San Francisco Planning Department : September 28, 2006

September 28, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 28, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, Sugaya

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:39 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Craig Nikitas, Jonathan Purvis, Isolde Wilson, Glenn Cabreros, Kimberly Durandet, April Hesik, Erika Jackson, AnMarie Rodgers, John Billovits, Jonas Ionin – Acting 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. 2006.0318DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

257 - 259 4th Avenue - west side between Clement and Cornwall Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1429 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.18.9249, proposing to legalize the construction of a carport at the front of the building; the replacement of the exterior front staircase to unit 2 on the second floor; the reconfiguration of the exterior rear staircase to the second floor, and the enclosure of space under the second floor sunroom and a portion of the deck, for an existing two-story, two-unit building, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for continuance to October 19, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

1b. 20056.0318DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

257 - 259 4th Avenue - west side between Clement and Cornwall Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1429 - Request for Front Setback, Rear Yard, Screening of Parking Areas and Non-Complying Structure Variances to allow the legalization of (1) construction of an unscreened parking pad within the required front setback; (2) replacement of the exterior front staircase to unit 2 on the second floor that would extend approximately 8 feet into the required front setback; (3) reconfiguration of the exterior rear staircase to the second floor that would extend approximately 12 feet into the required rear yard; and (4) the enclosure of space under the second floor sunroom and a portion of the deck at the rear of the building that would extend 9 to 12 into the required rear yard. Because the existing building already extends approximately 9 feet into the required rear yard, it is considered a legal, non-complying structure. The project site is in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for continuance to October 19, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

2. 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

I was fortunate enough to be at the party last night for the opening of the Westfield Bloomingdale Center and the ribbon cutting this morning.
I think it will bring business to San Francisco and create a destination that will help the adjoining cities.
I think what is important is that the project sponsors have given back in infrastructure improvements.
I think that we as a planning department in general or the city in general should be foresighted enough to have a citywide plan when we see things that are changing so we can be able to present to developers as projects come forward what we feel are needed items as far as infrastructure improvements like parks, roadways, et cetera.
We are grabbling with Eastern Neighborhoods.
We know that heavy industrial use is leaving. We will not have more steel mills. The writing has been on the wall for a while.
As a city I think we should try to get in front of the curb to try to do these things when we see things changing as much as we can in the future.
As developers come forward, we tell them this is what we expect to be done.
It preempts the things that are going on now that are stopping projects because there already is a plan in place.
I think we will have a smoother process.
We won't be caught in moratoriums and things slow down business and sometimes kill it because we already have the blueprint in place.

Commissioner Sugaya

In the paper today there was a short article about Treasure Island and the planning process going on there.
It didn't indicate that any parts of that plan were headed toward the Commission and I haven't been on the Commission long enough to know whether it has already appeared before us in the past or what is contemplated as it goes through the approval process and the Board of Supervisors.

Zoning Administrator response

We have been tracking this process because it is undertaken by independent authority.
It is part of the Redevelopment program. But never the less, rezoning is required.
The Plan needs to come to the Commission.
We will make arrangements for that to happen as soon as we sit down with the officials of that particular project and we work out a schedule for all of that.

Commissioner Moore

I have been sitting on the Treasure Island Citizen Advisory for the last seven years.
It might be appropriate for the Commissioners to have a short presentation from SPUR just for General information.
It is interesting to see how that process is happening.
I will have to recuse myself but there is a lot to be learned.
The process is insightful and something we might be aware of.

Director Macris

We would be happy to have an informal presentation.
Mr. Badiner, how is Treasure Island zoned at this moment?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

It is not mapped.

Director Macris

Mr. Badiner indicates as the Zoning Administrator that means there is a default zoning of RH-d – the lowest possible zoning.

Commissioner Sugaya

I also was at the Westfield openings.
I would like to remind those in the audience who might be watching at some point on television that there was a protracted series of events surrounding the preservation of the old Emporium building. There was a collapse in the nonprofit sector not supporting what I feel should have been a more preservation oriented approach to the building.
I would just like to repeat what Mrs. Platt said in the paper that saving the dome and the front façade of the building is not preservation.
What is ironic to me is that the dome and the Market Street elevation are the key images being used in every marketing tool I've seen so far come out of Westfield.
I don't think the Bloomingdale façade is being used as much as the historic [parts] of the building.

Commissioner Lee

Yesterday I went through the Department's website to get a sense of the pipeline.
My understanding is that we are supposed to publish it every quarter.
The last is from February 2006. It gives us the status of what is coming up for the Planning Commission and the city to look at.
I want to find out when we expect the next update of the pipeline. I think that is due now.

Director Macris

We will see you get that.
The other thing you will get is the annual Housing Inventory Report, which we just completed.
There are interesting numbers in that document as to the production of housing.

Commissioner Lee

From the Building Inspection website the Director of Building Inspection will meet and greet the general public regarding building permitting processes.
They will have all day public meetings for anyone to come in and learn about the process.
My question to planning staff is should we do the same to sort of give the general public the opportunity to come in, meet with staff and have general questions answered?
And secondly, since we are so tied with Building, I guess if we had known earlier we could have done both departments at the same time.
They rented Bill Gram Auditorium. Is this something we should consider to provide the public a better understanding of what we do.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

We are looking at it to see if it is a successful model for us.

Commissioner Lee

Under Prop I we are required to do a City Economic Analysis.
We have heard the first report from Mr. Eagan.
Another came out where the Examiner said we are a city of smart with high-tech and charming dealing with visitors and tourism. Have we received copies of that report?
My understanding is there is a second report out.

Chief Planner Ghosh

I know the first report is out and the second report is due. That would be the Strategic Plan to build upon the findings of what our strengths and weaknesses are. We will find out what the schedule is for its completion and release and let you know.

Commissioner Moore

I would like to suggest to the commissioners that we dedicate our hearing on October 5^th to recognize a milestone for Director Macris.
It is a milestone anniversary for somebody who made an exceptional contribution to San Francisco and nationally set an example.
I'd like to suggest to the Commission that we take the next meeting to dedicate to him and find appropriate ways to celebrate him.

Director Macris

I'm blushing. I'm going to be 75 years old.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness.
It also suggests that we need to have a succession plan. We are working on that and will have more to say about that soon.

Commissioner Olague

I wanted to inform members of the public that President Alexander is out due to the fact his mother is gravely ill and he is with his family.

Public Speakers:

Marilyn Amini

I would like to ask that the Commission schedule a hearing on the Community Improvements and astern Neighborhood legislation, which was heard by the Land Use Committee yesterday. It was sent to the full Board with recommendation.
This Commission has been told since it came back from recess that this legislation, which was introduced on August 15^th, was an amendment to the Administrative Code and would not be considered by the Commission.
However, at the Land Use Committee yesterday, Supervisor McGoldrick acknowledged as well as speakers of the department that this legislation will influence and be controlling for major decisions that are made about how the city develops in the future.
This is an instrument that will allow for decent, good planning to go forward.
At yesterday's hearing, Ms. Dennis [of Department staff] reports that you had held a hearing.
You did not. On the 21^st you had it as an informational item.
Ms. Dennis further said that you did not request further hearings on this issue. That the Commission maintains control of all of the planning processes and that this is a tool that gives the Planning Commission and the Department what they need to implement these plans as they are adopted.
She said we are in full support of the ordinance.
Would one assume the Commission is in full support of the ordinance when you have not heard it?
You are talking about revising calendars and Commissioner Antonini says, let's get a flavor. This is significant and this might be our only chance to comment on it.

Hiroshi Fukuda

I also want to request that this item be taken up as a Planning Commission item for action
This is very important and the Planning Commission should take the lead on this.
It seems like the Planning Commission is in the back not knowing what is up front.
What is your function?
You are the Planning Commission and are in charge.
You should know what is going on. You should approve things.

