February 9, 2006SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, February 9, 2006
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: S. Lee, D. Alexander, M. Antonini, S. Bradford-Bell, K. Hughes,
C. Olague, and W. Lee.
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:46 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris - Director of Planning, Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator, Sharon Young, Michelle Glueckert, Michael Li, Dan Dibartolo, Rick Crawford, Jonathan Purvis, Ben Fu, Teresa Ojeda, Craig Nikitas, Linda Avery - Commission Secretary
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2005.0709C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)
883-899 VALENCIA STREET - Assessor's Block 3596, Lot 113 -Request under Planning Code Section 726.56 for temporary parking on an open lot. The Proposal is to continue operating a parking lot on a vacated gas station. The lot would provide 22 total parking spaces (one handicap space, two standard spaces approximately 8'x20' each, and 19 compact spaces approximately 8'x16' each). This open air parking lot is projected to exist only as long as it takes for the owner to gain approval of demolition and new construction permits (subject to a separate conditional use authorization, Case No. 2004.0891C) to develop a mixed-use structure with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. The project lies within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial District, the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict, and within the 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
NOTE: This item was incorrectly noticed for hearing on February 9, 2006. An accurate notice for hearing on February 16, 2006 has been advertised, posted, & mailed. The item appears on this calendar as a further effort to inform the public that the public hearing is scheduled for February 16, 2006.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Notice Only. No Action
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
2. Commission Comments/Questions
Commissioner Antonini:
- I had a conversation with Neil hart earlier today about the Mills Act.
- I thought it might be beneficial to calendar an informational presentation in regards to the Secretary of Interior Standards and kind of look at what's been done in other cities and what the standards are for buildings to qualify under that type of legislation.
- Fee Policies - I think one thing that was really apparent is that some of the fees are very low for some items, at least in my opinion, relative to the costs. For examples, Appeals of a Negative Declaration, the fess is $200. The estimated cost is about $13,000. So, you've got a 65 to 1 cost to fee ratio there.
- Cat Ex - a appeal of a Cat Ex to the Board, that's the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors, is a $300 fee, and the costs - these are averages - it's about $10,000 -- that's about 33 to 1
- It seems to me that is something the Department would do well to look at. Because we see fairly significant large groups sometimes making these appeals, and while we certainly do not want to discourage the appeal process, I think that it might be more realistic to have the appellant pay a higher part of the cost.
- In another issue, where I think the fees are too high, interestingly enough, the ones I mentioned are only $200 or $300 for appeals while the costs are about $13,000 and $10,000.
- But Mandatory Discretionary Reviews for dwelling unit mergers and demolitions -- the project sponsor has to pay $2,100, almost the entire cost of the discretionary review, which I think is somewhat discriminatory in as much as if it's a discretionary review that is not a mandatory one the fee is approximately $200, and the cost are around $2,700.
- So, I can't see the rationale in charging someone for a unit merger or a demolition, a different fee than is being charged for a discretionary review brought by neighbors on a project, which probably ends up, by our estimates, having a higher cost of about $600 in and of itself.
Commissioner Olague:
- Requested a continuance on the Eastern Neighborhoods Interim Controls discussion that's scheduled for next week.
- Since it is a community-based process and we do have I think scoping hearings up until the end of March, I wanted to request that we not hear the Interim Controls until the end of April.
- Another reason is one of the projects that is apparently being bounced around on Harrison Street, near Forbes, and we've heard from the project sponsor, or representatives of the sponsor.
- I was under the impression from their comments that it was some sort of empty lot or maybe a block of empty spaces.
- I went to the scoping hearing in the South of Market, and I met someone who actually is facing eviction should that project come to fruition. And apparently there are 20 artists, it's an art space, it's an active art space where ceramic classes are offered.
- At the Board of Supervisors apparently a letter was presented which I haven't seen, that came from the Department that gave differing recommendations than the Planning Commission had offered when it came to the C-3 Legislation.
- It was my impression, that when it came to Board sponsored legislation; it was the Commission that had the ultimate authority on making at least the recommendation, not the Department staff.
- So, I was really wondering why this was presented to the Board without any review from the Commission. Is it a new interpretation of the Charter? This is something I am going to ask the City Attorney to look into.
- Who has the ultimate say when it comes to Board-sponsored legislation? Is it the Commission or is it the Department
Commissioner Bradford-Bell:
- Requested a continuance of the Eastern Neighborhood.
- I want us to get from staff the chart that was done in - I think it was done in June of '05 that outlined what it was the Commission said we wanted. It was done by the former director and it outlined exactly what the Commission said we wanted from the Eastern Neighborhoods. We've gotten very far away from that.
- Commissioner Olague addressed my concerns about the C-3.
- I did watch the hearing, and I heard the letter being read. I too was very concerned that we as a Commission made a decision, and then somewhere it got reinterpreted, and changed from what we wanted to what somebody else wanted.
- I am not saying that in a negative way, but it wasn't what the Commission's position was. This has happened more than once. I am just concerned and I want us to get a handle on that.
- Lastly, I do not know how many other commissioners have received calls. This all fits in together for me about the property at Golden Gate and Lion Lyon. It is about two buildings and it was a deck on the back that supposedly is illegal. Now, they want to put fire escapes on the front, and it's not coming through the Planning Commission and it's impacting what we have said is our design guidelines.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
3. Director's Announcements
Dean Macris - Director of Planning
- Eastern Neighborhoods - We'll certainly obviously adhere to the Commission's sentiment to put that over, but I just want to understand, is here a general agreement along the lines that Commissioner Sue Lee has suggested - that we could discuss various topics without any particular motion for any action?
- I think it is a good way for us to hear comments from the public about specific areas of the Eastern Neighborhoods, and I think the walking tour is a good idea.
- I think we should see if we couldn't arrange something like that for those who are able to. We will then select certain areas that are critical to the decision-making on the Eastern Neighborhoods, and however many commissioners can do it, that would be great.
- Let me mention about this so-called statement that was made on C-3 Residential parking. First of all let me be perfectly clear, I do my job representing the Commission. Once the Commission has made a decision that is what I represent. I think I've said that to many of you before.
I want the Commission to understand that, there are occasions when a Director is asked a personal opinion about something apart from whatever the Commission might feel on something.
- I am very reluctant to do those kinds of things because in no way do I want to suggest once the Commission makes a decision, there is a point of view I have that is not consistent with the Commission. So, I have to exercise caution about things like that, because we operate best and are most effective when we have a wide consensus with the Department and the Commission in acting with regard to specific things.
- I received a phone call from the Mayor's Office about this statement while I was attending a conference at Harvard.
