July 27, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 27, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Antonini; William Lee; Kathrin Moore and Christina Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Dwight Alexander and Hisashi Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT CHRISTINA OLAGUE AT 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; Adam Varat; Adam Light; Dan Sider; Elizabeth Watty; Aaron Starr; April Hesik; Kate Stacey – Deputy City Attorney; 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. 2006.0661D (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

889 NORTH POINT STREET - south side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.10.6437, proposing to build a new four-story three-unit building. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. This Discretionary Review is only for the building at 889 North Point Street. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

1b. 2003.0367V (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

2998 LARKIN STREET, 899 NORTH POINT STREET, 889 NORTH POINT STREET - South side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for a Zoning Administrator Determination under Planning Code Section 228.4 for conversion of the former gasoline service station to a new use. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

1c. 2006.0367V (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

2998 LARKIN STREET, 899 NORTH POINT STREET, 889 NORTH POINT STREET - South side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 – Request for a Variance under Planning Code Sections 121(e) and 134(c)(1) for conversion of the former gasoline service station to a new use. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. Section 121(e) of the Planning Code requires a minimum lot area of 1,750 square feet for the corner lot at 2998 Larkin Street. This lot is proposed to be 1,656 square feet and does not meet the minimum Planning Code requirement. Section 134(c)(1) of the Planning Code limits the last 10 feet of building depth permitted by rear yard averaging to 30 feet in height. The buildings are proposed to be up to 39'-3 in height at the rear and do not meet this Planning Code requirement. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2a. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a shadow impact determination regarding the significance of net new shadow on Civic Center Plaza and Howard-Langton Mini Park caused by a proposal to (1) demolish an existing four- to seven-story apartment building, which contains 377 residential rental units (including 360 rent-controlled units), a ground-floor restaurant, and surface and below-grade parking for approximately 450 vehicles, and (2) construct three buildings ranging in height from 148 feet to 223 feet and containing approximately but no more than 1,900 residential rental units, approximately 91,878 square feet of usable open space, approximately 60,000 square feet of commercial space, and a garage with up to 1,450 parking spaces (1,200 residential and 250 commercial). The project site is within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 120-X, 150-X, and 240-S Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary recommendation: Determine that the net new shadow on Civic Center Plaza and Howard-Langton Mini Park is not adverse

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2b. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

Preliminary recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00PM on March 15, 2006.

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2c. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Adoption of CEQA findings related to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project described in Item 2a.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the CEQA findings

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2d. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a General Plan amendment related to the project described in Item 2a. The General Plan amendment consists of reclassifying the height and bulk districts for the project site as shown on Map 5 – Proposed Height and Bulk Districts and referred to in Policy 13.1 of the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan, from 120-X, 150-X and 240-S to 160-X, 180-X and 240-S.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2e. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for zoning map amendments related to the project described in Item 2a. The zoning map amendments consist of (1) reclassifying the height and bulk districts for the project site shown on Map 1H of the Zoning Maps from 120-X, 150-X, and 240-S to 160-X, 180-X, and 240-S and (2) adding the Trinity Plaza Special Use District to Map 1SU of the Zoning Maps.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2f. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a Planning Code text amendment related to the project described in Item 2a. The Planning Code text amendment consists of adding Section 249.34 to the Planning Code to create the Trinity Plaza Special Use District. The specific provisions of the Trinity Plaza Special Use District will (a) eliminate floor area ratio limits, maximum dwelling unit density limits, and sunlight access to public sidewalk requirements, and (b) allow exceptions from dwelling unit exposure requirements through the process outlined in Section 309 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2g. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for a Section 309 Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions. See Item 2a for a project description. The project requires setback, rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, wind, parking, loading, and bulk exceptions pursuant to Section 309(a).

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2h. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for conditional use authorization to (1) demolish a residential use in a C-3 District and (2) provide a new curb cut and driveway on a transit-preferential street for the project described in Item 2a.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

2i. 2002.1179E!KMZTXCW (M. LI: (415) 558-6398)

1167 MARKET STREET (aka Trinity Plaza) - southeast corner at Eighth Street; Lots 039 and 051 through 053 in Assessor's Block 3507, and a portion of the former Jessie Street between Seventh and Eighth Streets - Request for approval of a development agreement between Trinity Properties, Inc. and the City and County of San Francisco related to the project described in Item 2a.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Proposed for continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

3. 2006.0413EXV & 2002.1077E (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