Commissioner Antonini

If the public feels they want to comment through this body prior to consideration by the Board of Supervisors, I always welcome that.

Commissioner Moore

I would like to suggest we keep our foot in the door and in the first hearing with the Board of Supervisors that we stay involved.
Until we fully understand what this bill means or doesn't, we should keep our foot in the door.

John Bardis

This legislation is misleading in terms of what was given to you last week and why there is a need for a hearing.
At this point you have to ask yourself, what is happening here?
That is why you need to have this on your agenda for hearing for public to speak to.
It is a presumption of the staff that 800,000 other people in San Francisco should not be noticed about the ordinance and not to be asked to hear form you to make a decision about the ordinance.
You need to recognize there is a serious crisis in San Francisco regarding planning.
This is a piece of legislation that has taken away part of your responsibility given to you and you are asking to advocate it.
I'm urging you to call for action on this item.

Commissioner Antonini

Much of what we take up on an on-going basis is housing in San Francisco.
During the time we considered the Housing Element we were looking and analyzing the housing stock in San Francisco.
I think it's been awhile since we have done that.
We have a report coming in the future. That would be timely.
As part of that, I'm interested in getting my arms around the entire housing stock because we pass projects piecemeal sometimes rather than seeing the big picture in regards to items relative to what we have in other cities. How much affordable housing we are approving in nonprofits and inclusionary. How much housing for special needs and comparing and contrasting to cities and other counties. So we know where we are.
Just because someone is doing something doesn't mean it is appropriate for us.
We have to see what others are doing and look at our housing stock especially the one in which the city of government agency is subsidizing and see how that stacks up with the rest of the state and perhaps the country.

Director Macris

I think we could use the Housing Inventory Report as the basis for addressing some of the facts you would like to see.
We can arrange that.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

3. Director's Announcements

Jon Lau of Department Staff reported:

We plan to bring a draft proposal before you in the coming months that will amend the industrial districts and Bay View Hunter's Point.
It has several key objectives that call for retention of a space for jobs in the area and for reduction in land use conflicts between industry and housing.
You may recall an update for the area plan, which is part of your General Plan that was adopted by you in March of this year and approved by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2006.
This proposal was crafted with an understanding and coordination with the industrial land analysis.
The proposal is just for industrial zoned areas and just in Bay View Hunter's Point at this time.
It is important to note the areas, including the proposal, are all industrial – M-1 or 2 for the most part – and in industrial use.
There are no major land use changes contained in this proposal.
Primarily, this is a zoning clean up meant to tighten and clarify the allowable uses in the industrial district that are vague and too flexible.
The primary objective will be to control the proliferation of office, large retail and housing in industrial districts.
Documents regarding the proposal are available on our web page on Monday.
We are engaged in an expansive community review.
We will gather feedback and prepare for a series of meetings hopefully in November.

Commissioner Sugaya

Is there overlap in what you have been doing with the rezoning efforts with Redevelopment Agency boundaries?

Jon Lau

Yes. In short, the proposed adoption relies on the Planning Code for its land use control and building standards.
Much of the area covered is in the newly adopted plan.

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

B of A: None

Dan Sider of Department Staff reported on BOS matters:

On Tuesday the Full Board passed 10 to 0 Supervisor Mirkarimi's ordinance regarding tables and chairs on sidewalks and Supervisor McGoldrick's ordinance regarding legal representation to Planning and the Building Inspection at the Board of Appeals.
The ordinance by Mirkarimi would allow certain nonconforming uses in our residential and low commercial districts to seek a permit to apply to place tables and chairs on public sidewalks.
Legal representation at the Board of Appeals is an ordinance that reflects our existing policies and procedures, formalizes our relationship with the City Attorney's Office and allows us to seek their council at the Board of Appeals.
On Wednesday the Land Use Committee heard the landmarking of the exterior only of bridges.
It was reviewed favorably by the Committee and was passed on to the full Board.
Although there was extensive discussion of this matter of both the interior and exterior of bridges, they did not designate interior at this time.
The final note is an introduction by Supervisor's Maxwell, Ammiano and Peskin.
It is a resolution that would reiterate certain policies and establish new city policies with respect to the Eastern Neighborhood's planning process.
We worked with the involved supervisors to help them understand our goals and to help us understand their goals in the broader process.
We feel by and large that the resolution going ahead does go hand in hand with our own efforts.
The resolution has three core areas. The first is the policy statement that is largely found in the General Plan. The second is the establishment of time lines. These would be firm time lines for the processing and review and approval of the area plans and the zoning map amendments and text amendments. In broad terms, the end goal for adoption of the area plan and zoning changes is November of 2007. Lastly, the issue of reporting is addressed. The resolution calls for our department to present to you every two months an update of where we are with respect to our efforts in this planning process. There is a provision that calls for the Land Use Committee to hold regular meetings on the matter. We would be happy to present this to you in greater detail and work with you and hold a hearing if you chose. Regardless, we will meet with the involved supervisors to discuss with them and their staff other agencies and continue to work together. We anticipate this matter will be heard on October 3^rd by Land Use and on to the full Board.

Commissioner Antonini

The time line for completion is completion of the plan but not the Environmental Impact Report, which I assume has a different timetable.
The second part of my question is what policy statements are we talking about? Are there many? What are we saying and why are we emphasizing those if they are part of the General Plan?

Dan Sider

The first component of your question, with respect to time lines. The November 2007 goal that is set forth in the legislation is for adoption of this is the final step. This represents the adoption of what we have been working toward for so long now. There are subsets of that final goal. We continue to work with the Board to refine those. The November 2007 end represents completion of the planning process and the implementation of the zoning and area plan.
With respect to the policies, the second portion of your question, there area a few – I believe seven or eight pages worth. We would be happy to give you copies or report back at a later time.

Commissioner Antonini

I would like to see that and a follow up on particularly the Environmental Impact Report, which must precede the approval.
Is there a timetable on that being completed for Eastern Neighborhoods?

Dan Sider

It calls for a draft EIR in the Fall of 2007. In August of 2007 to be precise, with Commission hearings following that date.

5. (JOHN SCHLESINGER: (415) 362-7397)

AIA SAN FRANCISCO PRESENTATION - Designing for the Public Realm, Part 2

The third in a series of informational presentations on design excellence by AIA San Francisco. The importance of a building's mass and scale and how they contribute to framing the public realm are addressed.