- I said at that time that the only statement that I'm able to make is one that affirms the commission's decision.
- I asked that they work with staff.
- Mr. Badiner was kind enough to provide some time to this.
- There was an original statement and then apparently another statement that went beyond that.
- I'm not sure how that happened and I'm obviously going to look into that.
- I've already talked to, met with, and will talk with other Supervisors about this. Those I've already talked to or met with understand my point - that it is our job to represent the Planning Commission's position on this.
- In the process of that there may be some technical amendments that would be made or recommended that the Board may consider and I will keep the Commission fully informed about them.
- But I don't want you to leave today without thinking that some way or another this Department has gone beyond what the Commission was recommending.
- It is simply not the case.
Commissioner Olague
- I want to see a copy of the letter to see if it includes certain points that we made clear we didn't [want].
- I want to know how this happened.
- I've asked the City Attorney for some interpretation
- The letter apparently wasn't even signed by you.
- I don't think this is something that we should just apologize for, or should just go away without any further discussion.
Zoning Administrator Badiner
- Regarding the Golden Gate Avenue matter.
- The case involves the elimination of one or two dwelling units that had not been brought to you.
- Those units are not legal dwelling units under the Building Code and under the Planning Code. They were put in without proper permits.
- I think there are some significant equity issues and concerns about the eviction that will occur because of this.
- But your policy does not bring illegal dwelling units for your review.
- And generally we do sign off on those as a matter of course.
- But they did not come to you because they are not legal dwelling units.
Commissioner Antonini
- I would also like a copy of the letter Commissioner Olague cited.
President Sue Lee
- The entire commission would like to see a copy of the letter and calendar it so we can discuss it more fully. [The item is to be calendared next week for discussion.]
Commissioner Bradford-Bell
- On clarity:
- We have items come before us for enforcement, code violation issues, right?
- We've had things come to us because it is built over the height they want. I guess we don't see it if it's an illegal unit.
- Isn't there a process where they can come to us and make them legal units?
- We're evicting people just out of hand because they're illegal units.
- They're supposed to come into Planning. What's the process? It seems like there is a piece missing for me.
Zoning Administrator Badiner
- When a dwelling unit can be legalized, we will encourage that to be done.
- In this case I believe, they could not be legalized because they are over the dwelling unit density.
- What you have seen when someone builds over is a discretionary review and they have exceeded the scope of permit in some way and they want to try to legalize that.
- We will definitely bring it back to you because we had a review of it.
- If it had never come for discretionary review and someone wanted to legalize something and get a new permit and go through the process, it might come before you at discretionary review, or it might not.
- Legalizations or correcting illegal things without a permit don't necessarily come to you.
Commissioner Bradford-Bell
- What concerns me about this for future conversations is the fact that we are eliminating units of housing and we are removing people - they are not being Ellis Acted out, we are not doing unit mergers, and it is not a demolition.
- To me this sounds like a silent removal of people that may or may not be getting counted in our housing.
- We are loosing two units of housing and it is being done kind of out of hand in my opinion.
- I'm hoping in the future it's something that we can look at because (Linda is really giving me an evil eye.) I'm through talking.
Zoning Administrator Badiner
- We will be coming back to you in the near future with the Dwelling Unit Merger. We can raise it in that context.
Commissioner Bill Lee
- When we do have this hearing on Dwelling Unit Mergers, I would ask that the Department bring up this specific case so we can actually look at and digest and see if we should set different policies.
- We should look at illegal units throughout the whole city and how to legalize them.
- This issue is a subset of that whole issue.
- The longer we delay in figuring out how to make illegal units legal, we are going to face these same situations again.
4. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
Board of Supervisors - Dan Sider of Department staff reported
- 24th Street Noe Valley Commercial District amendments put forth by Supervisor Dufty some time ago to allow a new restaurant and selective bar uses on that corridor did pass unanimously on second reading. It will become a law in the very near future. We will be seeing conditional uses for those new restaurants and bars on your calendar.
- Better Neighborhoods Plus - Supervisor McGoldrick's effort to revisit the City's long-range planning process -- this item was amended and continued until next week.
- Among the number of amendments was a provision that would modify the applicability of this provision or rather this ordinance from just the Geary Street Corridor to an as yet undefined district in the City. Still a pilot program and a pilot program to be based on community need and commission input.
- The Land Use Committee has been renamed by motion. It is now the Land Use and Economic Development Committee. The vote was 9 to 1. Supervisor Alioto-Pier dissented.
- 2650 Harrison Street, just north of 23rd Street, this is a conditional use that you reviewed in November of 2005. This is 68 units of housing with below grade parking in a four-story structure that involved the demolition of a 12,000 sq. ft. PDR building. There was also an appeal of the negative declaration at that time. You upheld the negative declaration and approved the conditional use. Commissioner Sue Lee was absent. This item was before the Board both as an appeal of the conditional use and as an appeal of the negative declaration. The Board heard extensive public comment to the tune of about 3 ½ hours. The Board did over turn the Department's CEQA determination, so this item has been sent back to the Department for further environmental review. The project won't be moving ahead at this time.
Board of Appeal - None
5. (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)
REPORT FROM THE BACKSTREETS BUSINESS ADVISORY BOARD - An informational presentation on the activities, goals, and objectives of the Backstreets Business Advisory Board, an advisory board created by the Board of Supervisors.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Only
SPEAKERS:
Peter Cohen and Oscar Grande, Backstreets Business Advisory Board
- Together they gave an informational presentation on activities, goals, and objectives of the Advisory Board.
Peter Cohen
- The Board of Supervisors established the Backstreets Business Advisory Board this last summer [summer of 2005] for the purpose of seeking to develop and implement focused policies and programs that encourage the retention and expansion of backstreets businesses.
- Specifically the legislative objectives we are responsible for are to analyze the needs of these business needs, financing and work force skills.
- Secondly, we are to analyze policies and programs of the city and other jurisdictions designed to assist backstreets businesses.
- Thirdly, we are to come back with recommendations as to policies and programs the city may adopt to assist in the retention and expansion of backstreets businesses in the city.
- The formation of this Board was in response to some lingering policy debates about the Eastern Neighborhood.
- But the Board's scope is not exclusive to the Eastern Neighborhoods.
- We are looking at this as a citywide policy question.
- There are nine Board of Supervisor appointed members representing a variety of interests: PDR, Small Business, Labor, Community organizations, and some public policy folks (like myself). We also have representatives from several key agencies: staff from the Planning Department, Mayor's Office of Economic Development, Mayor's Office of Community Development, the Redevelopment Agency, and the Port. We also have research assistants from the Office of Legislative Analyst.