149 MASON STREET - west side between Ellis and Eddy Streets, Lot 017 (formerly Lot 2 and a portion of Lot 3) in Assessor's Block 0331 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determinations of Compliance with Exceptions for the construction of an 8-story, approximately 85-foot tall building containing 56 dwelling units, approximately 980 square feet of ground floor retail space and no parking. All of the units are proposed to be affordable studio units for formerly homeless individuals. The project will be the subject of a concurrent variance hearing before the Zoning Administrator for usable open space and dwelling unit exposure. This project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District, and is within a 130-F Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 10, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

4. 2002.1263U (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

333 Fremont Street - Motion to Approve In-Kind Agreement to Satisfy Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee Requirement per Section 318.3(e). The Planning Commission approved a project at 333 Fremont Street on June 16, 2005, that includes approximately 88 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupied square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project required a payment of approximately $769,142. On March 14, 2006, the project sponsor deposited the full amount of its required fee, plus interest, into an escrow account payable to the City, pending approval of an In-Kind Agreement that would credit the sponsor for a portion of the fee in exchange for publicly-accessible improvements in accordance with the Rincon Hill Plan. The project sponsor has entered into an In-Kind Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to construct, and dedicate a permanent public easement on, a mid-block pedestrian pathway on the project site. The Planning Department recommends a fee credit equal to construction cost of the pathway improvements (approximately $240,000) plus the value of the public easement ($333,200), or approximately $573,200 total. The City would thus draw from the escrow account the difference of the full fee and this credit, or $195,942, and deposit this amount in the Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of July 20, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to August 10, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

5a. 2005. 0307D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 CAPP STREET - west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2659 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project also includes the new construction of a three-unit building.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 14, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

5b. 2005.0329DD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 Capp Street- west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, and a request of Discretionary Review, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2663 for the new construction of a three-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 22, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to September 14, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

6. 2006.0601EZ (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Map in order to change the zoning classification of two lots at the intersection of Baker and McAllister Streets from RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) to NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster). The subject properties are Assessor's Block 1177 / Lot 001 (aka 645-647 Baker Street, aka 1801 McAllister Street) and Block 1178 / Lot 019 (aka 636 Baker Street, aka 1795-1799 McAllister Street) which are located at the southwest and southeast corners of the intersection, respectively. The Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi as part of Board of Supervisor's File Number 060538.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting. A vote on the minutes is different from a vote on a permit; the vote doesn't have the same adjudicative and due process implications.

7. Consideration of Adoption:

Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 23, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: without hearing, continued to August 3, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

8. Commission Comments/Questions

Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

Commented on the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
My understanding is that this is a situation in which a project that has been given a bonus density of height or density and is subject to the new levels unless the project has received approval before the law takes effect.
The law will take effect soon pending the Mayor's signature.
I think the idea behind the framing of this was that usually this increased density or height is quid pro quo for increased affordability.
That may not always be the case.
There are other projects that will fall under the increased density as a reward for more open space perhaps, or allowing special situations like lifetime leases for tenants, or permanent rent controlled units, or other things that are not technically affordability related but rather are for other terms.
I have a question of the City Attorney or staff regarding this. I don't need the answer now.
Do we have discretion over the issues in regards to whether or not a project of this nature would come under the new inclusionary ordinance if the reason it received the additional bonus was not for affordability but other reasons?
Trying not to get into a one size fits all situations, but to give the Commission discretion to look at different projects and determine whether they are under the auspices of this.

Commissioner Lee

Regarding the MCD's of last week, I have thoughts.
Is it possible to get the community to work together to come up with some good neighborhood practices that they can agree upon? And then they work with the Planning Department, the Police, The Health Department and Building and Fire so we can help them so when they come before us we have some sort of consistency between all the dispensaries.
The Planning Department should think about this so maybe when we have our hearing you can share your thoughts.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

We have scheduled a hearing for September 14^th on the Medical Cannabis Dispensaries. Prior to that we will be sending you the legislation that was adopted and highlighting aspects of the legislation that I think addresses some o the concerns we have heard. On September 14^th I am sure we will have other recommendations. Some of the concerns we have heard over the last couple of weeks may be addressed through the processes that exist now. Others we have to do further work on.

Commissioner Moore

Regarding MCD's: The tools we have are not enough. In our September 14^th meeting, should we, or can we look at enabling legislation and potentially consider that it be amended, revised, or expanded?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

You could direct staff to draft amendments to the legislation that we would bring back before you for initiation.
I urge caution on that because the legislation just went into place. We need to allow time for it to work.
We can work with the Supervisor if there are concerns.

Commissioner Moore

Everybody recognizes this is an evolving piece of legislation.
Everyone used their good will and liberal thinking to pass the legislation, which, based where we are in history, is difficult.
However, if we are responsible and need to move it forward, we need to be able to potentially expand and amend the legislation if the tools we have within city government are not enough.