PRESENTER: John Schlesinger, AIA

Thank you for allowing us to give you round three of the presentation.
Our first presentation in February, Understand Context, we proposed a new way to define context and to broaden the range of design approval by including contemporary design solutions. We provided you with a design toolbox to determine whether a building emulated nearby buildings, reinterpreted the features of surrounding buildings in a new way, or contrasted with neighbors while honoring qualities they have.
Our second presentation defined the terms and standards used to review larger projects along with the contribution they must make to the public realm. We showed you how [looking at] things about neighborhoods in a new way can help shape a new, vibrant public realm.
As you are considering initiating in the review of the Market/Octavia Plan, this subject will enter into your discussions.
You perhaps will consider the principles we introduced to see how it [a building] can help sharpen the public realm; the connection to the street; the way the building's profile meets the sky and how the building's scale relates to adjacent buildings and open space.
At that presentation in June, we covered the first two categories.
This time we will cover the third category, which is how a building's scale relates to adjacent buildings, streets and open space.
As previously stated, wider thoroughfares can sustain larger buildings.
[Using a power point presentation] he showed how removing a story from a building would suffer from unintended negative consequences and reduce the number of housing units.
Building mass and scale are brought up in the same breath.
Mass and scale are different things.
Using them together confuses the analysis of the purpose of the building.
Mass refers to the magnitude or bulk.
Scale refers to a balance or features within a building and relations to other physical forms including the public realm.
Determining the height of buildings should not be measured by the comparison of the adjacent buildings.
The width of the street and open space are reliable indicators of determining the proper height and scale of the building.
This allows larger buildings to be built next to small ones by complimenting one another with different scales.
When the Planning Department presents projects to you, project sponsors with larger frontages are asked to mimic buildings with narrower street frontages.
There are other equally valid ways of accomplishing the goal.
The use of building materials.
Architectural elements such as bays, windows and decks can play a significant role in changing the scale of the building.
Shadows cast have a greater impact than the demarcation line, such as mimicking the width of the nearby building.
Exterior wall materials are divided into segments, or a change to its color.
When the scale of materials are divided or changed to its color and texture as shown [in this building] where stucco and wood and colors reduce the scale of a large wall.
The use of these materials in a creative way provides a positive contribution to the public realm.
Each element will play a role in defining the scale of this building.
Another byproduct of building segments is to define the scale of the building that is more vertical where the transparent features are stacked or more horizontal where the window dimensions and building elements contribute to a scale that is horizontal in nature.
Color plays a role in defining the scale of the building and contribution to the public realm.
It can be used to contrast the different uses in the building or different building elements.
Open spaces play a role in defining the scale of a building.
The use of a balcony can reduce bulk or mass.
Overhanging the public realm, all contribute to reduce the scale of a building.
We must remember a new building's character benefits more from the correct use of durable, sustainable materials and contribution to the public realm than the reliance of an architectural style.
We hope the tools we gave you will assist you to contribute to the success of San Francisco's changing neighborhoods.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational only. No action required

6. (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

ELEMENTS OF DESIGN – Informational presentation: An update on the Department's program to elevate the quality of architectural design in the City, a briefing on the promotion of sustainable ("green") building projects, and a presentation of some elements of building design.

No Action to be taken

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of September 21, 2006)

PRESENTER: Craig Nikitas, Department Staff

This is continued from last week and has three elements.
One is a discussion of the Department's elements to elevate the quality of design in the city.
The second talks about the promotion of green building.
The third was to be a presentation, which is part one of trainings that have been given to staff about the elements of building design.
With the consent of the Commission, I would propose we postpone the third element.
Mr. Schlesinger has given you an excellent presentation that dealt in a general way with the elements that I would talk about.
Next week you will have a chance to take a refresher course and also to break new ground in terms of technical issues that the Department looks at from a planning point of view.
I would like to continue with the first two parts and next week bring a slide presentation of the Elements of Design Terminology.
As part of the Department's work program, the Director created a document that lists 11 departmental work program goals. I would like to talk about how we are planning to implement two of them today in terms of elevating the quality of architectural design.
Those goals are to promote architectural design excellence in the projects the department reviews and brings before the Commission for approval.
To encourage the use of environmentally sustainable building designs and features in the construction of projects approved, in green buildings, we have several implementation strategies.
We need to provide the tools to staff that they'll need to do this kind of work.
We need to broaden staff training and bring to the fore the elements of good architect and urban design and elements of green building.
We want to raise public awareness and promote professional collaboration; update the Urban Design Guidelines; and project specific reviews as projects are brought to the department.
Some of the tools we are looking at are already under way in terms of implementation.
Planner Kelly Amdur is going to be our new training coordinator. I will work closely with her on those aspects that deal with building and urban design as well as outside professionals.
We are underway in securing a RFP for a new property information and project tracking system that will integrate seamlessly with the tracking system the Building Department uses and provide at each planners work station information on property and various elements including the zoning, historical elements, et cetera.
We are working to acquire access to an interactive digital model of the city.
When we consider towers, we can study from ground level and afar from any vantage point in the city the effect of the buildings on the ground and against the sky.
You know we are working to move next door and bring together all units of the department on two floors in a single building. We will have a new graphics work room with equipment and drafting boards and maps to analyze the projects we are dealing with.
We have formed, under the direction of David Lindsay and Max Putra, a review group – The Residential Design Committee. This is where planners bring in projects they have questions about on whether the Residential Guidelines apply. Not only is an opinion rendered, but also the point of view is disseminated through staff so we can apply the Residential Guidelines consistently.
We have an urban design advisory team.
We are working on including expanding our libraries, both digital and paper. There is space in the new offices for a paper library. There are a lot of great books and periodicals we should acquire and give staff access to.
We need additional graphics and hardware for the modeling we are discussing.
As part of the training, we are suggesting the following topics: Excellence in design and Green Building.
Our staff will be talking about urban design. We will teach planners about structural systems so they can assess the projects in a more informed way as well as dealing with Building Code impacts like exits and where rear stairs are required that have impacts on rear yard and open space; or impacts on open space or roofs – that sort of thing. We will work with the Building Department on that
We will present trainings on building materials, assemblies and finishes in addition to the traditional ones we are familiar with.
Windows are a huge issue. We have done a training on that and continue to make presentations on that.
Building styles, landscape design and green building principles including a subset of solar energy in the urban environment.
In terms of updating our Design Guidelines and the Urban Design Element, there are many considerations. There will be a subsequent presentation on this.
In addition to the other issues mentioned, there is the Transit First Policy that contributes to good design.
There is also historic resources and how we use our streets and the impacts of projects on them.
Part of what we want to do is outreach and collaboration.
This is a noble effort but it is not one the Planning Department can take on by itself. We will work with other agencies including the Department of Environment and Department of Building Inspection and the Department of Public Works.
We also are doing outreach and collaboration with professional groups like the AIA and SPUR.
We are also reaching out to individual design professionals and land use professionals to understand from their point of view how we improve our process and to hear their ideas on it.
We want to outreach to citizen groups – the neighborhood groups and umbrella groups. Explain to them our ideas of the principles of good design and listen to them and foster interaction.
PG&E has resources the public can use. We want to increase awareness of that.
What do we mean by Green Building?
At present, the National Green Building Council has leadership in environmental and energy design. It sets up checklists and points.
Buildings that deal well with sustainability issues, of materials, of energy, water usage and transportation can qualify as a certified building.
Ratings are lead/silver, gold and platinum.
San Francisco has seven lead certified buildings. There are nine more that are under construction and expected to certify and another 20 in the process.
One of the major issues in green building is air quality.
When people are working in a comfortable environment their morale is improved.
There are energy benefits through day lighting and the use of efficient lighting fixtures.
It is estimated that for a lead/gold building the additional cost per square foot is $4 a square foot. The energy savings and productivity that results will equal $50 a square foot, which is a huge return on investment. Plus it's the right thing to do.
This is required for municipal buildings.
The State and Federal and the City of San Francisco have green buildings.
The Department has undertaken an effort to expedite the process for green buildings.
They come in with the expectation they will certify as lead/gold. Environmental applications will be assigned and reviewed quickly. Any cases brought before you will be expedited to the extent that staff can. All of which, by shortening the processing time is a further incentive for developers to build green.
Green building can be beautiful.
You are aware that the Academy of Sciences has a high lead rating.
Laguna Honda Hospital is expected to certify at silver or gold.
The Plaza Apartments on the corner of sixth, a well-known project, is lead certified.
The city's first green hotel will open in October, the Orchard Garden on 14^th Street.
There are others who want to do green buildings and we want to give them the opportunity to do so.