Oscar Grande
- The Backstreet Advisory Board defines backstreets businesses as small to medium size commercial/industrial businesses that provide services, manufacturing, wholesale, commercial, construction, food processing, and repairs, which is generally consistent with the Planning Department's definition of production, distribution, and repair.
- These types of businesses face unique challenges in San Francisco and have been at risk from development pressures in recent years.
- What we're trying to do is find real people and real businesses.
- In the Mission District we could give examples for modeling repair, ice cream makers, bread makers, building suppliers, computer recyclers, restaurant suppliers, and that is only a small shot of what we are talking about.
- Boston was much like San Francisco in facing similar issues.
- They combined the powers and tools of the Planning Department, the Redevelopment Agency and the Economic Development Agency into one big agency, which is the Boston Redevelopment Authority.
- Effectively, by combining these tools, they had land use control, infrastructure financing and business assistance that they could coordinate very nicely.
- In so doing, they were able to really take care of the needs of these so-called Backstreets Businesses.
- They were not only able to protect them; they were able to grow them.
- Oakland is also going through many of the same issues.
- They recently developed a land use and economic policy package that is going through review and adoption by the City Council. There are a lot of debates there. But they are undergoing similarly heavy housing development pressure in their industrial areas and they are trying to sort it out before it gets to be a problem.
- So I think what is happening here has precedent.
- What is different about us and what the Planning Department is doing with their focus on the Eastern Neighborhoods is that we have an economic development focus rather than simply on land use.
- We assume as a foundation there is adequate land supply; there is adequate building stock; there are relatively affordable rents for businesses.
- This is an important core assumption and it is why the Advisory Board has been following very closely what the Planning Department has been doing and what the Commission will be debating about Eastern Neighborhoods.
- We hope that the Department and the Commission will in turn closely consider the input of our Advisory Board because economic development and land use does hookup very clearly. The emphasis of our work is on strengthening and growth and the economic security of backstreets businesses.
ACTION: Meeting held. No action.
D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT - 15 MINUTES
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKERS:
Chris Durazo
Re. SOMA Neighborhood
- First of all, when we initiated this, I did ask that there be notice. On the positive side, there were a lot of announcements put out. There were projects and restaurants in the neighborhood.
- Number one concern was there was not as much representation from the workers in the neighborhood. In particular I walked around Eastern Neighborhoods, in the east of SOMA area, there were sings signs, there was no announcement.
- I would encourage you to continue to reach out to a lot of the jobs that are out there.
- There are some issues that when we talk to people, for instance, we talked to an employee and they told us they closed down the manufacturing because the rent was raised tripled.
- I do not mean to represent them, but I want you to at least try to find ways to get them represented in some ways.
Joe O'Donohue, Residential Builders
Re: Golden Gate /Lyon Street
- This case is not about two illegal units. It is about subversion of the process.
- A subversion of the process in which two alleged illegal units were made into storage, and one legal unit has now been made into two supposedly illegal units.
- What we have is a massive disruption of two-to-one-to-two, and the eviction of three tenants in two separate units or three units out of that building. The way the property owner did it was by going through the Housing Department and through an anonymous phone call that was made right after the properties stated there was an illegal unit in that building. He got a special exception to take two units that were declared illegal units and make them into storage, now create two units by evicting another tenant from the unit, and got special exception within the Fire Code.
- This case should have come back to the Commission because the public has a right to set policy under design review controls.
John Tynan
- I am a tenant of 1998 Golden Gate Avenue.
- I live in one of the units that will be terminated. Pretty much the situation is that I've dealt with the property owners, and I've always considered it a legal unit.
- I would like it to go back to a review before the Planning Commission.
Philip Head
- I am a tenant at 800 Lyon Street.
- Asked the Commission to bring it back for review.
Marianne Beck
- I would like to say, that we would like this to come back to the Planning Commission.
Michael McKnight
- Please bring this back to the Planning Commission for review.
Unclear name
- In regards to the back deck and the back garden and all the storage facilities, they have a new major impact on our basic tenant rights, and so I would like to ask to bring this back for review.
John
- I went to the meeting last night at Eastern Neighborhoods.
- I'm one of the people that will be displaced to provide facilities for gallery space, classroom space and living space.
- Nowhere in the presentation was there any mention of art or artist spaces or whether it would be living or work spaces.
- When it was brought up in the meeting, it was acknowledged that artists had lived in this space.
- They said nobody wanted it.
- It seems a shame that in this vibrant city that a lot of people moved here because of the arts scene or the music scene or the dance scene, or whatever kind of art it is.
- WE are taking absolutely no interest in preserving that or making it possible for businesses like mine to exist here.
- I don't know whether Backstreets Businesses are good or not, but I agree with whomever said the rents are driving us out. We can't afford them. We do a service and make a small living.
- We can't afford to pay exorbitant rents that are going to be put in the new plan.
-
E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED
At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKERS:
Re: 3025-3029 Sacramento Street
Susan Mukaeda, Project Architect for 3025-3029 Sacramento Street
- Made a couple of clarifications regarding the extent of the adjacent building.
- It wasn't my intent to misrepresent the information on the adjacent property previously shown.
- I wanted to make it clear that the rear face of the building is in line with the DR requestor's property. That was the main point that you brought up.
Bill Maher
- With pictures showed what his property really looks like.
- It is an 8-foot setback, 40 feet long on one side, and a 3.5-foot setback almost the length of the property on the other.
- The entire grade point is two stories high.
- This project will have tremendous impact on our air and light.
Representative for the Project Sponsor [Unclear name]
- I think Mr. Maher has overstated the case and the impacts.
- Mr. Maher's two-story projection into his rear yard - where that ends is where the proposed project will end.
- There is no material impact on light and air on his building or on his rear yard.
- Any extension of our building, no matter how big or small, is going to have some impact on neighboring properties, however small.
- However, the Residential Design Guidelines to which this building was designed expressly acknowledged any change of a building envelope has some impact on light, air and privacy. [Pages 16 and 18 of the Residential Design Guidelines.]
- We are nowhere near the allowable building envelopes allowed under code.
- I thought it was a policy of this Commission to encourage multi-family units. That's what we are trying to provide. The owners will occupy the building, unlike the neighbors.
F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
6. 2005.1043DD (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)
3025 - 3029 SACRAMENTO STREET - south side between Baker and Broderick Streets; Lot 029B in Assessor's Block 1024 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.06.26.6107, proposing to construct a three-story horizontal extension at the rear of an existing two-story over garage, three-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 2, 2006)
NOTE: On February 2, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and entertained a motion to not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted. The motion failed on a tie vote of +3 -3. Commissioners Bell, Olague & S Lee voted no and Commissioner W Lee was absent. The item was then continued to February 9, 2006 by a +5 -1 vote, with Commissioner Antonini voting against and Commissioner W. Lee absent.