Amit Ghosh – Chief of Citywide Policy and Analysis Division of the Planning Department

In response to Commissioner Antonini's question:
I will defer to the City Attorney about the question about the discretion you have over what was read at the first reading at the Board on Tuesday. However the application of the new legislation will be on any application that is at the Department on or after July 18^th.
There is a qualification that if approvals before July 18^th received zoning amendment of Planning Code Text Amendment that result in a net increase of number of residential units or results in a material increase in the permissible residential square footage, if both apply, the provisions of 17 and 23 percent, the percentage points in the legislation will be discussed at the time of approval.
The way it is defined is that for purposes of these discretionary actions, material increase shall mean an increase of 5 percent or more or an increase of 10,000 square feet, whichever is less.
There is guidance as to what would be considered material or not.
Do you have discussion over the rest of the ordinance was the question?

Kate Stacy – Deputy City Attorney

I don't have the information in front of me. We will get back with you next week.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements

None

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

Dan Sider – Department Staff reported

Full Board of Supervisors:

Inclusionary Housing Policy Changes
- McGoldrick's change in the size of project subject to requirements passed on 2^nd reading unanimously
- Daly/Maxwell's change in level of affordability and other policy matters passed on 1^st reading unanimously
Jackson Square SUD
- Expanding the district and requiring CU for ground floor institutional uses passed on the 1^st reading unanimously
Appeal of Cat Ex for 899 North Point
- 2^nd environmental appeal on this project. It was unexpected given neighborhood agreement resulting from the 1^st appeal
- Appellant did not attend the hearing
- Our CEQA determination was upheld

Land Use and Economic Development Committee:

Landmarking of the Doggie Diner Signage
- Reviewed and endorsed by this Commission and the Landmarks Board
- Passed to full Board with recommendation for approval.

Introductions:

Permanent Check Cashing Controls
- Following on the current moratorium of such uses, Ammiano introduced permanent controls in what would be called a Fringe Financial Services Restricted Use District'
LPAB and CPC Time Limits on Review of Landmark Designations
- Change LPAB limit from 30 to 45 days
- Establish CPC review time limit of 90 days from receipt of LPAB decision

Commissioner Antonini

On the check cashing proposed ordinance, is that a geographic one dealing with certain areas of the City?
Does that involve additional outlets that cash checks or the ones in existence?

Dan Sider

We understand it to be a geographic legislation in certain areas of the city on these particular financial uses.
Any new land use control would afford non-conforming status to existing ones that don't comply.

Board of Appeals - Zoning Administrator Badiner reported

Two cases of interest:

944 Church Street

· You chose not to take Discretionary Review on March 16 of this year.

· The neighborhood was concerned abut potential public view blockage and about whether it was in character

· The Board of Appeals upheld you 3 to 2 with Commissioner Knox and Haaland voting against.

· You may remember that I talked about a case on Kansas Street where I have started to impose an affordability requirement where I grant variances for garden apartments where you often have a trade with providing the parking or providing the unit.

· The Board of Appeals overturned me last week stating there was not a policy basis for that and they were concerned about it.

· I told you I was probably going to request a re-hearing.

· [On occasion I cool down] I thought about it more and I had discussions with some of the commissioners over the last week and they expressed support for the concept but thought it shouldn't be done ad hoc or at random.

· I think I had been doing them ad hoc before and now I will do them consistently.

· They are popping up now and the Board says when did you discuss this?

· It is a valid concern.

· I have tentatively scheduled for September 10^th, using this Commission as a forum and seeking your advice.

· I think it is the best place to get public input on this.

· If I did it on a Variance Hearing it's not as publicly noticed calendar as the Commission's is.

· This may provide what the Board wants.

· The second case of this type was before the Board last night. Though I asked for a continuance so I could go through the public process, some commissioners were okay with that. The project sponsor said it would be a hardship because the unit they were proposing was for their in-laws. They were concerned that the affordability would be too low for their in-laws to qualify.

· They approved this second case at 1274 15^th Avenue 5 to 0.

· They want to hold a joint hearing with the Planning Commission if the Planning Commission would engage.

· I'm going to suggest subsequent hearings. After that, if it makes sense to hold a joint hearing we can do that.

· We may want to do some legislation in the future.

· I think we can start with what I think is a valid comment by the Board of Appeals.

· The public needs to understand. I should publicize it and get input on it. We may be loosing one or two individual units but I'm not worried about the individual if we can get a stronger policy in place that results in more of these units in the future.

· That is the path I will pursue rather than requesting a re-hearing.

· Rather than going to war, let's try to do this in a peaceful manner.

Commissioner Antonini

- I welcome the ability to comment on that.

