1), and 135(g)(2).  Whereas the Planning Code requires a minimum rear yard of 15 feet for SRO projects in the South of Market Base District, the project proposes an inner court instead.  Whereas the Planning Code requires a one parking space for each 20 units with a minimum of two off-street parking spaces, the project proposes none.  While the proposed project would exceed the minimum usable open space area required under Section 135(d)(2), the proposed project would not comply with the minimum horizontal and vertical dimensions for some portions of the proposed private and common usable open space.  The property is in an SLI (Service, Light Industrial) District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 4, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

3.         2006.0090T                                                                       (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

Off-Street Parking in C-3 Zoning Districts - Ordinance (File 060036) introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier on January 10, 2006 and referred to the Planning Commission on January 18, 2006, amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 123, 151.1, 151.2, 154.1, 155, 155.5, 157, 166, 167, 204.5, 303, 309, 790.10, and 890.10 to alter controls regarding required and allowed off-street parking for residential uses in C-3 zoning districts, Floor Area Ratio exemptions and incentives related to parking, bicycle parking, car sharing (including definitions and certification of car sharing organizations), separating housing costs from parking costs, urban design requirements for parking, and adopting findings.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)        

PROPOSED LEGISLATION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN

 

4a.        2004.0784D                                                                           (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

1675 48th Avenue – west side, between Lawton & Moraga, Lot 018, Assessor’s Block 1895 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2004.12.16.1606, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

                        (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

4b.        2004.0785D                                                                           (D.SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

1675 48th Avenue – west side, between Lawton & Moraga, Lot 018, Assessor’s Block 1895 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of new residential buildings in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.12.161608, proposing to construct a three-story, two unit residential building with two off-street parking in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the New Construction Permit with modifications.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

5.         Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

 

  • Draft minutes of Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 9, 2006.

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved

AYES:                 Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Olague and S Lee

EXCUSED:           Hughes and W. Lee

ABSENT:             Alexander

 

            6.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commissioner Olague:

  • Are we going to have a hearing on hearing requests?  I know we requested a few and there has sort of been a delay on all of them.  We were supposed to discuss whether or not we should have a hearing.

Commissioner Sue Lee:

  • I have been resistant to doing that because it seems to me that our Commissioners’ requests for hearings really are a request of staff for information.  I don’t know that the best way of our receiving this information is by calling for a hearing.  I would like more responsive staff work so that when we have questions about a given planning matter, we receive that information and it’s not necessarily in the form of a briefing, but a report that could be included in our packets and respond to the issues that commissioners are interested in.  I’m not convinced…, I’m not persuaded that a hearing is going to get us informed.

Commissioner Olague:

  • So I guess is there a decision made that we won’t have more hearings, we shouldn’t request more hearings.  It’s still an open-ended issue then.

Commission Secretary Avery

  • Based on what President Sue Lee has just said, basically what you are asking for in hearings, we are going to treat as a request to the Department.  The Director will direct staff to respond to you either in a report or even under Director’s Report, but there will not be a scheduled hearing of these items unless—and again you guys have told me in the past—that unless I am directed by a consensus of the Commission or the President so directs.

Commissioner Olague:

  • Okay.  So when we have requests, are they being sort of filed somewhere?

Director Macris

  • It’s good for us in the past to know precisely how to respond.  Because we don’t have a consensus where a vote is taken; should there be a hearing or not a hearing.  Staff has had a little difficulty in sorting these things out.   It would be nice to have a consistent policy on how to deal with these matters.  Now, I hear from the President that she thinks that we should respond in writing to various requests, and we’ll be pleased to do that.  I don’t want to create a whole new item in our work program that is going to require an extraordinary effort.  But I think we have to be responsive to the Commission.  If that’s the best way to handle it, we will do it that way.  We’ve always gone back, after getting our own briefing as to what happened at the Commission, wondering how to handle some situation because we don’t quite understand what the commission is seeking.  But we’ll try to be more diligent about this in doing it in writing, as the Commission requests.  Now if the Commission does want to have a hearing, we’d like to make sure that that’s the general agreement.  I’m not quite sure, Madam Secretary, how we do that.

