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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

October 5, 2006

October 5, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 5, 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 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Craig Nikitas, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Aaron Starr, Michael Li, Isolde Wilson, Kate Conner, Edgar Oropeza, Michael Smith, April Hesik, 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.

PROPOSALS FOR CONTINUANCE WERE ANNOUNANCED FOR ITEMS 4, 8 AND 10.

SPEAKERS:

Joseph - Attorney for the DR requestor on Item 10.

  1. We would like to ask for a smaller continuance.
  2. This building is in litigation.
  3. There were agreements between the opposing council and myself.
  4. On the issue the attorney said that was fine but could not get his client's consent. He didn't tell me that until yesterday.
  5. I was unaware of the possibility of going forward and my client and I would be prejudiced if I did.
  6. I would like to ask to continue it to the November second calendar so I can represent my client and this case could go forward

Jeremy Paul – Representing the Project Sponsor on item 10.

  1. There is no basis for continuance.
  2. The building application is separate from any matters involved in litigation between the builder and the neighbor.
  3. If the requestor of the continuance had made their request in a timely fashion they would have heard that it was not granted and would have been prepared.
  4. This permit holder has been waiting a long time.
  5. It is a minor permit application. There is little substance.
  6. Staff is here and prepared to move forward.
  7. I don't believe we should take more staff or commission time with a matter as minor as this.
  8. I think we should hear it today and get it over with.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

1. 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 Moore

  1. We had requested that this planning hearing be dedicated as a milestone day to Dean Macris, our Planning Director, who is celebrating a special day.
  2. We want to thank you for everything you have done.
  3. If we would have had more time we would have created a three-dimensional form on the impact your leadership has brought back to the city's skyline.
  4. But only speaking one dimensionally, we would like to present this cake and flowers to you and a card.
  5. [Applause]

Director Macris

  1. I'm probably the only person in this room that wants to be 75 because I don't like the alternative.
  2. I'm almost 75. In a few days.
  3. Thank you very much commissioners.
  4. It's been great working with you all.
  5. Some of you are newer than others.
  6. I've enjoyed this immensely.
  7. Larry Badiner reminded me of a quote the he thought of. He said to me the other day  he has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire. He thought that fit me perfectly. Is that what you said? I thought he was referring to me.
  8. Thank you very much.
  9. I look forward for a few more weeks together and we will see what happens from there.
  10. Thanks again and it has been great fun.

THE COMMISSION TOOK A 10 MINUTE RECESS

Commissioner Lee

  1. I would like to suggest to the Planning Commission and Department that we schedule a joint public hearing with the Building Inspection Commission just so we can discuss overlapping issues, efficiencies between the two departments, and look at opportunities of training between both groups.
  2. We can discuss any issues we think we have as commissioners and issues they think they have.
  3. We should also do this just so the public can come in and voice issues or opinions they have regarding both departments and their relationships with both departments.

Director Macris

  1. Commissioner, we would be pleased to arrange that.
  2. It's a good idea and we are glad to do it.

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. In the packet of material we received last week, I noticed there was information about the Central [Subway], phase 2.
  2. Being new to the Commission, I don't know if there has been an informational matter brought before us.
  3. If not, perhaps we can have someone come in and tell us what's going on with this thing.

Director Macrs

  1. We have several special briefings that we are trying to do – Treasure Island and Holiday Plaza.
  2. We will try to do this in a sequence that makes sense with regard to your time.
  3. It may be a little distance off but we will put it into the queue.