- I think you wanted to make the point that the commission was not unified in the support for this particular policy and I would be interested in jurisdictional questions as to the inclusionary housing ordinance and how it ducktails with this particular situation given there are fewer than five units.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- I think it's an excellent question I need to explore.

- As we approach that time, if there are questions or concerns that you can give me in advance that I can answer I will be happy to do that at the August 10^th hearing.

Commissioner Moore

- I think the strategy is commendable. Perhaps the two new commissioners could be [briefed]?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- There will be a memo that would explain what I'm attempting to do and also describe the basis for it, like the fact there have been studies that have shown a relationship between affordability and decreased parking demand. That's the link.

- I don't think you are at a disadvantage in pass discussions.

- I will make sure there is a memo

Vice President Olague

- I think it is a move in the right direction.

- I appreciate that there is more public education on this matter because I think when we have certain policies and they are not applied equally across the board it creates confusion and distrust on the part of the public.

- I'm glad we are making it an open process.

11. 2005.0728U (A. VARAT: (415) 558-6405)

LELAND AVENUE STREETSCAPE DESIGN PROJECT - Informational Only. Staff will make a presentation on the Leland Avenue Streetscape Design Project. This project is a part of the Department's Better Streets Program, which comprehensively plans for streets throughout the city. The Project creates a conceptual design for detailed pedestrian, streetscape, and traffic calming improvements to Leland Avenue, the main street of Visitacion Valley. The design is the result of a community process that took place from October 2005 to February 2006.

Preliminary recommendation: Informational only, no action requested.

PRSENTERS:

David Alumbaugh – Department staff

- Last year, as part of the work program, one of the goals was elevating the designs to the public realm.

- We ramped up a program called the Better Streets Program that we started under the Better Neighborhoods Program.

- That program became so popular that Marshall Foster who was a member of staff was taken to the Mayor's office as Director of Greening.

- We have continued with that program and joined with the Mayor's office to take on greening of the city and join others as well.

- As an example, we are going to embark on the Streetscape Master Plan for streets – the designs of streets and the deplorable conditions the streets are in; how the streets are maintained; and set out a program for purposeful improvement of streets over time.

- The contract for that is being handled through the Transportation Authority.

- Just this week their Board approved their Director to enter into contract with a consultant to begin the Streetscape Master Plan

- Today, Adam, who was the project manager of the Leland project and works on the Better Streets Program will give you an overview of the Better Streets Program and tell you the particulars of Leland Avenue.

Adam Varat – Department staff

- The Better Streets Program is the framework for designing streets in the city and the Leland Avenue project in particular.

- The program has two points.

- It is a framework for street design, planning and design of streets in the city.

- Our take on this is that streets need to be designed holistically.

- We are talking about the physical design of streets, but for land use and economical development and the open opportunities the adjacent buildings and these that go into making an active and usable street.

- That is the philosophy as we approach the street design projects.

- The other point to make: the projects we choose will build on an existing framework of plans that the Department is working on through the long-range planning activities.

- We are identifying particular street improvements.

- The Better Streets Program will move the plans and move them to implementation.

- The project today falls from the work we have done in the neighborhood over the last five years.

- The basic goals of the project is about beautification and greening and pedestrian quality and safety.

- It's about using streetscapes to increase economic viability of commercial districts and the livability of residential districts; and seeing how streets can increase open space, particularly in neighborhoods that lack open space.

- Lastly, a new idea to look at is the street function with storm water run off.

- We have been working with DPW and the Mayor's office to make this a broad look at streets.

- We're also looking at more major transit boulevards like Geary or Van Ness.

- We have area plans, long-range plans we are working on that will have the street components and we will take the plans toward implementation.

- The last concept is the Master Plan for Streets and Streetscape, such as the Streetscape Master Plan and the Mission Streetscape Plan.

- That summarizes the Better Streets Program.

- The Leland Avenue project is the first project that came out of it.

- We see it as a model for how this program could work for other streets.

- It encompasses the goals I talked about – economic; increasing open space in an underserved neighborhood; and pedestrian safety components.

- This project came abut because of a grant we received from the Junior Foundation.

- We hired a design consultant team from the contract you approved about a year ago.

- We looked at what to do and how to redevelop a 20-acre industrial site with a locked factory on it.

- Part of the plan is to extend Leland Avenue into the locked site.

- This is a Visitation Valley survey area.

- We are working with Redevelopment Agency to bring this to the area.

- In '05, the Mayor's Office of Economic Development looked at the revitalization of Leland Avenue.

- This project had recommendations on what to do to help the businesses and one was to do streetscape improvements.

- This project follows from that recommendation.

- Leland Avenue is small, about four to five blocks.