SPEAKERS: None
MOTION: To not take Discretionary Review and approve
AYES: Antonini and Hughes
NAYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee
RESULT: Motion failed
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Olague, and W. Lee
NAYES: Antonini and Hughes
G. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.
7. 2005.0982D (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)
244 TOWNSEND STREET - northwest corner of Lusk and Townsend Streets, Assessor's Block 3787, Lot 018 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for a proposed full-service restaurant and bar (DBA "Jackrabbit Moon"), which would sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on-site. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed. Planning Commission Resolution Number 14844 requires a Discretionary Review hearing for all projects involving a new or relocated liquor license or bar within the Ballpark Vicinity Special Use District (BVSUD). The property is located in an SLI (Service / Light Industrial) District, the South End Historic District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
8. 2005.0976C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
2222 POLK STREET - east side between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0549 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to modify the previously-approved conditional use (Case No. 2001.1114C and Motion No. 16331). The current application is requesting that the existing liquor store (dba "Polk & Green Produce Market") be allowed to change its Type 20 ABC license (off-sale beer and wine) to a Type 21 ABC license (off-sale general). There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The project site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
MOTION: 17184
H. REGULAR CALENDAR
9. 2005.1049C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)
1685 SACRAMENTO STREET (AKA 1552 POLK STREET) - southeast corner at Polk Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0644 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a liquor store (dba "Nob Hill Liquors No. 2") of approximately 1,850 square feet. The subject commercial space was previously occupied by a retail gardening store. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The project site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval:
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 19, 2006)
SPEAKERS:
Irving Pfeiffer on behalf of the Project Sponsor
- The clarification with regard to the executive summary appearing before you, I will begin by pointing out the approval of the conditional use will not add to the concentration of the liquor store in this neighborhood.
- This is a well established neighborhood merchant. He also owns and operates Nob Hills Liquor; both establishments are successful, clean, well run and safe.
Newman Zeidan - Project Sponsor
- If you approve my transfer, I am not going to add another license to this neighborhood.
- I just want to move an existing license two blocks.
- If this transfer is approved, the number of licenses will actually be one less than before. A net decrease in concentration.
- I want to open a clean quiet liquor shop, and I want to sell a good selection of premium wines.
Munir Suleiman
- I am the owner of Fines Wines located at 1400 Polk Street.
- I have seen the area deteriorating.
- There are a lot of homeless, drugs, and prostitution that lead to crimes.
- Liquor stores do attract these kinds of people, and there are more than nine liquor stores in the area. Not to mention the number of bars.
- By adding another liquor store to the area, you are adding more problems.
- I urge you for disapproval.
Carl Sajben
- I am against this store at this location.
- There should be another type of business in that location.
Beatrice Wahlbeck
- I request that the Planning Commission deny the application for conditional use.
Jill Wright
- I'm a resident of Sacramento Street and a frequent shopper on that very corner.
- I was disappointed to hear about the application for yet another liquor store.
- I'm discouraged.
- My personal opinion is that it will be more acceptable to the transient and loiters in that area and street crime will increase.
John Malloy, Director, Citizens Action Network
- I have been working hard to clean up Polk Street.
- I spent 7 years at it and we found out we have 35 bars and liquor stores.
- We have less Police protection
- We do not need another liquor store.
Barbara Patinkin
- We need merchants that will help grow the neighborhood; provide them services that are not as yet there.
- This will not enhance our neighborhood. It will not bring anything to it.
- Urged the Commission to vote against it.
Carolyn Devine
- I am against another liquor store. Whether it is a transfer or an existing license or whether it is a new one.
Gretchen Lisen
- The street and stores are trying really hard to make this a nice place to live.
- It is a nice place to live.
- But I do not think another liquor store would be a flower in the whole street.
Anthony Parish
- I'd like to see a nice positive business establishment go into that space.
Andrew Smith
- I would ask that you disapprove this application for conditional use.
ACTION: Disapproved
AYES: S. Lee, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
NAYES: Antonini
MOTION: 17185
10. 2005.0686C (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)
631 O'FARRELL STREET - south side between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets; Lot 001 through 198 in Assessor's Block 0322A - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6(b) of the Planning Code to install and operate a wireless telecommunication facility for T-Mobile within the RC-4 (North of Market Residential Special Use District) and an 80-T Height and Bulk district, upon the roof of the approximately 211 foot high structure that contains 184 condominium dwelling units over ground story commercial space. As per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2, as it is the site of previously approved antenna installations.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 23, 2006
AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: Alexander
11. 2005.1034D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
943 CHURCH STREET - east side between 21st and 22nd Streets. Assessor's Block 3619 Lot 043 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0614 5053 to add a second unit and to construct a two-story addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling in an RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low Density) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify the Project.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 19, 2006)
SPEAKERS:
Alec Bash
- I'm a retired city planner.
- There are many neighbors who live up and down this block and within a block and a half of this project that are either here or have signed in support of our application.
- This is one of the steepest areas in San Francisco.
- There are public views here that are at stake.
- In addition to these public views, there is a major shadowing issue.
- We want to bring this back to you and ask you to consider whether or not the original staff recommendation to remove the fourth floor should happen here.
- There are various policies here of designing, preserving neighborhood character, protecting public views, enhancing rather than weakening.
- These are policies that a three-story option would satisfy, but the four-story option would be something that would be an issue that the whole neighborhood would have to live with for many years if the Commission were to allow this to happen.
- Also, Church Street is recognized in the Urban Design Element as a street that is important for quality of its views.
Arnie Lerner
- I was asked by the Discretionary Review requestor to look at an alternate design that would, as mentioned, provide the developers with the two three-bedrooms units that they wanted and still come up with a design that would be more compatible with the existing streetscape, which is a three-story building.
- Through graphics on the overhead projector, he showed and explained how his proposal could accomplish what the project sponsor wants while addressing the concern of the DR requestor and neighbors.
Ralph Schultz
- My wife and I are the owners of the north building adjacent to the subject property.
- We, our friends, and tenants are basically fighting for our light.
- This project would drastically reduce our light.
- This is why we proposed an alternate plan that we believe would satisfy the needs and wants of those that would develop the property and hopefully we could all work together and come to some conclusion that we can all live with.
Rita Schultz
- The loss of light is a great concern to us.