Commissioner Moore

  1. We talked about sustainability and I was wondering if the commissioners were aware that PG&E Energy Center puts together something.
  2. I would like to circulate that for commissioners and for the public.
  3. That is all part of the series.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. In this morning's Chronicle there was an article I thought was interesting.
  2. I didn't have time to read it in great depth. There was a projection by one group.
  3. This is one opinion of possible decreases in home values or housing prices–however you might want to interpret it–in the counties around the Bay Area.
  4. Surprisingly, they thought that San Francisco would fall the least and actually it was projected to increase over the next year.
  5. One of the factors they said was that (I think they were dealing with single-family homes) the percentage of single-family owner occupied homes is higher than in the other counties.
  6. A lot of homes are rented by the owners and that was the factor.
  7. For what it's worth, it's an interesting study. It might be worth another read and possibly calling the author and finding out more about the methodology of where these statistics came from.
  8. It is interesting and runs counter to what you might expect.
  9. Commissioner Lee
  10. I also want to add that I received from the Bay Area Economic Reform a new document published this month – The Invasion Edge Meeting the Global Competitive Challenge. I want to give this to staff.
  11. It's the only copy I have but it lays the groundwork of the Bay area to the future.
  12. As we look to how the city should look like, there is something the staff should also take a look at.

PUBLIC SPEAKERS:

Marilyn Amini

  1. I would like to talk about the community improvements and Eastern Neighborhood's legislation (Board file 061206) heard by the supervisors at Tuesday's Board of Supervisor's meeting.
  2. The supervisors were not advised that this significant legislation had not been heard by the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
  3. Even though the commission has jurisdiction over all of the land use and planning issues in the city, Supervisor McGoldrick testified regarding the efforts on the prior Eastern Neighborhoods rather than the controversial Better Neighborhood's legislation, which was introduced in April of 2005, from which this legislation springs.
  4. I will make that statement up front and ask that the commission schedule a hearing to this important legislation.
  5. I'm putting this on the overhead. If you see the highlighting, it shows that it was referred to the commission for review and comment.
  6. Four extensions were given in October 2005. The Commission did not recommend this legislation.
  7. This current legislation, of which that was apparent, needs to be heard by you and considered by you and commented on by you as well.
  8. It's very important. I'm asking that you schedule it.
  9. Supervisor McGoldrick emphasized that the reason for this current legislation is there is no mechanism for interdepartmental budgeting.
  10. Only the last four sentences of the last page has to do with budgeting. All the rest has to do with comprehensive planning in the city.
  11. The Commission should be hearing this legislation. You do have the right to request this back. I ask that you do.
  12. I feel that the Board of Supervisors will not deny you that right because you are the sitting commission created by charter to consider land use matters.
  13. You have the jurisdiction and authority and you represent citizens.

John Bardis

  1. I'm delivering a statement from the San Francisco Neighborhoods pertaining to a request for this matter regarding the proposed ordinance fro community improvement and eastern neighborhoods.
  2. There should be a public hearing by this commission.
  3. I'm making these statements on behalf of the Coalition to make that request and to support that request.
  4. I know that the staff has asserted that this is an amendment to the Administrative Code and doesn't involve planning, and therefore there is no need for you to have a hearing and to speak
  5. If you defer to the copy of the ordinance on the overhead, you see highlighted in red all the instances that planning is referred to in this ordinance that presumably is an amendment to the Administrative Code.
  6. 57 times planning or plans are referred to as words in this ordinance.
  7. I suggest that our responsibility and authority under the City Charter is being bypassed by you not being referred to by the Board of Supervisors for your review and comment on this.
  8. I urge you to take the initiative to call for a public hearing on this ordinance and to provide t the Board of Supervisors what your view is regarding what is obviously a very serious bypass of your authority.
  9. We feel that as a commission, you should deal with the matters that pertain to planning in the city.
  10. In particular, one sentence in the first page says,  & these are expected to be lead to modified area plans of the City's General Plan. And that addresses urban design, open space, housing facilities and present rezoning and policy proposals that cover land use, housing, open space and transportation.
  11. I submit to you, what could be more clear that you have jurisdiction over what is being proposed as an ordinance to the Administrative Code?