- It's a small-scaled street with 2 to 3-story buildings and small businesses.

- There is a sense that this street needs improvement.

- There is a lack of amenities. There's no lighting.

- The street shuts down and there is a perception that it becomes derelict.

- The street has a lot of assets to build on.

- The light rail will have stops two blocks on either side of Leland Avenue.

- The public library intends to build a new branch on one of the corners of Leland.

- We hired the design firm and went to the community and had design workshops to develop the design that you will see shortly.

- We focused on merchants and tried to meet their schedules.

- We worked with other agencies throughout the city to come up with a plan that everyone is on board with to address issues.

- [Through a power point presentation he presented the project. He pointed out the five lots of the commercial district. Explained how they want to create an alternating rhythm of street trees and pedestrian lighting. There would be more significant plantings at the intersection. Crosswalks and sidewalks would be extended out into the parking lane to shorten the crossing distance. He showed what a cross section would look like with one lane of traffic and a parking lane, and with the proposed added trees, lights and paving as well as the more significant planting at the corner. He showed an area that would be used for storm water management. And a special area where the greenland comes into an existing plaza. The proposal would be to extend the sidewalk to the parking lane and extend the plaza and create a seating area with special plantings. The plan is to extend it further by raising the level of the road to let drivers know they are entering a commercial district with a lot of pedestrians. At Bayshore Boulevard, the proposal is to extend the south side of the street to create a plaza with a gateway element that announces arrival to Leland Avenue for people coming off Bayshore, which is the main point of access. This will create a shift in the traffic direction. It will signal the drivers to slow down, that they are coming to an area with pedestrians and a smaller scale shopping street.]

- We had the consultant look at the elements we can use – lighting, planting, street trees, street furniture and the storm water management strategies.

- Visitation Valley water shed experiences a lot of flooding. Our strategies would be designed to allow water to go to the soil at a slower pace rather than going to the gutter at a faster rate.

- We will have permeable paving.

- We propose a similar thing where you have a cut in the curve that leads to the plated area.

- Lastly, there is also a significant component for public art in the gateway.

- The pedestrian lights, the benches could be customized with public art pieces.

- For now, we have applied for capital funding through a regional grant source.

- We expect to hear from that in October.

- At that point we can go on to the design.

Director Macris

- This little project is a model of a bigger thing we want to do.

- We are seeking three million dollars from MTC to get it built.

- We feel optimistic we will be able to do that

- One of the many things this Department and Commission need to do is address how the city looks and feels particularly in the public realm. There are a couple of things you have to do to get there.

- It has to be taken seriously.

- There is support among the city's leadership to undertake this program.

- There are five city departments that have contributed money to get the Master Plan for streets started.

- It's a part of another component that MTA is doing, which is a Master Plan for pedestrians.

- We are consolidating that activity creating a citizen's advisory committee to oversee it and work with us as we move in the coming year to create these standards for the streets.

- It isn't just good enough to have a plan; we have to have a funding source and an organization.

- What we have done at our urging and the Mayor working strongly with us on this, we have created a Director's working group, which meets monthly if not more with day-to-day- staff activity to oversee this program.

- In the end, all the departments have to consolidate their interests and go to the city leadership, including this commission, as well as their own commissions and say, this is what we think are the standards for the streets; and here is what we are proposing as an annual funding program in order to accomplish this over time.

- Chicago is often used as the model for this program, which they have been doing for the last 10-12-15 years under Mayor Daly.

- Every major city and Mayor is envious of what Chicago has accomplished – 72 miles of lusciously planted streets through every neighborhood.

- We are now where we should be.

- We have an organization.

- We've tested out things.

- Leland is an example of this.

- We are working on the Divisadero and Polk Streets

- Our streets are not in good condition.

- I think there is enthusiastic support to accomplish this area.

- You are going to hear about this repeatedly as we crank up this major effort.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational only. No action

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

SPEAKERS:

Jim Miko – Chair of the Western SOMA Citizens Planning Task Force

- Three pieces of legislation have passed at the Board of Supervisors last week related to Western SOMA: A Western SOMA Special Use District was created; Neighborhood notification and Conditional Use for formula retail were approved; and a 45 day moratorium was approved.

- We need this time to see that special circumstances will be considered by you for a CU application. \We ask that the Southeast Section plan with us.

- Last night the full Task Force unanimously asked the Board of Supervisors to introduce interim controls on market rate SRO units in South of Market and CU in all of SOMA zoning districts with the exception of the service light zoning.

John Pollard

- I'm here on behalf of the San Francisco Garage Company.

- What we found in the last eight years with the Planning Department is it has been hit and miss.