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hestor

It was nice seeing those cities, all of which I think are bigger than ours.
One of the things we struggle with in the city is the compactness of the city and the interface between tall buildings on one street and there rear yards of the house on the other.
They are about to come before the Commission with Market/Octavia.
What I didn't see and which we had more of is how to fit the contexts in when you have lots 25 feet wide or 50 feet wide and no big green space around the high rise.
They are literally up against the house behind them.
It would be nice to struggle through those principles and not have the Boston, Chicago tall buildings where you have the abstract discussions – which are nice – but you deal with the real world every Thursday. We all do.
If we don't sort it out with Market/Octavia, I don't think we ever will.

Unidentified Speaker

I was glad to see the presentation and the training going on.
Some of those things are missing in the department.
What I want the department to think about in green buildings is they have to be in a green block. It has to have transit.
We have been patting ourselves on the back by creating the new residential neighborhoods like Rincon Hill and say that everyone is going to walk. They are not.
Rincon is a hill. You have to walk up it and we don't have MUNI on that list.
Why is it MUNI has had cuts in their service; cut their lines?
How can we justify reducing parking and doing green buildings and not at the same time mass transit?
MUNI capacity was added to Market Street but it wasn't added to Mission Street. The [number] 14 is a pit.
I tell you now; you will have problems on Market Street because people won't be able to get on in all the areas. It's over capacity.

ACTION: Informational only. No action required.

7. 2004.0980C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

642 HARRISON STREET - Informational presentation on conditional use authorization to convert an office building to 43 dwellings with parking and retail space in the SSO. The Planning Commission approved this project on November 17, 2005 under Motion No. 17142 with the condition that it be brought back to the Commission as an informational item.

PRESENTER: Jonathan Purvis, Department Staff

Last November the Commission authorized a conversion of what was a 1925 concrete office building.
This is the way the building looks today – the conversion of the office building into 43 dwelling units including a two story vertical division.
[He showed what was presented to the Commission last November.]
The project would enlarge the window openings and curtain wall six feet back from the west facing exterior wall.
Individual unit[s] will be provided within the six foot recessed area.
Decks are provided across the top and sunshades across the balcony projections.
The Commission liked the project and approved and authorized it by a 6 to 1 vote.
The top did not relate well to the existing building.
You asked that it be brought back as an informational presentation.
That is what is here for you today.
Some of the revisions include a [from a rendering prepared by the architects] removing the sunshades from the top, which were distracting and added a light colored glass to extend the vertical columns of the existing building. Also it breaks the building up at the top.
Visually you identify the individual building at the top; the cornice line across the top.
They are using period style lettering across and down from the top of the towers.
We think those addressed the Commission's concerns.

SPEAKERS:

Jim Salinas

The reason I am here is I was hoping to have Commissioner Hughes here to speak to the issues raised.
I am not sure why an informational presentation.
I think there is a decision that should be make relative, in light of the presentation the AIA made
I think these are concerns that this Commission is taking seriously.
In deed if there is redesign, hopefully it does conform and fit with the direction that this Commission seems to be taking.

Sue Hestor

I want to point out a context issue. This is Harrison Street between Third and Second Streets, right north of the freeway. It's not an attractive walking environment.
We are missing the opportunity to look at the context when we do these projects piecemeal like this.
This is like an offshoot of Rincon Hill, down two blocks.
It's not going to be a pleasant place to walk.
They have little street trees in front.
Harrison is encroached to the freeway. Cars come down it at a slip.
It's a big accident intersection at Harrison and Fourth.
When are we going to decide we need to look at what is the context of this site for housing?
We are approving a lot of conversions.
At a certain level it is easy to do in the North of Market because it is transit [rich].
Do you know what Harrison Street feels to a pedestrian and how isolated you will feel from the north when you come down Fourth Street?
It's long blocks and bleak.
Are we going to pay attention to that?
Put trees in front. That will not solve the entire problem. It may make it worse by darkening the street. It's not an attractive area for pedestrians.

ACTION: Informational Only. No action required.

TAKEN OUT OF ORDER

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

SPEAKERS:

Jim Meko, Chair of the Western SOMA Citizen's Task Force

This past Sunday we had a booth at the Folsom Street Fair.

- We were located between a porn studio and a sexual lubricant. It's amazing how many people wanted to talk about planning.

Last night we had a meeting of the full task force.
Western Soma Task Force has been in existence for a year.
We have so many balls in the air; so many initiatives going in different directions that we organize an agenda and everybody came to report on what they are doing.
The planning framework, the principles you have seen developed.
The work on the residential enclave district, job retention, and creation.
We are off to parks and open space and recreation; the issues of affordability.
It was such an exciting meeting and at the end we gave ourselves an ovation.
Insights came out of this.
One is the need for boom proof zoning. Zoning that when you are doing cutting edge type zoning and you don't know the possible ramifications there would be a trigger mechanism or circuit breaker set in.
If you detect a spike in some new use you have allowed that perhaps could get out of control [like live/work], then business services that would kick in and would go to effect so we wouldn't spend a year and a half yelling at you to do something about it.
Another is in the south of market when you are dealing with large parcels of land like the Tennis Club, you can't devote them to housing. If we are talking about mixed use you need to find a split – 50% housing. If you devote the entire parcel to housing the goal of mixed use is a failure.

Jim Salinas, Sr. Representing Carpenters Local 22

We come before you with a lot of land use issues because there are labor issues that effect San Francisco's working men and women that make up the work force in San Francisco.
We come here weekly because we support projects where we have good citizens who decided to select fair contractors, meaning those individuals that are willing to pay the men and women a fair wage.
When the project sponsors are here and bring labor they are saying we bring great public benefit.
We are a great resource that drives the local economics in the city.
What we make here we spend here.
When we come to you and support good contractors, it means the resources of this city are not being taxed.
When non-union contractors come before you they bring people from outside the city.
I have gone into the field and found people at $10 an hour and no benefits.
If they get hurt they go to General Hospital.
If they or their families get sick they go to General Hospital.
Please understand that the issues that we bring to you may not be land use specific issues but they are issues that you have direct decision-making ability over and the ability to benefit San Francisco as a whole.
This past Sunday we had a booth at the Folsom Street Fair.

- We were located between a porn studio and a sexual lubricant. It's amazing how many people wanted to talk about planning.

Last night we had a meeting of the full task force.
Western Soma Task Force has been in existence for a year.
We have so many balls in the air; so many initiatives going in different directions that we organize an agenda and everybody came to report on what they are doing.

Judy Berkowitz

I would like to speak on the community improvements of the Eastern Neighborhoods.
You heard an informational report last week.
Prior to Public Comment, you heard from other people and you favorably indicated you would look on bringing this back to the Commission.
However, you stopped short of making a motion.
I would like to request you to move to bring this back as an action item.
I think that your authority as the Planning Commission is all parts of planning within the city and this needs to be heard by you and you need to give direction to the Board of Supervisors on what you think about this.
I am not entirely sure, but I believe you were quoted as saying that you supported the item wholeheartedly in yesterday's Land Use Committee hearing and I do not think you gave that direction. I could be mistaken.

Marilyn

In several instances the question of legislation – whether appropriately it came before you or not – that issue has been raised.
I would like to bring to your attention an ordinance reported to you last week that was introduced and that is a CEQA ordinance, which is an amendment of the Administrative Code, Chapter 31, which are our local CEQA controls. You were told it didn't need to come before you because it is not a Planning Code amendment.
However, if you look at that Chapter 31 and section 3104, which sets responsibility.
You need to schedule public hearing and the public needs to have the opportunity to speak to you on this.
The Board of Supervisors for one reason or another is writing legislation they are putting on the fast track and are sending it through.
You are getting short changed and the public is as well.
It is not good public process and does not make the public happy.