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

2. Director's Announcements

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Commissioners, you recall when we had 77 Van Ness before you there was unclarity whether a hiring agreement was required.
  2. The Mayor's Office of Economic and Work Force Development consulted with the City Attorney on this.
  3. I received word yesterday that we do believe the First Source Hiring Agreement is required.
  4. They will process that forward.
  5. I can't assure you that it happened yet because we only heard yesterday. We are proceeding with it.
  6. This was not clear because this was a previously approved project,.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. Is this something that will stop the project:

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. This is a simple thing that will be completed within the next wee.
  2. I can't imagine that it will have any effect on it.

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

Dan Sider of Department Staff reported:

  1. Four item this week we would like to bring to your attention regarding the Board of Supervisors
  2. From Tuesday's full Board meeting, Supervisor McGoldrick's Community Improvement and the Eastern Neighborhood's ordinance, which was reviewed by Land Use last week was read at the full Board and passed on first reading. That vote was 10 to 1 with Supervisor Ma voting against.
  3. Also at the full Board was Saint Bridges landmarking. The ordinance to landmark the exterior of the structure was passed on first reading.
  4. Moving forward to yesterday's Land Use and Economic Development Committee meeting.
  5. Trinity Plaza was reviewed. Zoning Map and text changes; a General Plan amendment and a General Plan [Development] agreement were discussed.
  6. There were presentations by our staff, the Controllers Office and the Project Sponsors.
  7. The matter was continued to the call of the Chair.
  8. This item will reappear at Land Use following dialogue with the sponsor and committee.
  9. The last is an introduction by Supervisor Maxwell, Daly, and McGoldrick. It's an ordinance that will have a new citywide control for residential buildings. Should this ordinance come to pass, continual use would be required for any replacement structure for residential buildings proposed for demolitions.
  10. What this would do is codify your existing demolition policy with the important substitution of a conditional use for the current DR process.
  11. This was introduced on Tuesday and we expect the transmittal next week.
  12. The matter will come before you this fall or early winter.

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. On the Community Improvement item, how many more readings will there be?

Dan Sider

  1. Two readings

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. So he's not intending to refer to us?

Dan Sider

  1. The matter was discussed a number of weeks ago at the Planning Commission.
  2. This item will appear at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.
  3. If you would like a communication prepared, we would be happy to help you with that.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. Questions regarding Supervisor's actions. The first deals with Trinity Plaza.
  2. When an item goes to Land Use or another committee, is there a timetable involved?
  3. Does it have to be approved to come out of committee?
  4. What mechanism exists for it to go to the full Board of Supervisors?
  5. The second question is in regards to the DR/CU replacement structure.
  6. Usually we handle those separately. Is that in the Planning Code?
  7. Do we have jurisdiction over it?

Dan Sider

  1. Commissioner Antonini, with respect to your first question. There is no maximum time limit for a matter to be reviewed by a Board Committee or by the full Board.
  2. There is a minimum in the case of policy that is deemed to be significant. There is a 30-day rule under which legislation cannot be acted on by the Board. They can't act until 30 days have passed.
  3. To your second question, the ordinance proposed by Supervisors McGoldrick, Maxwell and Daly is an amendment to the Planning Code.
  4. Under the Planning Code, it will come to you for your comment. It is your prerogative to weigh in on that.
  5. I would mention as part of the Planning Code revisions enabling this review; your comments or your advice is just that. It is a non-binding recommendation. The Board can override that should they see fit. It is codified in the Planning Code that you are afforded the opportunity to weigh in.