- She hopes that the Commission can save us from loss of light mostly, and save us from having a monster building in our neighborhood that really does not fit.
Brian Briscoll
- My wife and I have been residents of 941 Church Street over 15 years.
- Our light would be seriously impacted if it goes up three-stories, but [really] seriously impact if it goes four-stories high.
Cynthia Gear
- Read a letter from Laurie Lambert, in which she expressed her concerns over the proposed plan.
- Also Ms. Gear echoed her sentiments that the room back there and the view and the exposure to the garden is lovely, it's charming, and I don't understand why these new neighbors at 943 can not use that space to advantage instead of going up.
John B. Orofino
- I own the building at 921, 923, and 925 Church Street.
- My concern is this may be a dry run for me because my building is sandwiched between two smaller buildings, and my concern is precedent.
- If you okay this, the two buildings on either side of my own building will then theoretically have the right to do the same thing that the gentleman wishes to do to the particular building under consideration.
- Every neighborhood has a tempo or rhythm that enhances the residents of the neighborhood.
- It makes a pleasant place to be.
- There seems not to be in this city in the last few years much concern for the esthetics of a neighborhood.
- You drive through any neighborhood in San Francisco and you see some beautiful buildings, and then you see a contractor's cracker box, or an ugly addition to a building. It's like a bad tooth in a mouthful of beautiful teeth.
- When does it stop?
Steve Weiss
- I've lived at 931 Church Street since 1990.
- We want development.
- We want there to be a development, but we want it to be consistent with the neighborhood.
Travis Paco
- I own a home at 934 Church Street, directly across the street from the proposed development.
- In this case we feel that we have proposed an ideal solution whereby the developers can build a three-story development that houses two units, which offer more square footage than their existing plans cost effectively.
Justine Juson
- I'm owner and resident at 934 Church Street.
- I live there with my husband and three-year old son.
- The alternative we are presenting here today is not only a viable option, but also a very attractive desirable option. One that will maximize these developers' investments and one that, quite frankly, me and my family two years ago when we bought into this neighborhood, would have been happy to have lived there.
Franco Paco
- Presented a letter from Bill and Charlene Duke.
- They welcome development but their concern is over the fourth floor story.
- They would like the project to be held at three.
Jeremy Meltzer
- Read a letter from residents Brian Smith and Susie Rider who couldn't attend the meeting in which they urged the Commission to require the developers to remove their proposed fourth floor to avoid disrupting this neighborhood pattern.
Sherri Bash
- I've lived at 936 Church Street for 10 years and a few blocks away at Sanchez for 25 years before that.
- In my opinion, when developments are adapted to improve the impacts on the neighborhood, this not only benefits the neighborhood, but it also usually improves the developed property itself.
- Nothing is gained by destroying the feeling of livability in a neighborhood but it does not become apparent unit it is too late and it cannot be undone.
- We have all seen blocks that are charming and have a diverse, but integrated look, and know the sense of peace and welcome that this gives.
- And we've all seen blocks where buildings stand out in an awkward way and think, too bad, that spoils the whole thing.
- The 900 block of Church Street is one of the fortunate ones that is not yet spoiled and we ask you to keep it that way.
- Not to keep it unchanged, but to allow a new third, but not a higher fourth story, which the nearby residents so overwhelmingly feel would have a significantly negative impact on the character of the neighborhood.
Sue Hester, Attorney for the neighbors
- I want to remind you of the context of this block.
- When you are driving up Church Street and you hit the peak and all of a sudden you go down, that's this block.
- There are many movies that have been shot in San Francisco, had cars going over that hill with air underneath it.
- They used the houses and this block to do all kinds of things because coming to this block -- the public views are extraordinary.
- By removing the fourth story and doing an adjustment on the third story, you have a solution that protects the light for the neighbors as well as protecting the public view.
Todd Mavis, Project Sponsor
- To give you a little bit of an overview, our intention was to take this single-family house, which is two stories tall at the moment, and add two stories to it to make it a two family house, a very simple, pragmatic way for four people to be able to create two units of housing and to be able to do it in an affordable fashion, and also to be able to have units that are large enough for families with children because that is our intention as well. To be able to live in this building with our families and to have children and raise them there.
- That gives you a context for what our objective is with this building.
- We have in mind to maintain the historical character of the building, just build two stories on top and not touch the lower floors.
- Our planned addition complies with the Building, Planning and Zoning Codes.
- We are not asking for any variances.
- No one has been evicted from this house.
- We have 207 people who have signed our petition and wrote letters supporting our project.
- We have complied with everything the San Francisco Planning Department has asked us to do.
- Now, the real issue that's come before you today, is whether or not we should have a fourth floor, because the debate is not whether or not we have a third floor. What the neighbors are truly objecting is the fourth floor.
- The design of our proposal addresses the concerns about public vistas - there is no impact; the windows on the property lines and the light and air of our neighbors - we have a 15-foot setback on the fourth floor and we have a three-foot setback along the entire side of our building of the fourth floor to address this. Our proposal will only be six feet higher than our neighbors to the north so there will be plenty of sun coming in to those windows.
Kelton FInney
- The project sponsor asked us to compare the two designs from a structural perspective.
- The key difference between these two designs is in the foundation.
- The alternate design calls for subterranean living space.
- To create subterranean living space you have to excavate and you have to place retaining walls.
- Both are labor intensive and expensive tasks.
- In this particular case, you also have to under pin the neighbors - another expensive and potentially time-consuming task.
- By comparison, the project sponsor's design requires no additional excavation.
- We place retaining wall at the back of the existing garden supply shed.
- We backfill and compact everything from there toward the front of the building.
- That means the garage floor can now be at grade. That solves the structural support, fire rating simply for that area.
- We upgraded the garden supply area to a type one construction and place a structural concrete slab as a lid over that to complete the type one construction from the garage level down.
- It requires no additional excavation.
- It requires no underpinning.
- It doesn't have any significant waterproofing issues, and it's a lot cheaper as a consequence to build and engineer.
- So from that perspective we think that the project sponsor's design is much simpler and easier to deal with.
Jennifer Cofield, Project Architect
- Gave an overall of the project and the neighbor's alternate.
- The neighbor's proposal includes the destruction of the current interior walls on the ground floor.
- They are also relocating the original entry from where it is now to the center of the building.
- They would gut a substantial portion of the existing structure to create a light well.
- Additionally, they would relocate a bathroom to the center of the building to keep plumbing in the current location.
- There would be a complete change of the existing exterior wall, and a balcony would have to come off.
- On the second floor they propose to take out all of the existing interior walls. And again, they would gut the building to create a light well, relocating bathrooms and changed the back exterior walls. They have moved a lot of the rooms around.