Sue Hestor

I want to talk about the lack of implementation of a landmark historic designation.
The city adopted the Dog Patch District in 2003.
In 2005 a permit was approved without referral to Landmarks and it was a demolition.
There were two hearings at the DBI and Board of Appeals as well as a forced action under the Permit Streamlining Act filing on the city on the 30^th or 29^th of August.
After the forced action I didn't see a report to you.
Implementation means that the Planning staff has to be notified when plans are adopted. That means at a very bear minimum, all of the people in the quadrant should have been notified.
The cases on Tennessee Street, the permits were applied for in 1999, which is another serious issue.
I don't understand why they hang around for six years.
But since we are dealing with a whole lot of rezoning of a lot of historic districts that are about to be created in the Eastern Neighborhoods, if staff doesn't figure out now how to implement at the staff level so it never happens again.
I am asking you to start thinking about implementation of your plans because project review and long-term planning don't meet. And permit review is where the projects are approved.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

8. 2006.0546C (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

77 VAN NESS AVENUE - the west side between Fell and Hickory Streets, Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 834; Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow square footage above the base Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for six Below Market Rate (BMR) dwelling units in a previously-approved project. The approved project is Case No. 2000.074EKXC, which was approved by the Planning Commission on December 13, 2001, in Motion Nos. 16320 and 16321. The approved project would construct an 8-story, approximately 100-foot tall building containing 50 dwelling units, approximately 19, 550 sq.ft. of office space, 1,350 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 3,400 square feet of rooftop open space for the residential units, at least 400 square feet of public open space in the lobby, and 58 parking spaces in a street-level parking garage. The Project Sponsor has decided to meet the Section 315 Affordable Housing requirements by providing six BMR units on-site. This Project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District, and is within a 120-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

NOTE: This item was removed from Consent and considered with a full hearing.

SPEAKERS:

Project Sponsor representative [did not give name]

What we are talking about is a benefit that's conferred on the Sponsor by the Planning Code only if they agree to put the BMR units on site.
By doing that they get a bump in the floor area ratio.
They picked up a little bit of storage space in the basement and a small amount of residential space.
It's to make use of the floor area, which would be dead space in the building. This conditional use is encourage by the Planning Code in order to encourage the Sponsor to have the BMR units located on site as opposed to paying an in lieu fee.

Jim Salinas

We have stated this position in the past, we believe the greatest benefit to the city is to have the below market rate units on site as opposed to off site. We are not in agreement with in lieu fees.
We believe the City doesn't gain anything by it and the City benefits greater when those below market units are on site.

ACTION: Approved with the recommendations that we add the encouragement of neighborhood servicing active retail for the space that is in question and make sure that we work in a First Source hiring agreement.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17310

F.REGULAR CALENDAR

9. 2006.0969D (I.WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

1379 6^TH AVENUE – west side between Irving and Judah Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1761 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.05.15.1557, proposing to build a 7'-4 addition at the rear of the building, with a new rear deck and stairs projecting from the rear of the proposed addition. The property is located within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

10. 2005.0486D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2564 SUTTER STREET - north side between Broderick and Baker Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1053 -- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.11.2946 proposing a 35-foot rear horizontal addition and a two-story vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The existing building is proposed to be lifted approximately 20 inches to allow for a three-car garage to be inserted below the existing basement level. Two additional dwelling units are proposed for a total of three units on the subject lot.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 9, 2006

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

11. 2005.0983D (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)

981 INGERSON– south side between Ingalls and Redondo Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 4970 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.0620.4516, which proposes to legalize a horizontal and vertical addition by changing the roofline at the rear of the building from a pitched to a flat roof for a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 zoning district. The proposal required, and was granted, a Rear Yard Variance at a public hearing held on March 22, 2006 as Case Number 2005.0983V.

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

SPEAKERS:

Anthony Bryant – son of DR requestor

This particular lot is substandard in relation to the neighborhood
It is the smallest lot in the area.
We oppose because the owner is proposing to build a third story on the smallest lot in the neighborhood.
There are no other third story houses on all sides of the block. In addition, we able to see portions of the Bay Bridge and slight portions of downtown from the backyard.
The addition will have a flat roof and will not provide for that and will obstruct that.
The addition is basically above our existing roofline.
The windows look in our front yard. It's in the kitchen.
There are no exits from the back of the house. If there is a fire in the kitchen, which is a typical fire prone area for a house, there are no exits provided.
A flat roof would have drains built inside of the roof. This person put the drains on the outside.
One of the other problems with the development is the backyard is eight feet in width on a downward, hilly location.
The owner developed a backyard with patios.
This house sits down into a cave like. It doesn't provide much sun. This worsens the situation.
This area is near Candlestick. We have to move our cars off the street during game events.
This proposal is changing the character of the area.
All of the houses in the area are afforded with a decent backyard.
This person took it upon themselves to develop this extended property. It has been done.
During construction, the sidewalk on our side of the house was broken up.

Brian, property owner

He said a few things that I don't think were exactly accurate.
There are no windows facing the back of this house.
This house extended all the way to the property line.
There are not windows facing from his side of the house to the property that I am working on.
In addition, the property was not extended additionally to the backyard.
We are requesting to change the roof from pitch to flat but it's not actually flat. It actually slopes slightly and that's why the gutters are on the back. That's an issue he brought up.
When they requested a DR, the said they were concerned because there would be personal entertaining in the front of the property.
I plan to move there. I hope to move there.
I currently live down the street in a one-bedroom house and no garage or parking with two children and a wife.
We want this house. It has a garage.
I never entertained in front of my house and have no intentions of entertaining in the front of this one.
The other issues about it blocking the sun are not issues and are not accurate.
It is not a three-story building.

Mary Bryant, DR requestor (spoke during rebuttal)

We were not informed of the first variance request to oppose that request.
We discussed it with staff and we were told there was a mark on the drawing where a door was removed and a bathroom was there.
Staff told us the bathroom was going to be removed.
This project has moved it. Originally it was said it was going to be a workshop on the first floor then a work out room. Now it's a home office.
We know this person is an investor and realtor.
We believe he is developing it.
Again, the community utilizes their backyards. There are kids out here and when game days happen they take advantage of their backyards and play in their backyards. Just because this house was carved on a small lot this person shouldn't be afforded to extend the house.
[I'm sorry] we missed the opportunity to comment on the variance to extend the backyard.

MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and approve removing the shower on the lower level and keep access from the street as it presently exists.

AYES: Antonini, Lee and Moore

NAYES: Olague and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESULT: Motion Failed

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion, this project is approved as submitted.

12. 2006.0668C (A. Hesik: (415) 558-6602)

222 Columbus Avenue - northeast side between Pacific Avenue and Broadway, Lots 26-31 in Assessor's Block 0162 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a financial service (d.b.a. First Republic Bank ) of approximately 118 square feet. The financial service would consist of two automated teller machines located in the interior of the building within vacant existing ground-floor commercial space. The proposed use is not formula retail as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, Washington-Broadway Special Use District No. 1, and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 21, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Kirstan Shaw, First Republic Bank

We are here to seek authorization for this project.
The project will benefit the neighborhood and the other retail uses near by.
It's a small bank, 2 enclosed ATM's in a 118 square feet vestibule.
This is important to First Republic and its customers.
It operates a branch in the neighborhood on Stockton and Jackson.
The banks newest ATM is in the Embarcadero Center.
We believe the project will be good for the neighborhood because it will increase pedestrian traffic on the east side of Columbus.
The owners of the building have had a lot of difficulty retaining quality retail tenants because of the foot traffic.
The intersection is not a conducive location to foot traffic.
The location is unobtrusive. The entrance is recessed under the upper stories.
As we discussed in the September 26 letter, it meets design criteria for space ATM's, lock doors, appropriate lighting and cameras.
We request that you approve this project.