- We had a great seven years, but the last year it has come to a halt in getting permits over the counter for wood windows or improving the façade on a stucco building, which the primary of our business is new garages.

- I heard there was a code amendment three years ago that says any building over 50 years old has to be approved by a historical planner. There are only a few to approve such projects. Those planners are at the counter a couple times a week for an hour or two.

- In the last two months we have not received a permit for a new garage. We pull 50 to 60 permits a year.

- There is another garage company in the city that pulls 10 to 20 permits. They are older than us and they are having problems as well with the permits.

- They will build three garages on the same street and the fourth doesn't get approved. Same building. Built in 1908 and the planner says, I don't approve it.

- I don't know what to do.

- I apologize to Mr. Macris for not going to him. I personally don't know anyone at the Planning Department. I have not dealt with managers at the Planning Department. I know the clerks at the counter and a little bit about Mr. Badiner.

- We ask for your help. Our clients are driving us bonkers, especially clients on multiple projects. For years we got their plans approved in a week and now we don't have a simple permit.

- We ask for your help.

Bradley Weedimyer

- 2870 Washington Street and 2304 Divisadero

- Across the city there are a number of buildings, important low-rise buildings that are without parking. They are a type of residence that is different from contemporary residential buildings that have parking.

- I want to know the policy in place to address conversions of this type of building, which rates today as moderate-income housing. When garages are inserted in them, they go to a luxury status. It's a transformation.

- This particular building perhaps has been based on fraudulent or elderly people who lived there for decades.

- It's going forward apparently.

- What kind of differentiation within housing is there so this zoning variance can be waived because it is residential?

- Is there a city plan that addresses the number of conversions to vehicular residential use citywide?

- If we put parking in every unit in the city there will be gridlock. Is there an annual tally or allotment included?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- Advised Mr. Pollard to contact Mr. Neil Hart of Department Staff

Commissioner Antonini

- I think we should calendar some sort of a discussion in regards to this issue because it would seem to me if there has been a policy change that the Commission should be able to weigh in on the change if it is occurring because it is an important issue.

- Many people want to put garages in pre-existing homes.

- We should hear about this and find out what the things are as far as preservation.

- What is SLI zone? Are there zones where you can't have market-rate housing? I didn't know such a thing existed. We should know about that.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- SLI is Service Light Industrial. It is in south of Market. It is one of the few districts that makes a difference where you can't have market-rate, but you can have affordable housing. It is a unique district in that way.

- The matter of garages has not been brought to my attention. We will look into this and comment more on it.

- I imagine at some point we will get follow up regarding the legislation and SLI's. It will come back to us.

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.

12. 2006.0604ET (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the Planning Code in order to allow certain entertainment uses in the C-VR (Chinatown Visitor Retail) District. The proposed amendments would modify Planning Code Section 811.47b and the Specific Provisions for the C-VR District in order to allow other entertainment' as a principal use on the first and second stories so long as the use is operated in conjunction with a full-service restaurant. The Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Peskin, as part of Board of Supervisors File Number 060533.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17284

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

13. 2006.0602ETZ (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Consideration of an Ordinance Amending the Planning Code and Zoning Map in order to establish a Lower Haight Street Alcohol Restricted Use District' (RUD). The proposed amendments would (1) add Planning Code Section 784 to restrict certain liquor establishments within the RUD, (2) establish boundaries for the RUD which would generally encompass the Neighborhood Commercial zoning districts along and nearby Haight Street between approximately Scott and Webster Streets, and (3) establish a 3 year sunset' provision after which the RUD would no longer apply. The Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi as part of Board of Supervisors File Number 060537.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS:

Johnson

- I live in lower Haight

- On this thing it says restrict liquor establishments. It didn't specify.

- I have no problem with the off sale.

- I was thinking it would hurt restaurants.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17285

14a. 2005.0617CEKV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

130 TURK STREET - north side between Taylor and Jones Streets, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0339 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for height in excess of 40 feet in an R District in conjunction with the addition of two new floors to an existing three-story building (Planning Code Section 253), in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS:

Paul Wane, Architect for the project

- The previous use was a bathhouse.

- This building has been vacant for 15 years.

- It's a 3-story building, 11,000 sq. ft. with a 3,500 sq. ft. basement.

- The height of the building is 46 feet.

- The taller building to the east of our project is about 69 feet and the smaller building is about 35 feet.

- For our project, we are proposing that we do a full restoration of the existing historical façade with the new residential and commercial entries at the street level.

- We are doing a full seismic retrofit of the existing building along with the addition.

- The two floors added at the rear of the building create a 5-story building with one level of basement.

- The three off-street parking spaces are actually below grade and accessed via car lift.