Kevin Cheng, property owner
- I'm one of the owners with my domestic partner Todd Mavis.
- The neighbor's three-story option is riskier, more complicated, and actually more expensive.
- The neighbor's option results in an almost $400,000 price difference.
- Also, we are trying to maintain the original single-family house and add on top. We want to keep it simple.
- The simplest solution is usually the most appropriate solution.
- I respectfully ask the Commission to approve our application.
Benjamin Ling
- We are not developers. We are first-time homebuyers.
- I plan on living in this house with my domestic partner Collin Smith and we plan on raising a family just as the neighbors have.
- We viewed this as an affordable means to have a home in the city with three bedrooms for children and for office space.
- We have made a lot of concessions in terms of bringing things back and making sure we comply with the code.
- I urge the Commission to support our project.
Jack Mavis
- I'm here with my wife Joy in support of our son Todd and his domestic partner Kevin Chang as well as Ben and Calvin Ling.
- Todd and Kevin and their partners and friends bought the house with expectations that they would be able to provide sufficient space for two families to raise children with a minimum of three bedrooms per unit.
- I did what you suggested earlier. I took a walking tour of the area - not once, but on several occasions.
- I've walked Church Street, I've walked Hill Street, I've walked the streets surrounding the area.
- I can't imagine that Todd and Kevin's expansion plans would have any negative impact on public vistas.
- Their plans are definitely an enhancement, not an out of character change to a lovely area.
- I implore you to allow them to modify their home so they will be able to raise their children, our grandchildren, in San Francisco.
Ted Loewenberg
- I wholly endorse the comments you just heard from Mr. Mavis.
- For people to say that Todd and Kevin and the others should be doing this or doing that to the building that involves substantial amounts of additional money is gratuitous thinking.
- If they are willing to pony up about $5,000 apiece in support of their objections and pay for the additional work, that is one thing.
- These gentlemen are planting their future here in this building.
- They want to build their families, their whole support system in this neighborhood. And they have done it just like everybody else.
- This should be wholly supported by your effort to support their project.
Neil Sims
- I'm here in support of my friends Todd and Kevin and their partners in this project.
- I think it is important to recognize that they intend to live here, make their home in this location, and raise their families here
- Important values that add positively to the culture and the community of the city in a way that shouldn't be dissuaded and shouldn't
- T be discouraged.
Irene Herman
- I'm a Real Estate and insurance broker.
- I was the one that represented the buyers before the people that bought this house.
- Now there are four people that bought this house, not one person.
- This makes a difference.
- The purpose of the first-time buyer is so important.
- Kevin and Ben would not have had this opportunity if they didn't have great friends like Todd and Kevin to cooperate and afford this house in San Francisco.
- No one is looking for another movie any time soon to use the area.
- We can't guarantee income from there.
- You have to give them an opportunity.
- The whole purpose of purchasing this was that they could increase another unit for themselves.
- Please allow them to be there.
MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and approve removing the 4th floor
AYES: Alexander, Hughes, Olague,
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee
ABSENT: S. Lee
RESULT: The motion failed
ACTION: Continued to March 2, 2006
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: S. Lee,
12a. 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: Approve the Conditional Use with modifications and conditions.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 2, 2005)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved as amended by staff
AYES: Antonini, Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: S. Lee
MOTION: 17186
12b. 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 Planning Code 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 2, 2005)
SPEAAKERS: None
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.
12c. 2005.0481DV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)
2826-2838 JENNINGS STREET - west side at Fitzgerald Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 4912 - Staff-initiated Discretionary Review under Planning Code Section 311, of a building permit to convert approximately 1,200 gross square feet of commercial space to three new dwellings units without access to parking or open space, subject to variance. The site is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the building permit.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 2, 2005)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Project Sponsor accepted staff recommendation. Staff has withdrawn the discretionary review.
12d. 2005.0481DV (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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 2, 2005)
SPEAAKERS: None
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance.
13a. 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.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 9, 2006
AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: Alexander
13b. 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.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 9, 2006
AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee
ABSENT: Alexander
14. 2005.1116ET (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)
Consideration of an ordinance initiated by Supervisor Chris Daly on November 22, 2005 which would amend Planning Code Sections 315.1, 315.2, 315.4 and 315.5 to increase inclusionary affordable housing requirements for all proposed residential developments of 10 units or more; adjust the income calculation methods to reflect City and County of San Francisco median income calculations; and make environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. The City Planning Commission held an informational hearing on this matter on December 8, 2005. In response to Planning Commission request on January 12, 2006, Supervisor Maxwell's proposed revisions to the inclusionary affordable housing program will also be discussed as these relate to Supervisor Daly's ordinance. No action will be taken on Supervisor Maxwell's proposed amendments. The Commission may also consider potential suggested amendments set forth in a letter to the Commission President dated January 12, 2006 sent by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: Request Board of Supervisors to defer action pending completion of the Housing Study.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 12, 2006)
SPEAKERS:
Mathew Franklin, Mayor's Office of Housing
- I've been asked to comment and give insights into specifically the provisions in the Maxwell ordinance. And they do apply, many of them, to our administration or role in the Mayor's Office of Housing Administration.
- I think the most significant from a financial perspective and potentially the only one that would have an economic impact is the question of the zones.
- This is a requirement that would create a zone for off-site, a one-mile radius, and then also lowers or deepens the targetability of AMI.
- What is germane to the study first and foremost, although not exclusively, is anything that has an economic impact is number one.
- Number two, of course, if you deepen the affordability.
- I am interested in the idea of neighborhood integration, which is what I think the zone is trying to get at, and I think that is an important principle. But, I would also suggest when we go to do this study; we should look at this question of a one-mile radius.
- Do we want to create zones within our neighborhoods?
- I would be interested in finding out whatever zone is created.
- In short, I believe the zone is an appropriate feature for the study.
- Many of the other features in the Maxwell Ordinance are optional and they pertain directly to my office, the Mayor's Office of Housing.
- Many of them are very constructive ideas.
- One of the things this would do is encourage or require that our office work with the Redevelopment Agency to bring uniformity in the program monitoring requirements.
- Another feature is the timeline on the feasibility analysis.
- This is really a question for Planning, but it is my understanding that the July deadline is what we are shooting for and hopefully sooner than that.
- I would support that as well.
- The question of the financing is one we have been approving on an exception basis and we would welcome approval of or codifying it in an ordinance so there is a clear principle and an important one in the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that says that the private developers can't go access public funds to sort of subsidize the development.
- This had previously been prohibited.