Zoning Administrator Badiner on Board of Appeal matters

  1. A couple of items.
  2. One was 3245 Pacific Avenue.
  3. This was a case where we issued a permit for six dormers on the existing roof. Two would have faced the appellant's property.
  4. These are of such a size that they are exempt from our neighborhood notification Section 311.
  5. The appellant raised concerns first of with whether 311 was properly performed. I think that issue dropped away and they understood why they were not notified.
  6. Essentially the neighbors negotiated a settlement that there would be no plywood and no operating windows.
  7. For 1310 Stanyan Street I know the Commission saw as a DR.
  8. It's on an improved portion of Stanyan Street – a grassy hillside.
  9. The project was heard and you required a single-family house with a garage.
  10. Because Samuel Street was not improved, the driveway was a major encroachment.
  11. The Board heard the encroachment permit in Land Use and tabled it.
  12. It didn't go to the full Board.
  13. We were leaving the project sponsor at a loss. They requested whether in fact they needed a garage.
  14. As I think the Commission is aware, in almost every case a single-family house needs a parking space.
  15. There are exceptions in the Planning Code if the project is topographically inaccessible.
  16. In that case you would not need a variance.
  17. I could not make that finding.
  18. I required them to file for a variance and I issued that variance.
  19. The variance was appealed by the original appellant and DR requestor.
  20. Their concern was not the variance but with the steps that would be required to be built in the right-of-way to access the house.
  21. They were also concerned with the amount of level area in front of the house in the right-of-way.
  22. Our position was that is something that should be taken up in the encroachment process.
  23. The Board upheld it and added the condition that it be in conformity with the General Plan

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

ELEMENTS OF DESIGN: Terminology – Informational presentation: The first of several ongoing staff presentations about the elements of building design.

No Action to be taken

(Continued from the Regular Meetings of September 21 and September 28, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to October 12, 2006

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

5. (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

DEPARTMENT'S POLICY ON GARAGES - follow up on the Informational Presentation held on September 14, 2006, on the Department's draft policy for review of new garages in existing structures.

SPEAKERS:

John Pier
  1. We live in a beautiful city.
  2. People come to enjoy the architecture and things that give the City character.
  3. I think in general this ordinance may be a good idea.
  4. As I read it, or the language I've read so far there are ambiguities. As a person that might apply for a garage permit, I am concerned.
  5. It would be nice if the language could be clarified.
  6. For example, what gives a building architectural merit?
  7. How will the homeowner approach this?
  8. The other comment I heard raised was consideration of whether the interior of the space will be altered.
  9. You do have to do modification to the front room otherwise you couldn't get the clearance to get your ramp down.
  10. I would question what relevance that has to preserving the exterior architectural part of the building.
  11. Nobody will come through your house to see the interior as long as it complies with the codes for livable space.
  12. I am concerned about the language regarding bay windows.
  13. Any alterations to bay windows [shouldn't] be prevented because I rarely see a garage put in where some alteration hasn't been required unless the building is high enough off the ground that you can drive in and it wouldn't create an obstacle.

Joe Butler

  1. I was here a couple of weeks ago and in looking at the revised draft of the bulletins, some of the things that were mentioned on the September 14 meeting are not here.
  2. The issue of affordability, which was discussed by many of the speakers; tenant displacement.
  3. I'm wondering if the full commission would like to see some consideration of those items.

ACTION: Although this is an information only item and does not require Commission action, the Zoning Administrator indicated that he would revise the draft document to incorporate the suggestions of the Commission and the Landmarks Board and finalize it as part of procedures or a Zoning bulletin.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

None

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

6a. 2006.0210D (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)

1693 ALEMANY BOULEVARD - south side between San Juan Avenue and Norton Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3206 – Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy required review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.12.22.0924, to demolish an existing single-family residence in 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 demolition.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

6b. 2006.0952D (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)

1693 ALEMANY BOULEVARD – southside between San Juan Avenue and Norton Street; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 3206 – 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. 2005.12.22.0928, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family residential building with one off-street parking spaces in 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 new construction.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the new construction

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR

7. 2006.0798C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1723 UNION STREET - south side between Octavia and Gough Streets; Lot 001B, in Assessor's Block 0544 -- Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1, 303, 725.21 and 725.27 to allow a personal service use with a use size greater than 2,499 sq. ft., and to allow the proposed use to operate before 6:00 a.m. in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project consists of establishing an approximately 11,300 sq. ft. gym (d.b.a. Crunch) in a space that was previously occupied by a retail-clothing store (d.b.a. Georgiou). No expansion in the building envelope is proposed, although the proposal will increase the existing floor area from 10,157 sq. ft. to approximately 11,300 sq. ft. through interior alterations. No onsite parking is proposed or required. The proposed business hours are Monday thru Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Friday, 5:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; Saturday and Sunday, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Joel Yodowitz, on behalf of Project Sponsor