Commission Secretary Avery

  • I would say that because usually these items are not calendared, they would be voice votes.  If I don’t get a consensus of four people saying they want a hearing, then there will not be a hearing.  I would suggest that maybe I should resurrect the Action List that we had in the past.  I’ll add a category that includes consensus or no consensus, which would indicate to the Director whether or not there should be a follow up report either verbally or in writing.

Commissioner Sue Lee

  • That would be helpful

Commissioner Antonini

  • I just wanted to thank staff for obtaining and producing the ICF report.  It looks very interesting.  Thank you.

Commissioner Bill Lee

  • My perspective would be to at least have a vote to look at the Arts, the latest proposal by the Arts Council.  That should have a hearing because that will impact our Master Plan and also our Housing Element.

Commissioner Bradford-Bell

  • I don’t know if it was said and I apologize for running late.  But I hope tonight can be closed in honor of Arthur Jackson who was on the Taxi Commission forever.  He was a major leader in the city and he passed away in his sleep this week.  I hope we can adjourn today’s meeting in his memory.

Commissioner Sue Lee

  • Okay.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

7.         Director’s Announcements

  • Director Macris acknowledged that the Commission did receive a copy of the ICF Report as was mentioned by Commissioner Antonini.  We had proposed a May 4th presentation of this because that’s what we heard last week on this.  I’m going to assume that the Commission would like to have a half hour presentation from the Author of this document, which is very relevant to our work.
  • I only had one other thing I wanted to mention to you and I’m very proud to mention this because it is an award that we got from the AIA.  A special Urban Design award recognizing the work of the Planning Department on the Rincon Hill Plan.  Special thanks to David Alumbaugh and Josh Switzky, Adam Barrett, Marshall Foster, and to Sam Assafa who is a name you may or may not remember.  He’s now Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Daly in Chicago.  Sam, when he was with us worked on this as well.  We’re very proud to hang this on our wall at the Planning Department.

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

 

Board of Supervisors (reported by Dan Sider of Department staff):

  1. Last night Supervisor Alioto-Pier gave birth to a healthy baby girl – seven pounds, eleven ounces.  We’re very happy for her and her family and extend our congratulations to them.
  2. Better Neighborhoods Plus – This is a matter that was before you a number of times and before the Board as well a number of times.  The matter was calendared to appear yesterday at the Land Use Committee.  After a brief period of public comment, it was continued to the call of the Chair.  We are aware there are some amendments being discussed.  No formal amendments have been put forward at this time.
  3. I’d like to mention a few introductions over the past couple of weeks. 
    • The first of these is an interim-zoning requirement introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier the week before this hearing.  It is an ordinance, which would address elementary and secondary schools in San Francisco and require for a period of 18 months a conditional use to change existing use of these facilities whatsoever at all. 
    • Next, an ordinance put forth by Supervisor Peskin.  This would amend, not the Planning Code, but rather the Subdivision Code and would prevent the Condominiumization of any building in which two or more Ellis Act evictions or owner move-in evictions had occurred since January of 1999.  It won’t be referred for formal review of this body, but it does have bearing on the matters we review here.  We’ll keep you posted on the progress of that ordinance and give you a more thorough summary of what it might mean as things become clearer.
    • One Hawthorne – This is a downtown project you reviewed on March 23 and did approve 5 to 0.  That approval authorized a 15-story, 135 dwelling unit project.  It also authorized an alternate plan, a 25-story, 189o unit building.  That alternate plan was contingent on a rezoning.  That rezoning has been introduced.  It was put forward on Tuesday by Supervisor Chris Daly as both a height change to allow a 250-foot tall building as well as a General Plan amendment to address measures in the Downtown Plan that needed amending in order to address this project and allow it to go ahead.
    • And lastly, measures put forward by Supervisor Daly just on Tuesday – The western south of market area – Three ordinances were introduced that will inform the development and guide the planning process in this area.  The first is the proposed establishment of a Special Use District.  This would define the bounds of the western SOMA area.  In itself, it would not have any controls, but it would set the stage for future planning efforts.
    • The next is an interim moratorium in that ‘SUD on formula retail users.  And the last is a set of permanent controls within that SUD that would require conditional use for formula retail users and would also subject changes of use within the district to section 312 notifications.