Scott Robertson, Building Owner

I've owned this building for 13 years.
This building needs your help.
You are in the position to help this building and the community.
This building is an island. No one walks by. It needs a lot of help.
I reduced their rent $500 so they could afford to stay.
Retail all around me is failing.

ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2006, with instruction to the project sponsor to look for an alternate location in the building.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

13a. 2006.0204CV (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

189-191 LELAND AVENUE - southwest side, between Peabody and Rutland, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 6251 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 to allow a reduction in the off-street parking requirement for dwelling units for the construction of a new residential/commercial mixed-use building within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. The project proposes the construction of a new mixed-use building with two residential units over approximately 700 square feet of ground floor commercial at the front of the lot.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS:

Toni, representing Cohn and Mike Quinn-Lynn

There has been much community involvement and input and cooperation with others on the development of the plan.
Our proposal should be consistent with the Leeland Avenue streetscape plan and provide a street front.
This street front on the garage would promote economic viability for small businesses and enhance Leeland Avenue.
The project is well served by MUNI and Cal Train.
In order to rehabilitate the structure we think this variance application is reasonable and a logical request.
With direction from Mr. Nikitas, we have gone through many designs.
We are proposing a second tree where the curb cut would be.
We thought the project was well received by the Alliance and we believe we have made the required findings.
We request that you approve our project as proposed.

Sue Hestor

When you pull up this site in the Assessor's records on the computer at Planning, you find the initial proposal was to do this along with 199 Leland.
It is currently listed on Greg's list for sale vacant retail next door.
They built that building. It went from three units to six by claiming it was senior housing.
As a result of that there is an open space on that site compared to the regular planning code.
The rents that are been offered are still really high for senior housing.
This is the third senior housing project that is a problem.
They can't sell at market rate to seniors because they don't have that income.
The honest way to understand the project is to know this project is next to a vacant storefront.
It appeared to be unoccupied senior housing units with unresolved issues about whether the city will allow a condo map for the six unit senior housing project next door.
That is my observation.

Mike Quinlin, property owner

We thought we were buying one property – one fence around it.
In escrow it showed as two properties.
We, in accordance with the planning code, built a senior housing complex. It allows us double density.
There were six apartments. We got the certificate last December. We have not rented all six.
We are trying to get the building to carry itself.
There is not a conspiracy housing that we can't find seniors to live there.
We are unsuccessful in renting out the space.
Leland Avenue is going to be a fine street eventually.
When the library goes in across the road and when people develop, we will have a commercial strip that will be nice.
We are ahead and we have been unable to get a commercial tenant in there.
When we applied for the building we were going to build a condominium.
You must apply at the time you build it.
If we get the condo – we haven't.
If we get it in three years time and a senior wants a condo, I want to sell it to them. I want the option to do that.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17311

13b. 2006.0204CV (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

189-191 LELAND AVENUE - southwest side, between Peabody and Rutland, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 6251 - Request for Rear Yard and Exposure Variances under Planning Code Sections 134 and 140. Planning Code Section 134 requires all lots within an NC-2 District to have a minimum rear yard of 25 percent of lot depth. The addition of a new building in the front yard would require the provision of a code complying rear yard, which is occupied by an existing building. Planning Code Section 140 requires that at least one room of at least 120 square feet must face an open area. The proposed inner court does not satisfy the exposure requirement. The Zoning Administrator will consider the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

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

14a. 2003.0347EMTZ (A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN – INTENTION TO INITIATE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.

Consideration of a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the San Francisco General Plan related to the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. The Plan encompasses an irregularly shaped area in northeast San Francisco. It extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Boulevard for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Plan Area boundaries extend from 11th and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west. The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central Freeway alignment to include the area up toTurk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street between 10th and 11th Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area boundaries jog along Division, Clinton, Stevenson, Fourteenth, Guerrero, and Sixteenth Streets. The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor's Blocks in entirety or in part, including the whole of Blocks 759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 809, 813 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to 3506, 3512 to 3514, 3533 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3560; and portions of 3507 (lot 40), 3510 (lots 49, 57), 3511 (lots 1, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75, 80, 82, and 93), and 3532 (lots 14, 19B, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90 and 91). Pursuant to San Francisco Charter Section 4.105, and Planning Code Sec. 340, the Planning Commission will consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to Initiate amendments to the General Plan, including adding a new area plan, the Market and Octavia Area Plan, and making related amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Housing, Recreation and Open Space and Transportation Elements, the Civic Center Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, South of Market Area Plan and the Land Use Index to implement the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission will also consider companion Resolutions of Intention to initiate amendments to the Planning Code and Zoning Map.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve a draft Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the General Plan and schedule a public hearing to consider the amendments.

SPEAKERS:

Demian Quesnol, Aids Housing Alliance

There is a lot of talk in the plan about input from the community.
I am here to speak for the Eureka Valley Promotion Association.
A year ago, Eureka Valley Promotion Association, which is the oldest organization in the City, 125 years old, co-signed a letter with the merchants of Upper Market and Castro expressing concerns about the plan.
The letter was addressed and written to the Planning Department Deputy.
There was no response.
We had a meeting and the plan came up for discussion and there was an issue on the reduced parking.
There is a consensus in the core plan area of the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association.
There is not consensus in the Eureka Valley about the reduced parking.
There was a vote to send a letter to Planning asking for more time because we were not reached out to and didn't have appropriate input for the plan.
We are working with other groups and are having meetings and are trying to form a position on the plan.
The Planning Department didn't reach us and we want more time to have appropriate input.
There is significant development happening in the next few years in our neighborhood covered by the plan and we need to be able to have appropriate input to that.
We would like to request for time to complete that process.

Bob Rhine

I live at 1025 Mina. I am representing the Lafayette Natoma Association.
Nobody in our neighborhood made comments that I am aware of; and also on the EIR.
After looking at some of the discussions in the EIR, I can say without a doubt it seem like most of the discussion of impacts that can't be mitigated will fall into our area.
The transition with the heights in our area is brutal.
I think everybody wants housing.
We are a residential enclave district and people are saying we will be a residential cave district.

Paula Cook

I'm Director of the West Bay Housing Corporation.
[Regarding the project at 261 Octavia Boulevard-Octavia Court]
We urge the Commission to approve this plan.
West Bay Housing helps people with developmental disabilities.
Currently, we have received four million dollars from the State of California and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
We have submitted to HUD for Social Disabilities program and the affordable housing program.
We anticipate receiving funds in late November of 2006.
To access the funds we need to demonstrate Octavia Court is fully funded.
The project has been approved by Redevelopment and Planning staff to dual track entitlements ensuring the dollars will not be returned.
Dual tracking is time consuming and costly.
If this does not happen it means the displacement of the residents that cannot reside here if funding is not given.
Christopher Peterson
I moved to the neighborhood four years ago when the draft plan was released.
Little did I suspect it would be undergoing public review at this point four years later.
I urge the Commission to expeditiously approve the plan.
The media provided little attention to the land use aspects associated with global warming. The pattern, density, the design and development has impacts on energy and green house gases.
These are crucial and things the city should be acting on quickly.
The transit oriented development; the urban infill; that is the type of planning that the city and state and nation need to be engaged in now.
The time to act is now. The time for delay has passed.
As saomebody who has participated in the process for four years, the city has done an extraordinary job in terms of the number of workshops and amount of out reaches they have done.
I don't think the city can be reasonably faulted on the out reach they have engaged in for the past four years.
I hope you don't let those comments slow you down.
There are concerns about the historic resources survey.
Some advocate delaying the plan until that survey is adopted.
I hope you don't do that.
The plan ensures that historic resources are not harmed.
The plan can be updated.
Serious harm can result as exampled by the woman who spoke before me.
They are being delayed and viability is being imperiled.