  1. We want to take over two storefronts on Union Street.
  2. Keep the exterior with a new coat of paint and original signage.
  3. This proposal will be good for San Francisco residents and the health and convenience of the City by allowing people a full service health club and gym.
  4. If would be good for local businesses because it will generate pedestrian traffic on Union Street and promote patronage of near by businesses.
  5. No parking is required by the code.
  6. We expect most people to walk or take public transit to the gym.
  7. The person requesting that this be taken off the consent calendar is a competitor of a very small palates studio.
  8. We don't compete with yoga or palates studios.
  9. Crunch has weights. It doesn't offer personalized studio type classes like the person who wants this taken off the consent calendar.
  10. The concern that Crunch would affect their business is over stated and it shouldn't be a fear.

Daron Press

  1. I would be the co-owner of the studio that Joel is referring to.
  2. My wife and I own Mercury Fitness focusing on palates.
  3. It has come to our attention that Crunch is opening a block and a half away from us. There is a focus on small group classes there.
  4. There is a Crunch three blocks up the street on Polk and Union. 1500 feet away.
  5. For me, I find it hard to believe that crunch would want to open up another so close to another gym.
  6. The Union Street [association] prides itself on supporting businesses and tries to stop saturation of formula businesses retail or personal services.
  7. This is not an added benefit to the community.
  8. There are many fitness facilities in that district that offer the same classes they offer.
  9. Parking will be an issue.
  10. Our bottom line as well as other small fitness centers will be adversely affected by this place opening up two blocks away.
  11. I am asking to protect the small fitness centers by taking their application for conditional use and removing it from the calendar, which we are doing now, and oppose it.

1) MOTION: To approve

AYES: Olague, Antonini and Lee

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESULT: Motion failed

2) ACTION: Continued to November 16, 2006. Public hearing is closed.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee and Moore

NAYES: Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2006.0897D (A.STARR: (415) 558-6362)

3300 CLAY STREET - at the southeast corner of Clay Street and Presidio Avenue, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0997- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.27.5519proposing to remove the ground floor storage area of a six-unit residential building, excavate a portion of the ground floor, and install a 6-car garage with a 10' wide garage door on Presidio Avenue. The existing building is a four-story, six-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 21, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to October 19, 2006

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

9. 2006.1068C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1405 -1415 GREEN STREET - southwest corner at Polk Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0550 – Request for conditional use authorization to establish a retail wine store (d.b.a.  Biondivino ) of approximately 365 square feet with on-site wine tasting in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The subject space was previously occupied by a retail antique store. There will be no physical expansion of the subject building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17315

10. 2006.1018D (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

2549 POST STREET - South side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 1081 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.26.3899, proposing to legalize construction of a deck projecting 6'-6 from the rear of the third floor of the building; a trellis at the southwest (rear) corner of the building at the fourth floor; and a spiral stair from the fourth floor up to a new roof deck over the penthouse. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to October 12, 2006)

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

11a. 2006.0495ZR (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

1800 BLOCK OF ALEMANY BOULEVARD - northwestern side between Ocean and Onondaga Avenues; Lot 011C in Assessor's Block 6954 – Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Map introduced by Supervisor Sandoval under Board of Supervisors File Number 060640 to change the zoning classification from RH-1, Residential House, One Family, to NC-3, Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial. This Project is located within a RH-1, Residentil House, One Family District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION: 17316

11b. 2006.0495ZR (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

1800 BLOCK OF ALEMANY BOULEVARD - northwestern side between Ocean and Onondaga Avenues; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 6954 - Request for a General Plan Referral for the sale of City owned property. This Project is located within a RH-1, Residential House, One Family District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Find that the sale of City owned property is consistent with the General Plan.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION: 17317