 

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

 

E.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

 

 

 

 

9a.        2005.0946XV                                                                        (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

153 KEARNY STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, former Lot 2, new ownership lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, in Assessor's Block 293 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit conversion of an existing office building to approximately 45 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirement, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. .  The proposal is to convert the existing office use on floors two (formerly the mezzanine level) through seven of the subject building to approximately 45 dwelling units, retaining the existing ground floor retail uses.   The granting of a determination of compliance would be subject to the granting of variances for the three following aspects of the project:  1) Open space is proposed for the rooftop of the subject building, but less would be provided than the minimum required by the Planning Code due to necessary roof top equipment, stair and elevator penthouses, existing sky lights and fire code restrictions;  2) No parking would be provided in order to preserve the building’s historic façade and to avoid creating automobile/pedestrian conflicts; 3) Sixteen of the 45 units would receive light and air from an interior courtyard that falls short in one direction of the minimum dimensional requirements for interior courtyards per the provisions of Section 140 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       

Tuija Zapalano Andrew Junius – Rubin and Junius for the Project Sponsor

  1. We feel this project is another great opportunity to convert an existing class B office building into residential use.
  2. The project would introduce and bring a substantial contribution to this city - The housing supply, including affordable housing would be enhanced by bringing 45 dwelling units into this location.
  3. Most significantly, the project is located right in the downtown area close to many jobs, transit and other services
  4. This is an excellent opportunity to preserve the building and ensure its continued use in the future.

ACTION:              Approved

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

ABSENT:             Alexander

MOTION:              17226

 

9b.        2005.0946XV                                                                       (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

153 KEARNY STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, former Lot 2, new ownership lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, in Assessor's Block 293 - Request for residential open space, dwelling unit exposure, and parking variances as described in item "a" above; for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.  The Zoning Administrator will consider the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. See Item "a" above for a project description.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        Same as those listed for item 9a

ACTION:              Acting Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variances

 

10.        2006.0332C                                                                   (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

2406 Bryant Street - the Northwest Corner of Bryant Street between 22nd and 23rd Street; Lot 039 in Assessor’s Block 4150 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a small self-service restaurant on a site that has a Limited Commercial Use in the RH-3 (Residential House 3-Family) Zoning District, the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use-Sub district, and a 40 foot Height and Bulk District, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 186 and 727.44.  A small self-service restaurant (Planning Code Section 790.91) is limited to no more than 50 seats, 1,000 square feet in gross floor area, and requires Conditional Use Authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Approved with a correction to page 10, which should be labeled Exhibit A and inserting Exhibit B plan data, and include today’s date of April 13, 2006.

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

ABSENT:             Alexander

MOTION:              17225

 

F.         REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

11.        2006.0046D                                                                           (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

137 PORTER STREET - east side south of Benton Avenue; Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 5826 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.14.2861 proposing the construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.  

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

DISCRETIONARY REQUEST WITHDRAWN

 

12.        2005.0402D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2477-2479 SUTTER STREET - south side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 1076 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2004.03.02.7604, to construct horizontal and vertical additions to the existing two-story, two-unit building resulting in a four-story, three-unit building in a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              Without hearing, continued indefinitely

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

13a.       2003.0159CV                                                                                  (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2527 Mission Street - east side, between 21st and 22nd Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 3615 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j), 303, and 712.70 to allow a reduction in the off-street parking requirement for dwelling units within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 65-B Height and Bulk designation, and in the Housing/Mixed Use Zone as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727.  The project also includes a Variance request for the off-street parking requirement for the proposed office and retail uses.   

           Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

                       

 

SPEAKERS:       

Fu Ian – Design Engineer for this project

  1. The owner wants to demolish this building
  2. They are going to move back to the same location.  At the same time they are going to provide four units.  So people who live on the upper floor can work on the ground floor and second floor – good for the community.

Philip Lesser

  1. Our Association of the 2,500 block of Mission Street Business Improvement District is 100% supportive of this project.
  2. This is basically retail on the ground level, office on the second level, and then two levels of residential—creating four residences.
  3. This is an absolute perfect fit for the Mission District.
  4. We strongly endorse it.