- We are proposing commercial office spaces at the ground level and nine market-rate residential condominiums on floors 2 through 5 with open space on the roof.

- The height of the addition we are proposing is 19 feet above the existing building.

- We are adding this portion with the additional 9 feet for various mechanical stairs and elevator penthouses to access the roof.

- The new building would have a height of 65 feet and the top of the penthouse is approximately 74 feet 6 inches.

- The break down of the rental units is four one-bedroom studio sized units, three two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units at the top two floors.

- Our challenge in this project in maintaining the historical façade was how do we bring light and air into the residential units?

- We have come up with a scheme where we create this large unit court and basically create two rental towers on either side to get light and air into the rental units.

- There is also a smaller light wall we are cutting in at the back of the building to get light and air in to the deeper units.

- Also, as the light wall is steep, we are removing a portion of the existing wall and then putting in property line windows looking over that shorter building.

- Last November we had a meeting with two neighborhood groups – The Tenderloin Collaborative and the North of Market Planning Coalition.

- Last month we had a follow up meeting with the groups and we didn't get objections.

- We had a pre-application meeting with the Building and Fire Department because the exiting through the project was tricky to get around.

- We worked out those issues along with the property line window issues with the Fire and Building Departments.

- We believe that this project would improve the neighborhood in that it provides nine additional rental units.

ACTION: Approved as amended: to add the language and roof top detailing to condition number 5 in Exhibit A of the draft motion; address greening on the roof and detailing of the façade.

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

MOTION: 17286

14b. 2005.0617CEKV (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

130 TURK STREET - north side between Taylor and Jones Streets, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0339, in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined High Density) District and an 80-120-T Height and Bulk District – Request for Rear-Yard and Dwelling-Unit-Exposure Variances in conjunction with the addition of two new floors to an existing three-story building and its conversion to nine dwelling units.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variances.

15. 2005.0659C (T. WANG (415) 558-6335)

85 SAINT ELMO WAY- southeast side between Monterey Boulevard and Yerba Buena Avenue; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 3049 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 304 Planned Unit Developments, to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence of Consul General of the People's Republic of China, with a modification of rear yard requirements in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwelling) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 3, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

16. 2006.0537D (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

1678 Great Highway - east side between Moraga and Lawton Avenues, Lot 026, in Assessor's Block 1895 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit 2006.02.01.6549 proposing to legalize work performed without permits, including reconstructing the rear of a single family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Mark O'Flynn, Discretionary Review applicant

- I own the adjoining properties at 1672 and 1674 Great Highway.

- The permit applicant constructed an addition on his property and is trying to obtain approval after the fact by representing to the Planning staff that he has the same footprint.

- I have to state the permit applicant has acted in bad faith.

- In the past he's had a history of this type of behavior.

- He's previously been required to demolish an addition he had constructed on the rear portion of the rear structure on his property.

- This is not a new conduct on his behalf.

- In front of you, you should have affidavits submitted from the previous owner of the property, in addition to affidavits from two of the previous tenants, Christian Huff and Michael Wolf resulting in a new 200-foot addition.

- The crux of this issue is whether or not the permit applicant has actually expanded the size of his building.

- He is making representations on his building permit that he has not expanded. I take issues with that.

- In addition to the affidavits, I submitted two copies of appraisal reports from appraisal companies dated March 20, 2002 and September 11, 2003.

- They were hired by the permit applicant and said the depth of the building was 48 feet.

- There are aerial photographs that show the property prior to construction. The date is 2001.

- There is an aerial photograph showing the project in the course of construction, taken in 2004 that shows the condition of the property after the rear portion had been deconstructed or demolished and an aerial photograph, the current year of how the structure currently looks.

- Comparing the 3 structures it's evident that the structure has been expanded by a sizable amount.

- I would like to also point out that Mr. Badiner issued a letter of determination.

- The letter was based upon the fact that this project has not had an expanded footprint and that the new structure occupies the previous footprint of the property.

- Also, there are color photographs showing close-up detail of the property prior to and after construction.

- I think these photographs very clearly show the extent of the size increase in this project.

- I think all of the items together support the fact that the permit applicant has significantly expanded the footprint of this property without appropriate permits and without appropriate neighborhood notification.

- Action like this individual's places the Planning Commission and Department of Building Inspection under public scrutiny.

- I submitted motions to the committee, which I hope you will consider. The only other comment I have to make is the applicant is relying upon maps dating to the 30's to show he is not expanding the size.

Douglas Jacuzzi, architect, representing project sponsor

- I would like to point out first, Mr. O'Flynn's comments on his photographs.