11c. 2006.0800Z (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

915 CAYUGA AVENUE - southeastern side between Ocean and Onondaga Avenues; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 6954 - Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning classification from RH-1, Residential House, One Family, to NC-3, Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial. The subject property is split between two zones, the RH-1 District zoning and the NC-3 District zoning. The requested change would move the zoning boundary 20 feet to the northwest between the two zoning districts. This Project is located within a NC-3, Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESOLUTION: 17318

12. 2006.0597D (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

423, 425, 427A, and 427B BUENA VISTA AVENUE EAST – south side between Park Hill Avenue and Upper Terrace; Lot 067 in Assessor's Block 2067 – Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.22.7317, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from thirteen units to eleven units, in a RH-3 (Residential, Three Units) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review.

SPEAKERS:

Project Sponsor [did not state name]

  1. We will keep it one family with the kids in San Francisco.
  2. This is what your recommendation is – to keep them in San Francisco.
  3. This project is a small 500 square foot addition.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

13. 2005.1143D (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

124 SCHWERIN STREET - northwest side of Schwerin Street, between Visitacion and Sunnydale Avenue, lot 005 in Assessor's Block 6301, – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.05.16.2521 proposing to construct a two story vertical addition to the front of the existing single-family house . The property is within an RH-1 (House, One-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 21, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Our main concern is the blockage of sunlight to our kitchen, which is on the south side and there is a bay window that sticks out.
  2. We will have minimal light in the kitchen if the proposed project is approved.
  3. The sponsor has placed a balcony in that area.
  4. It's a clear view to our kitchen and [will cause a] severe lack of privacy and it did not meet our concern to the sunlight in the kitchen.
  5. I recommended alternative suggestions.
  6. Because the residents concern is not a garage, they can build in that area. They don't have to build a second floor.
  7. We want an adequate setback that doesn't block the light from our kitchen.
  8. Most kitchens are designed for the most sunlight to enter. We will have minimal if the proposed project is approved.

George Sang, Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. I have known the family for more than 20 years.
  2. They have been living there for 15 years.
  3. All these years they have wanted to have a house like everyone else on the block.
  4. The house now is less than a thousand square feet. They want another 600 square feet.
  5. We feel that we are not asking anything that's not in the neighborhood.

Yu Chi Chin

  1. When they bought the house, they had not much money.
  2. Now that the children are grow-up, she would like to make her house a safe environment to get out of her car to go to the new addition.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved as revised a with north wall setback of 2' 3 ; remove 2nd floor deck and build out that space.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

14. 2006.0378D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2462 27TH AVENUE - east side between Taraval and Ulloa Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 2399 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.14.5610, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition and a rear horizontal addition on a single-family dwelling, located in a 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 as proposed.

SPEAKERS:

Perry Chia – representing Dennis McCarthy, DR requestor

  1. I live in back to the south of the subject property.
  2. The subject property is adjacent to this property, which has been sold.
  3. The former owner signed a letter of support; these owners have not signed a letter of support.
  4. We object to the proposed three-story building because it's not compatible with the other two-story buildings.
  5. This project will affect the adjacent houses. It is going farther and higher. It is going 13 feet deeper; and 17 feet deeper to the buildings to the north.
  6. We proposed a two-story building in accordance with their proposal.
  7. We proposed a 2-story building. Downstairs, which has a room that they call an exercise room but looks like an illegal in-law or second unit has a second entrance and a direct connection to the garage that can be converted to an illegal unit by moving this door and moving that door there. We propose that can be a bedroom and the staircase can descend straight down.
  8. We propose the bedroom they renamed a study remain a bedroom; and we propose dining room remain as the dining room and the rear bedroom become a bedroom and bathroom.
  9. They will achieve their goal of three bedrooms, four bathrooms with a two-story building.
  10. It can be achieved much cheaper than a three-story building and we feel this is a win/win proposal.