Brian Draper

  1. I recently got involved with the development to help with the front façade of the building
  2. He gave a detailed presentation of the project design.

ACTION:              Following hearing, the matter was continued to May 11, 2006 to address design concerns.  Public Hearing remains open.

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

ABSENT:             Alexander

 

13b.      2003.0159CV                                                                             (B. FU: (415) 558-6613) 

2527 Mission Street -east side, between 21st and 22nd Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 3615 - Request for Off-Street Parking Variance under Planning Code Section 151 to require off-street parking be provided in the minimum quantities specified per each principal use of a building over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area.  A total of 13 independently accessible off-street parking spaces are required as a result of the proposed new uses on the first and second floors and none are provided.  The Zoning Administrator will consider the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:        Same as those listed for item 13a.

ACTION:              The Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item until design concerns are addressed.

 

14.        2006.0145ET                                                                         (T. OJEDA:  (415) 558-6251)

Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program- Consideration of an ordinance initiated by SupervisorSophie Maxwell on January 24, 2006 which would amend Planning Code Sections 315.2, 315.3, 315.4, 315.5, 315.6, and 315.8 to revise the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program by:  1) amending methods of marketing the affordable units; 2) allowing developers, under certain conditions, the use of tax-exempt bonds in meeting their inclusionary housing requirements; 3) requiring that off-site units are located within one mile of the principal project and must be provided as rental housing for the life of the project, or as ownership housing affordable at 80% of area median income; 4) requiring disclosure of preferred alternative to on-site housing before receiving project approvals and this preferred alternative will be a condition of approval; 5) evaluating and revising separate monitoring systems with the goal of establishing a single monitoring system for all inclusionary affordable housing units located in San Francisco; 6) requiring annual adjustment of the in-lieu fee; 7) requiring the completion of the affordable housing impact study no later than July 1, 2006 and the establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee; and 8) applying legislated changes to the inclusionary affordable housing program to all development projects that have not received a building permit at the effective date of this ordinance; and make environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Request the Board of Supervisors to approve with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

 

SPEAKERS:       

Dan Samanick – Senior Vice President of Sunrise Senior Living

  1. Sunrise develops and operates its own projects.
  2. The possibility of a potential increase in the percentage of affordable units came as a total shock to us as we have two projects going through the planning process as we speak.
  3. Both project applications to the Planning Department occurred in the summer of 2004.
  4. In addition to the time it has taken us to get to this point, we spent many months prior to applying negotiating our land contracts with the owners of the underlying land.
  5. To put this into perspective, our memory-impaired project is only 58 units and our senior condominium project is only 62 units. ‘When dealing with that small number of units, being able to spread the impact of an additional 8% over the entire project is more than limiting, it is impossible.

Jazzy Collins – South of Market Community Action Network

  1. Our position has not changed since the last time this item was discussed before uou three weeks ago.
  2. We are still in favor of staff recommendation and also in favor of Supervisor Maxwell’s amendments to the inclusionary housing.
  3. There is nothing in the amendments to indicate that it would interfere with the Housing Study.
  4. We ask that you not continue this item, but send it forth to the Board of Supervisors so they can adopt and approve it.
  5. The one-mile radius is very acceptable and comprehensive to deal with.

Greg Miller – with the Pillsbury Law firm in San Francisco

  1. We ask that you adopt a grandfathering clause as part of this legislation that would effectively exempt any projects that had project applications on file prior to the implementation of the ordinance that is before you.

Steve Vettel – with Morrison and Forester

  1. I think most of the staff recommendation is very good and would support 95% of it with the exception of the issue of the effective date of changes to the ordinance.
  2. What we’re talking about is not an exemption from the Inclusionary ordinance.
  3. We’re talking about what portions of the Inclusionary Ordinance will apply to projects.
  4. The question is when do changes in the ordinance apply to projects?
  5. The reason the Inclusionary Ordinance has worked so well over the last three years—the statistics that you got a few weeks ago showed an amazing increase in the number of inclusionary units over the last few years—is because there is certainty.
  6. Everyone knows when they negotiate land prices exactly what the inclusionary requirement is going to be.  They’re able to negotiate land prices in reliance on that knowledge.  They are able to with certainty go into a project, know what the outcome is going to be and it needs to be known at the time that land deals are made.
  7. If you can’t know what the inclusionary is going to be, it is very difficult to negotiate land prices and you can’t go back and renegotiate those prices after your entitlement.