- One of the first things that we did in analyzing this project was to create an analysis from photographs given to us by the property owner from the time he purchased the property.

- In the as-built condition when he purchased the property, and when you walk yourself around the property to the setback notch where the existing rear addition extends from the higher portion of the property, you see the window at the turn and follow around to you see there is a motorcycle parked and an exterior shower.

- To the top of this page, from the time he purchased his property you see the rooftop of the existing extension of the extension of the building prior to any work being done.

- Going to the same sequence of photographs after the construction was completed we can see, moving around the side of the property back up a little to one of the key issues, the light well from the neighboring apartment building that is clouded with sheeting.

- This is a photograph that was submitted by Mr. O'Flynn, that we count the number of siding boards and determine the extension of the original construction. There were 13 siding boards.

- The photograph taken after the work took place there remains 13 siding boards to the extent of the construction.

- Mr. O'Flynn has taken other shots at different angles to distort that image.

- It is fairly clear here where the construction ends. Particularly in relation to the existing roof before construction, and from the inside existing roof seeing the extension, and again in the roof after construction, and from inside the window after construction.

Ean

- Ever since I was a kid I wanted to live by the beach.

- I moved to the Great Highway and I remodeled the front house so my family could live in the unit.

- We have been in the unit for two and a half years and we are renting an apartment while we are waiting.

- I did get a permit for the work done.

- I did not intend to subvert the process.

- I submitted my permit, it was not perfect and I hired an architect to correct it.

- Mr. O'Flynn has a personal problem with me that stems from a bad real estate transaction.

- He stated that for $25,000 he would make the problem go away and continues to intimate that the financial payment would make this stop and if I did not pay he will push and push and push.

- This process has been going on with Mr. Jacuzzi for a year. He is trying to cloud the real issue. He submitted pictures to you that are taken from off angles to make the project seem like it expanded the footprint.

- If you look at the pictures with the counting of the 13 slots they are dead on.

- There are only 6 people in the world that are going to see this. The two people who live in the back where I live, they signed the a petition and expressed their support much the same as the person who lives in Mr. O'Flynn's rental property where he does not live and never plans to live, signed the petition.

- The two people in front of his unit also submitted their signed petition. All the people around this have signed the petition in favor.

- As far as the sand born maps, there are no dimensions on O'Flynn's pictures.

- If you look at the maps, the property has been in this shape since it was built in 1915.

ACTION: Did not take DR and approved the application as submitted

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

17. 2006.0050DD (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

3577 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between Locust and Spruce Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0970 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.07.5061, proposing to add a third story, expand the building at the rear, and alter the front facade. The property is located within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: None. Discretionary Review applications were withdrawn.

18a. 2006.0385D (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

2300 VALLEJO STREET - north side between Fillmore and Steiner Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 0558 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application 2006.03.27.7562, proposing to merge two units into one. The property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the application

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

MOTION: To not take discretionary review and approve as submitted

AYES: Antonini and Lee

NAYES: Moore and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

RESULT: Motion failed

MOTION: To continue to September 21, 2006

Note: The motion did not receive a second and therefore died.

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion and the failure to achieve four votes for discretionary review, the project is approved as proposed.

18b. 2006.0386V (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

2300 Vallejo Street - north side between Fillmore and Steiner Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 0558 - Request for a Rear Yard Variance per Planning Code Section 134 proposing to add a square bay window, 3' deep by 9.5' wide, modify the existing fire escape and alter the roofline at the rear of a four-story, two-family house. Portions of the referenced addition would be within the required rear yard. The property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variances.

19a. 2006.0274D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

230 DUNCAN STREET - north side between Church and Dolores Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 6593 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy required review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2006.02.07.3990, to demolish an existing single-family residence 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 demolition.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting on July 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 10, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

19b. 2006.0276D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

230 DUNCAN STREET - north side between Church and Dolores Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 6593 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy required review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.07.3988, proposing to construct a four-story, two-family residential building with two off-street parking spaces 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 new construction.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting on July 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 10, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

20. 2006.0205D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1781 BEACH STREET - south side between Fillmore Street and Cervantes Boulevard, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 0443A - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.27.6759 proposing to legalize the elimination of one housekeeping unit in a two unit structure located in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 21, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

21. 2006.0570D (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

529-533 VALLEJO STREET - south side between Kearny Street and Grant Avenue; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 0145 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.29.7780. The subject property is a six-story building with five legal dwelling units. The proposal is to convert the number of legal dwelling units in the building from five to four by merging a dwelling unit located on the fourth floor with an owner-occupied unit located on the fifth and six floors. The subject property is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 10, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Sugaya

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: 4:41 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

NAYES: None

ABSENT: Alexander

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:22 PM