- It is a relatively shallow subsidy.
- Taxing and financing get a lower interest rate on your financing.
- What comes with it are some affordability requirements that are 20%.
- You get more for the benefit of having to go through this window.
- Low-income housing tax credits, a lot of the other financing tools we use are heavily over subscribed so we wouldn't want to open that up to the private developers.
- This is one where the funds literally, right now anyway, are sitting fallow at the State level.
- If we got to the point where nonprofits or other community-based organizations were maximizing those funds we would want to reconsider that.
- There is a requirement around mandatory lotteries on the front end for the new inclusionary units.
- This is a policy currently, but it is not in the law.
- It will be helpful when we codify it in the law.
- Another aspect of that is to require us to have a qualified list for the resale of units down the road.
- I believe this is a deficiency in our monitoring and we need a better system on resale and a fairer system.
- I'm not sold that the list is the right way.
- I think there is a lot more we can do to bring more eyes and more fairness and more competitiveness on the resale.
- I think the list will be a lot of expense, a lot of effort, and it won't work because of just the imbalance of the product versus those waiting.
- Project sponsor elections are providing something other than on-site - that they make that clear at time of permit approval rather than site permit.
- Up until about 3 or 4 months ago, the implementation of the 2002 ordinance had not really been institutionalized.
- We are now implemented between DBI and Planning and the Mayor's Office of Housing and Redevelopment to really institutionalize the requirement of when are you going to make your choice on these options [on-site, off-site, or in lieu fee].
- We have been doing it at the site permit.
- It was our sense that the time between permit approval or entitlement and your site permit is, first of all, that is how the law currently is written.
- It seemed to make sense to us to give the developer the opportunity to understand their options if they want to do off-site, for instance.
- I don't know that they are going to spend much time understanding whether there is a site they can use until they have entitlements, until it is an expense that makes sense.
- I want you to know that we have implemented a system that I think is a very good one that will ensure that literally the developer cannot get their primary site permit until and unless they fill out a form at DBI that is a firm commitment of which of the three options they're going to do.
- The final feature is this implementation feature as far as the applicability of the ordinance.
- I guess it would, as currently written, apply to anything that has not gotten site permit.
- I haven't given this a lot of thought, but entitlement is where we have been and that seems the fair point for implementation.
Tracy Parent - A Homeownership Counselor with the Mission Economic Development Agency and a Realtor
- I've been helping moderate-income folks become homeowners in San Francisco the last three years.
- I strongly support the inclusionary, the new policy and the new amendments in front of you today, especially the amendments to deepen affordability and to increase the number of units.
- This policy is really the only tool that the Commission has to measure and influence new condominium development and to ensure that our communities' socioeconomic needs are met.
Chris Durazo - SOMCAN
- I'm here to encourage you to not delay this discussion and to actually have some decisions around it.
- I guess I am actually very happy that Dr. Franklin supports 90% of it.
- The neighbor integration aspect of it is my biggest concern.
- [She identified with graphics the commercial use area in the SOMA impact area with the conditional use to allow affordable housing.]
- That in particular is going to be vulnerable if these controls, interim controls become adopted because this would just open it up for residential mixed-use, making it competitive for the market-rate developers, as well as the east SOMA
- I think Supervisor Maxwell's amendments are really strong procedural amendments and I hope you adopt those.
Joseph Perkins - President and CEO of the Home Builders Association of Northern California
- I would like to see this study incorporate some of the principles that I think will get to what everyone in this City wants or should want, and that is to accommodate as many needful households as possible to realize the dream of homeownership in this City, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world in which to live.
Rick Dishnica - Mission Armory Preservation Partners
- We are urging you to require the Nexus study being done for this legislation to analyze how an increase in affordable housing requirements for city landmarks, including ours, could make efforts at adaptive reuse economically feasible.
Sarah Karlinsky, San Francisco Urban Planning and Research Association
- I would like to reiterate SPUR supports staff recommendation that no action be taken on Daly's inclusionary ordinance until the affordable housing study is complete.
- SPUR is extremely supportive of a number of portions of the Maxwell ordinance.
- Number one, the use of a public lottery for clients of inclusionary units.
- Second, the Mayor's Office of Housing monitoring system.
- Third, the adjustment of the in lieu fee on an annual basis.
- We are supportive of the use of sid lack financing to get greater affordability for more units.
- On the issue of the off-site, SPUR strongly supports the policy objective of economic integration, but we have some concerns about the limitation of off-site units to the one-mile restriction.
- We are concerned that that might hinder some of the city's other important affordable housing policies like the redevelopment of public housing as Matt Franklin mentioned. We don't know whether this restriction would actually result in more on-site units being constructed or whether it would just with developers paying the in lieu fee.
- The increase in the targeting for the off-site, the 80%, this is actually a financial component of the ordinance and should be considered along with all the other financial aspects that are being considered with the Daly ordinance. All that should be considered within the affordable housing study.
- We are most concerned about the requirement that would make changes to the inclusionary applicable to projects in the pipeline.
- We really feel that the basis of a strong inclusionary ordinance is having certainty up front so that the developers can know what the rules are before they negotiate the land because the inclusionary basically function is a tax on the land.
- It can't function that way if the rules are continuously changing.
- We would recommend that this portion of the ordinance be changed so that any changes in the inclusionary ordinance that apply to projects up to the date of application - the first application for EIR or planning -- and not the date of pulling the building permit.
Calvin Welch, Council of Community Housing Organizations
- I am speaking in support of urging the Commission to pass it expeditiously.
- The Maxwell amendments are the Council of Community Housing Organization amendments and a package that we worked out with the Supervisor.
- Matt Franklin and the city administrative staff have reviewed it.
- We strongly urge you to move forward on the Maxwell amendment.
- It is very important for you to give clear direction to your staff on the nature of the study.
- It is important that this study look not only at inclusionary housing, but the relationship between the approval of market-rate housing and the availability and approval of affordable housing.
- Nothing in this ordinance, Section 315, meets your standards for very low-income housing needs in the Housing Element.
- You are contemplating going into the Eastern Neighborhoods and requiring or allowing thousands of units of market-rate housing and the only affordability discussion in any of the documents your staff has prepared is the inclusionary zoning ordinance, which by definition doesn't go below 60% of median.
- Yet your own Housing Element points out that 40% of the housing need is for people below 50%.
- How are you going to get there?
- This study has to help us get there as well.
- Don't let it be drawn into a fight over inclusionary zoning alone. It is much more than that.
- We don't believe there should be much of a problem with Daly.
- Move forward on Maxwell.