Kim Diamond – Senior Manager for Land Acquisition for Pulte Homes

  1. Any inclusionary housing requirement has a great impact on land value.
  2. Similar to construction costs and planning and permit fees, the number and subsidy of the below market rate units that need to be included is a key piece of information in the negotiation of any land price.
  3. Possessing this information after the entitlement work is completed makes it impossible to accurately determine how much can be paid for a piece of property up front.
  4. I’d ask you to reconsider part 8 of this agenda item, as other have discussed.
  5. The proposed change includes a grandfather clause as well.

Robert McCarthy – McCarthy and Schwartz

  1. With the exception of the issue of applicability, we support the staff’s recommendation.
  2. We also appreciate the staff listening to the home builder community and advancing the date of applicability, not from the date of entitlement which would be two, three years down the road, and advancing it at least to the introduction of this legislation.
  3. We think this is a big step in the right direction.
  4. However, we do think the real appropriate thing to do is to do it at the time of enactment of the legislation.
  5. In my experience it never gets better for the home builders, it gets more expensive.
  6. We have produced a corollary to Mr. Vettle’s request because many of you expressed concern about land banking permits.
  7. To avoid that, we’ve suggested that the Zoning Administrator make a determination as to whether or not people are duly prosecuting their permits and he can make that determination by the filing of the applications.
  8. We think that is a fair resolution.
  9. It avoids the land banking issue and gives everybody a fair shot.
  10. In the transition team that the mayor put together, the one point that they made about why we have a housing crisis is the single most difficult part was the uncertainty of entitlement.

ACTION:              Approved as amended:

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve, with modification, the referenced sections of Supervisor Maxwell’s legislation:

  • Section 315.3(a)(1),(2) and (3):  Revise proposed ordinance to apply changes to the inclusionary affordable housing requirements to projects whose first application is submitted after the date of final approval of the proposed legislation.
  • Section 315.4(e): Revise proposed ordinance to require the project sponsor to elect the preferred inclusionary provision in a “Declaration of Intent” prior to and as condition of the issuance of the first site or building permit

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the referenced section of Supervisor Maxwell’s legislation:

  • Section 315.4(d)(1):  Institutionalize the use of a lottery system at initial offering and the use of a list generated from a recent lottery for units that become available for re-sale or re-occupancy…

FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend Section 315.3 to clarify that the ordinance applies to all projects, or phased projects, to be undertaken where the total project to be undertaken consists of ten or more units.

 

AYES:                 Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and W. Lee

NAYES:               S. Lee and Olague

ABSENT:             Alexander

RESOLUTION:      17227

 

15.        2006.0092ET                                                                       (d. sider: (415) 558-6697)

Planning Code amendments relating to Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCD’s) [Board File No. 060032] On January 10, 2006, Supervisors Mirkarimi and Ma introduced legislation which would have allowed certain existing MCD’s to relocate irrespective of Planning Code restrictions on the proximity of new MCD’s to schools and recreation buildings. On March 28, 2006 a substitute Ordinance was introduced which instead would amend [1] grandfathering provisions for existing MCD’s, [2] the definition of a ‘recreation building’ with respect to proximity restrictions for new and existing MCD’s, and [3] noticing requirements for MCD permits. The substitute Ordinance would also modify portions of the Health Code in order to make amendments to the MCD permitting process and MCD permit provisions.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

 

SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:              without hearing, continued to May 4, 2006

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

ABSENT:             Alexander and Bradford-Bell

 

G.         PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.  With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.  When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) Requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) Directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.  (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

 

                         None

 

Adjournment:   4:13 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 as corrected on page 7, item 9a:  Tuija Zapalano Andrew Junius

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

EXCUSED:        Alexander

ABSENT:          Hughes

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:20 PM