Alan Martinez

I'm on the Landmarks Board speaking as a private citizen.
The Better Neighborhoods process was started without the benefit of the historic survey.
Through the effort of many, especially Supervisor Dufty and Supervisor Peskin, the City found the money to do the survey and is under way. And the historic pieces not in the district are underway.
By incorporating them into the plan it will be clear what the resources are.
We are so close that this element should be handled in the proper way and everything be done at the same time.
The plan may be in violation of CEQA.
I think that is the source of a lot of problems. With changes in zoning there is a land rush going on Market Street.
The best way to protect our historic resources and avoid the protracted disputes and the amount of money people spend on lawyers that don't protect the public is to get the identification of the individual historic buildings incorporated into the plan now rather than attempting to do it later. We are so close now.
I would like to see the historic first. I think it's a mistake to put parking and historic issues on the same calendar date. There are two of the most controversial subjects.
I would like to see the historic element at the end of the calendar. It would give the chance for planning to get more work done on the survey and give the potential historic district identified and get them into the plan.
I think it can be done if Planning does the full court press.
This stuff has got to get into the plan.

Jason Henderson, on the Transportation and Planning Committee at Haze Valley

We welcome this hearing schedule and hope it is a thoughtful and critical process and we think it's a good compromise.
One suggestion I would make to staff is provide an index. It is a thick document. To try to find certain things and discuss them is burdensome.
Although we welcome the thoughtful deliberation, we want to make sure and urge you not to dilute the plan as you move through the process.
Slowing down could frustrate members of the community who have participated for a long time.
One thing I hope is included in the community benefit's part is a robust and thorough discussion of how we can leverage the community benefits to affordable housing. There is an important need.
We are upping the value of a lot of parcels – especially on Market and Van Ness.
It would be good to think how we could provide more affordable housing.
One way is to stick to the parking ratio; setting a time; and the historic survey (please don't allow that to delay the plan).
There is good language in there.

Sarah - Policy Director of the Planning and Research Commission (SPUR)

I really support the plan of action that has been laid out by staff. I think it is sensible.
I enjoyed hearing your discussion about the organization by topic so you see the plan an an integrated whole.
I appreciate the suggestion there should be a time certain.
I know there are a lot of people who want to attend the hearings and it is a helpful way to move forward.
SPUR has been supportive of the Better Neighborhood's planning process.
The reason we are supportive is because it provides certainty to the community.
It provides certainty to project sponsors and they know what to build.
I believe the process is laid before you and it will allow us the time to participate in the discussion.
I hope you move the initiation forward.

Dennis Richards – President of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

We are 20% of the plan area.
We are cited as a model neighborhood in a transit rich environment.
We support long range planning.
We support a plan sensitive to the needs of our neighborhood.
I want to acknowledge the work the Planning Department has done. They have been accessible to us.
We have spent a hundred hours on this plan.
We have some concerns remaining. Some are serious.
The historical survey.
We feel we are inches apart.
We are looking at a 30-year plan.
I don't understand why three more months will kill this thing.
When you rezone you give a benefit to the property owner.
If it comes back different you will take away the benefits from the property owner and there will be a reason for the property owner being in a historic district.
We feel zoning is good for preservation.
We want to do a full court press and understand where the properties are that are historic and where the individual sites are.
When do the infrastructure improvements kick in?
We welcome the way the process is going in terms of set dates.
Separate parking and historic preservation.
There will be workshops with the neighborhood groups to vet out the issues.
We support that if there is a real chance to make changes.

Curt Holzinger – Served on the Task Force of the [Duboce] Triangle Area.

We have been working with staff for about a year.
Our initial comments cane in August. We have read the plan and all the material.
We have offered thoughtful suggestions on how this plan should be amended so that can we can embrace it.
Right now we are not ready to embrace this plan.
We are here to appeal to you, the Commissioner, as you go through this, to listen to our rational.
To hear why we think in our neighborhood certain aspects of this plan will be detrimental rather than beneficial.
We researched and read it an thoughtfully considered the issues.
We had heated discussions in our group on whether the plan is good for us or not.
We need these amendments and I hope over the next few months that the staff and the Commisison will be open to the changes we are putting forth, which we think will improve the plan and protect our neighborhood.
As you review this information, please keep in mind that there are rebuilding and reweaving neighborhoods that are putting things back together.
The Triangle is not that the type of neighborhood. It's already a pretty darned good neighborhood and it doesn't need a lot of reweaving or improvements.
Certain things can be detrimental.
One to pick on is the huge increase in density that's proposed for our residential neighborhoods.
We are a neighborhood of two and three unit buildings and two and three stories. This would change the density to what the property owners decide within the [new] bulk and height.
To get the six units is pretty easy within those parameters.
That's a doubling of the density in our residential neighborhood.
That's a point we have a concern about.
We look forward to working with you, bringing our points to you and hope you and the staff will be open to the amendments so we can embrace this plan.

Peter Cohen

I think the schedule of hearings is reasonable if everyone is ready to do a lot of work.
I want to make sure that when folks talk about the length of time this has taken there was a significant dead zone for a couple of years while the EIR was being prepared.
I don't want there to be a mistake that people feel they need more time.
We are starting into a new phase of dialogue.
The hearing schedule is reasonable.
We are looking at an adoption packet.
This is not flipping the pages. It is reading new materials. It's the adoption-codified stuff. It's an experimental plan.
Rincon was 12 development projects.
This is a neighborhood. We are prefabricating fragile virtues in the case report.
We have to be careful about the fine-tuning process and list to the community who lives there.
I think they should be taken seriously.
This is about getting it just right.
A few quick issues:
Mid-block open space - a lot of the development impact in residential neighborhoods happens in the interior of the block. You don't see it in the street but you feel it when you live there.
Garage additions – it would be great to get a survey of the garage additions.
Interagency coordination – I'm happy to say a piece of legislation moved yesterday.
Public benefits – Better Neighborhoods Plus provided the structure for the public benefits program.
How do you deal with the up zoning included in the plan?

Robin Levitt – On the Board of Haze Valley Neighborhood Association

I'm not speaking for them.
Dennis Richards mentioned this was a 30-year plan.
I hope it doesn't turn into a 30-year planning process.
I've been involved since 2000 – since it started.
The Planning Department should be commended for their outreach and the number of community meetings they have done.
I'm in support of the plan.
I think we need to really move forward as expeditiously as we can.
I live a half block off Octavia Boulevard.
There are a dozen parcels waiting to be developed.
My neighborhood is in limbo. We are waiting for the plan to go forward before things can be completed on Octavia as well as other sites.
We need to consider the plan and the information we have before us.
The schedule proposed by the planning staff allows us to do that.
I hope we will not delay this plan any further.

Tes Wellborn, Haight-Ashbury Council

I have participated in the Market/Octavia plan for the past six years and have seen several hundred people participate in that plan.
As you move forward, take into account all those people who have been at meeting after meeting.
This plan benefits all of San Francisco.
We support the plan.
But the plan is translated into zoning and community improvement planning.
I urge you to have additional meetings besides the public hearings where the details can be worked out.
We need to put things in that are not there now that modify some things and move fast at the same time.
Hopefully in a couple of months we could have this tied up.
Let's get some of these things like affordable housing and the community benefit's plan nailed down more tightly and better.