[Something was submitted for Charlie who came earlier but could not stay for family reasons]
Steve Vettel, Morrison and Forrester
- First on the Daly ordinance:
- I think it is important in the second whereas clause where you are talking about the General Plan, that the resolution cited the Daly ordinance is consistent with the General Plan provided it doesn't render housing projects infeasible.
- I don't think you can say that the ordinance as a blanket consistent with the General Plan before you've done the housing analysis.
- On the second page, the second to last paragraph, I also think there ought to be more neutral language. The fifth line, the sentence says in addition it will provide the analysis necessary to provide a strong defensible foundation for the amendments to the inclusionary housing requirements.
- Again, I don't think you should be prejudging that the study is going to provide a foundation to support these amendments.
- I think what this needs to say is that the study will provide the analysis necessary for you to analyze the appropriateness of any amendments.
- On the Maxwell ordinance:
- I very much agree the sidlac amendment makes sense.
- But I think it does contradict some of the other sort of hidden policies that seems to be in this ordinance, which is to strongly discourage the off-site option.
- I think it is very important that you seriously look at this issue of grandfathering.
- The Maxwell ordinance says that any amendments to the inclusionary ordinance made at the present time forever going forward are going to apply to projects until they get their site permit, which typically is about three years or so after an option agreement is made for the land.
- So, you've got a three-year period of uncertainty where developers have no idea what the inclusionary ordinance is going to require, what the percentage is, what the AMI is going to be.
- This makes it impossible to make land deals that make any sense if you've got no assurance that the ordinance is going to stay the way it is as you are moving through the process.
Sue Hester
- I believe we should be moving this legislation and not holding it up, waiting for a study.
- This legislation deals with housing that has a fairly high end of affordability. This is not housing that is going to solve the problems of people that are making under 50% of median, which is where our largest chunk of meat is in the City.
- We have got to start making things more equitable.
- Even housing that comes into the 100% of median is desperately needed and is not being built.
- I don't particularly care that it takes three years from option to site permit.
- It's a lot more disruptive to the community when they lose their housing in the first place because those who are working out options are bidding up the price of land and people are losing their housing.
- We have a very serious crisis that we need, even if it is only a marginal amount, deeper of affordability and picking up some units that are not currently covered.
- We need that now.
- We don't want to wait for a study that deals with the more deep needs in the City for deeper affordability.
Alice Barkley
- When I read through it, the version that I read, section 315.6 is not in the ordinance. So my question is, is there any change to that provision?
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and W. Lee
NAYES: Olague
ABSENT: S. Lee
RESOLUTION: 17187
15. 2006.0070T (C. NIKITAS (415) 558-6306)
UPDATE ON THE REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITIONS - Informational presentation regarding proposed changes to criteria for the review of applications to demolish dwelling units, including future initiation of Planning Code amendments to require Discretionary Review for those demolitions not presently subject to Conditional Use authorization.
Preliminary Recommendation: Discussion only - No action to be taken at this hearing
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 26, 2006)
SPEAKERS:
Sue Hester
- I think this is going in the right direction.
- I would hope that we pit a demolition policy issue on for at least one of the hearings. At the beginning at a time certain, not at 9:00 at night.
- I need to go through this and think about things I learned.
- We had two really good hearings, this commission and me and my clients.
- We got into housing demolitions seriously.
- Two totally separate issues, but they both went right to the heart of how you look at housing demolitions, how you deal with foundation issues, because the foundations were at exponentially high costs.
- I think you are doing the right thing.
- When it comes back, can it not be at 9 o'clock at night please?
Pat Buscovich
- This policy is having an effect right up front telling people you can't tear down your house just because you want to tear it down to make more money.
- I don't use the 75% threshold. If you can't meet the 50%, you shouldn't be using it.
- I think we should still be talking about the qualitative standards.
- I still want to have something about a 50% with a room from 45 to 55 with some qualitative looking at the buildings.
- We should have some qualitative review.
- We should have a demolition impact fee.
- I think this peer review needs to be done.
- I don't think you are going to find a lot of people wanting to do it.
- I'm a little concerned about DBI versus DCP standards for demolition. We could end up with four different interpretations of what demolitions are.
- I think it's really important to be looking at family long-term owned units differently than specs.
- Someone buying something is different than something that has been in the family a long time.
- Long-term may be able to be deferred.
- Spec -- you bought the price -- you bought the deferred.
- I think it is critically important that the Zoning Administrator have some authority over fire-damaged buildings, over partially collapsed buildings.
- These buildings that are just flat out blighted in the neighborhood, that there is really no redeeming value, and you can go through the report, but you can't tear these buildings down to do a replacement unless the Zoning Administrator can make a blight decision.
Alice Barkeley
- I agree that you have to look at owner occupied single-family homes differently for two reasons.
- One of them is that I have many clients who are getting older, who want to build two units so they can get an income. Also, they get to the point where they need an elevator and it is extremely difficult to retrofit your normal San Francisco single-family home with an elevator.
- I thing those really should be looked at differently because they are the demolitions that don't harm anyone. The owners intend to go back and occupy them.
- The other thing is high-density areas -- especially in the Chinatown area, where you have these single-family homes that have been there a long time.
- They are very tiny and you can build three units in a high-need area.
- I think they should also be looked at a little different. They're just sitting there with the house doing nothing. They don't quite meet the 50%.
ACTION: Meeting held. Informational and public discussion only. No action
I. 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))
SPEAKERS:
Judy Berkowitz - Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
- On October 20th you unanimously acted to not recommend Better Neighborhoods Plus to the Board of Supervisors, to wait until a pilot project was analyzed, and you should take no action until it should be finished.
- Since that time, three or four amendments of the whole have taken place.
- The last one, on January 18th you received a letter from the Land Use Committee that said that the ordinance is pending and will be scheduled for hearing on receipt of your response.
- It doesn't appear that you considered this and I would like to know what happened because Director Macris sent a letter back to the Board of Supervisors that said that you had held a hearing on the proposed ordinance on October 20th, which is true. But he sent this letter on January 25th.
- The original letter said that the completely revised ordinance was supposed to be scheduled for hearing in front of you.
- I would like some information on what happened.
- Did you consider this a second time? Did I miss it?
- Basically I'm asking a question and perhaps informing you of something that happened and you didn't know about it.
Acting President Alexander
- Director Macris is not in the room.
- We will ask him to respond as to what the status of this legislation is and whether or not it has been amended, and if so, why it didn't come back to us.
Adjournment: 9:12 p.m. In memory of Corretta Scott King
THESE MINUTES ARE PORPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2006
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, W. Lee, Hughes, Olague
EXCUSED: Moore, Sugaya