Sue Hestor

Looking at your scheduled, hearing number 2 is a killer hearing.
One of the unfortunate thing this Commission does is call up the entire calendar.
Items 1-6 the only time the public has time to comment is a one three-minutes opportunity on areas on Market Street.
There are huge differences in the communities on Market Street and huge difference in the topic items.
If you are going to do things right commit yourself that each item is called separately, show you don't' really cheat the public.
I think you need to have serious discussions on the backside impact on Imrket Street.
You need to see the scale of what is there. That includes photos.
You don't have that now unless you got different things than I did.
You really need to see what is the impact where you have large buildings on Market Street and small possibly historic buildings to the rear.
Those are the issues I have dealt with over my cases. There needs to be appropriate attention paid to the non-Haze Valley part of this.
I don't think it is unusual to say you maybe should have a little bit of explanation on issues particular to neighborhoods that are not the core.

Marilyn Amini

I feel it is good you will mail to every resident that will be impacted.
I'm wondering, will the mailed notice be neighborhood specific?
That touches on the question as to how you are going to organize discussions.
As Sue mentioned, there is a huge difference in communities and how they are impacted.
If you will communicate in your notice area specifically and how those particular areas will be impacted, people will feel they are given adequate notice.

Gary Weiss, President, Upper Market Association, EDPA, the CDB and Merchants of Market and Castro.

I want to speak as a small business owner in the Castro.
I wish I could have participated earlier on.
None of the groups I am affiliated with were aware.
The main point is parking.
We don't feel the point of view of Eureka Valley residents were included. We need more parking not less.
The small businesses in the area are suffering from lack of parking spaces.
When large projects are in the works regular information forums are a tool to educating the public.
This one, despite the neighbors in the eastern end of the plan, is lacking.
We are asking for a delay.
This will ensure a large element of the plan area will have the ability to review the plan and input its views.

ACTION: Initiated

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee and Moore

EXCUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION 17312

14b. 2003.0347EMTZ (A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN – INTENTION TO INITIATE PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS.

Consideration of a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the San Francisco Planning Code related to the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. The Plan encompasses an irregularly shaped area in northeast San Francisco. It extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Street for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Plan Area boundaries extend from 11th and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west. The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central Freeway alignment to Turk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street between 10th and 11th Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area boundaries jog along Division, Mission, Fourteenth, Guerrero, and Sixteenth Streets. The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor's Blocks in entirety or in part, including the whole of Blocks 759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 809, 813 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to 3506, 3512 to 3514, 3533 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3560; and portions of 3507 (lot 40), 3510 (lots 49, 57), 3511 (lots 1, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75, 80, 82, and 93), and 3532 (lots 14, 19B, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90 and 91). Pursuant to Planning Code Section 302, the Planning Commission will consider a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Planning Code. The amendments would bring the Planning Code regulations governing this area into consistency with the General Plan, as proposed to be amended. The amendments contain proposals for changes to standards from those currently established by the Planning Code; including those for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, density, residential demolition and parking. Proposed Planning Code text and map amendments will a) establish three new zoning districts, b) amend the Hayes-Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs), c) update height and bulk districts, d) establish the Market and Octavia Community Improvements Impact Fee, and e) make related revisions to the Planning Code necessary to implement the General Plan as proposed to be amended. Amendments to the Planning Code include revisions to the Planning Code adding Sections 121.5, 158.1, 206.4, 207.6, 207.7, 230, 249.27, 261.1, 263.18, 326- 326.8, 341, 731, 731.1, 732, 732.1 and by amending Planning Code Sections 102.5, 121.1, 121.2, 124, 132, 134, 135, 144, 145.1, 145.4, 151.1, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 166, 167, 201, 207.4, 208, 209.1-209.9, 234.2, 253, 270, 303, 304, 311, 316, 603, 606 702.1, and 720.1. The Planning Commission will also consider companion amendments to the Zoning Map.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve a draft Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Planning Code and schedule a public hearing to consider the amendments.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a.

ACTION: Initiated

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee and Moore

EXCUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION 17313

14c. 2003.0347EMTZ (A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN – INTENTION TO INITIATE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

Consideration of a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Zoning Map of the San Francisco Planning Code related to the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. The Plan encompasses an irregularly shaped area in northeast San Francisco. It extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Street for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Plan Area boundaries extend from 11th and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west. The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central Freeway alignment to Turk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street between 10th and 11th Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area boundaries jog along Division, Mission, Fourteenth, Guerrero, and Sixteenth Streets. The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor's Blocks in entirety or in part, including the whole of Blocks 759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 809, 813 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to 3506, 3512 to 3514, 3533 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3560; and portions of 3507 (lot 40), 3510 (lots 49, 57), 3511 (lots 1, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75, 80, 82, and 93), and 3532 (lots 14, 19B, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90 and 91). Pursuant to Planning Code Section 302, the Planning Commission will consider a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Zoning Map by reclassifying property, Including amendments to Sectional Maps 2 and 2H, 7 and 7H, and Maps 2SU and 7SU of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco. The amendments contain proposals for changes to standards from those currently established by the Planning Code; including those for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, density, residential demolition and parking. Proposed Planning Code text and map amendments will a) establish three new zoning districts, b) amend the Hayes-Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs), c) update height and bulk districts, d) establish the Market and Octavia Community Improvements Impact Fee, and e) make related revisions to the Planning Code necessary to implement the General Plan as proposed to be amended. Within the Market and Octavia Neighborhood plan area, The proposed Zoning Map Changes will establish three new zoning districts: the Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District (VNMDR-SUD), the Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Commercial District (NCT), and Transit-Oriented Residential Use Districts (RTO). The Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will replace C-3-G and C-M District zoning on blocks in the vicinity of Van Ness and Market/Mission intersections). Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Commercial (NCT) Use Districts will replace the current RM and NC district zoning primarily along the Market Street corridor and between Octavia Boulevard and Franklin Street, and some C-M Districts extending south of Market Street along Valencia, Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue. The Transit-Oriented Residential Use District (RTO) will replace most of the RH and RM district zoning north and south of the Market Street corridor, extending north to Turk Street, west to Noe and Scott Streets, and South to Sixteenth Street. The proposed RTO district will encourage moderate-density, multi-family, residential infill, in scale with existing development. The high availability of transit service, proximity of retail and services within walking distance, and limitation on permitted parking will encourage construction of some housing without accessory parking. Small-scale retail activities serving the immediate area will be permitted at intersections. A Neighborhood Commercial Transit District (NCT) will overlay the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and portions of the Upper Market and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts within the Market and Octavia neighborhood. In named NCT and NC-1(T) districts, revised parking requirements and housing density controls will encourage housing above ground-floor retail uses. These districts otherwise remain unchanged. They include current Neighborhood Commercial Districts (Hayes-Gough, portions of the Upper Market, Valencia) and several parcels currently zoned NC-1. The Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will encourage the development of a transit-oriented, high-density, mixed-use neighborhood around the intersections of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street and South Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street. Proposed heights in the Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will change from 120, 130, 150, 160, 200 and 320 feet to 85, 120, 200, 320 and 400 feet; towers will be permitted over a podium of 85 or 120 feet; the highest towers will be permitted in the vicinity of the Market Street/Van Ness Avenue intersection. In the Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Commercial Use Districts (NCT), height districts will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to primarily 55, 65 and 85 feet; these districts will be concentrated near transit services in SoMa West and along Market Street to allow additional height for ground floor retail uses. Some heights on some parcels near Brady Street will change from 105 and 60 feet to 40 feet and 85 feet) on parcels surrounding a proposed public open space. Proposed heights in most Residential Transit Oriented (RTO) Districts and RH districts primarily remain 40 and 50 feet as currently classified; in some RTO areas, permitted heights will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to 40 and 50 feet.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve a draft Resolution of Intention to initiatei amendments to the Zoning Map and schedule a public hearing to consider the amendments.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a.

ACTION: Initiated

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee and Moore

EXCUSED: Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION 17314

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: 8: 05 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, January 18, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with corrections on page 3 of the spelling of Mrs. Platt and how

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya.

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 10:00:23 PM