Karen Mitchell

  1. I live on 26th Avenue behind the subject property and a little to the north.
  2. My topic is the height of the project.
  3. The height of the three-story building is not compatible with the neighboring of two-stories in the RH-1 District.
  4. The plan to put on a front deck is incompatible with any of the houses

Deli Young, Project Sponsor

  1. Dennis McCarthy filed DR and he is not here.
  2. Karen, I don't believe, lives within the 150-foot radius.
  3. In October 2004 and September 2005, we had our first and second out reach meeting to discuss concern about blocked views.
  4. On December 22, 2005 we had a third out reach meeting at the request of certain neighbors that claimed their concerns were not being addressed.
  5. To address Sheila and Lucy on how the property will fit in the character of the other houses -- these flats are made out of a mix of two and three story houses.
  6. The purpose of the front setback incorporate my plans to minimize the impact on the character of the existing block.
  7. For Sheila McCarthy concern how the property will affect her privacy and amount of light -- the current subject property plan sufficiently addresses her concerns pertaining to her house.
  8. To address Rose and Margaret, they didn't have concerns on how the property will block the ocean view. It was indicated that we were in our right to expand our property.
  9. Karen is outside the 150-foot boundary criteria.
  10. The Meeting was adjourned when no one had additional questions or concerns.
  11. Today, we are here at the hearing of Discretionary Review because a neighbor is complaining that his concerns regarding my project have not been addressed.
  12. The trend you may see is that every time we have a meeting to discuss the concern of the project they come back with more issues to delay the project.
  13. I do not think there is anything we can do to satisfy the neighbor. In other words, they don't want us to build in any manner.
  14. I do have a letter of support from the neighbor's house that was sold.

Larry

  1. I am a 35 years resident on 27th Avenue.
  2. Much the neighbors to my north have three-story buildings.
  3. [Showing a picture] This project is almost on the sidewalk and blocks a significant amount of my light and air.
  4. I want to note that the Wong's project does not and I see no reason why it shouldn't go forward.
  5. All the paperwork I have seen – it looks like a lawful project.
  6. I don't see how one person can stop another person from their project as long as they follow the guidelines.
  7. These neighbors are good neighbors. They have bent over backwards to conform to the laws of San Francisco and keep to the shape and look of our neighborhood.
  8. I am asking you to approve their project.

Paul Nazaler

  1. I live across the street from the proposed project.
  2. I have no problems with this project.
  3. It conforms to the Planning Commission and zoning.
  4. I hope you will pass an opportunity not to discretionary review it and will approve it.

Don Wong, Project designer

  1. My brother and sister-in-law asked me to do this project three years ago.
  2. Had I known this would happen, I would not drawn the plans up.
  3. I did not know it would take three years.
  4. We are not talking about building a mansion.
  5. They have two kids.
  6. I worked with Michael Smith at Planning. We complied with everything he asked us to do.

MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and require an NSR and at a minimum a 15-foot setback

AYES: Antonini, Lee and Sugaya

NAYES: Moore and Olague

ABSENT: Alexander

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: The project is approved as proposed in the absence of a successful alternative motion for discretionary review or continuance. The Zoning Administrator announced that a notice of special restrictions (NSR) would be put on this property.

15. 2006.0859C (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

372-398 HAYES STREET - north side of street between Franklin and Gough Streets (a.k.a. 372-398 Hayes Street), Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 0809 – Request for conditional use authorization to establish a large fast-food restaurant and liquor store of approximately 2,633 square feet. The proposed use is not formula retail as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. The proposal would relocate the existing wine store (d.b.a.  Arlequin Wine Merchants ) to the adjacent vacant storefront. The existing small self-service restaurant (d.b.a.  Arlequin Food-to-Go ) would be expanded to approximately 1,100 square feet, making it a  large fast-food restaurant as defined by Section 790.90 of the Planning Code. The café and wine store would be internally connected and would operate as a single business. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS:

Vanessa Johnson

- Unless you have questions for me, we will await your pleasure

ACTION: Approved as amended to modify the conditions of approval to be consistent and only allow occasional wine tasting.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17319

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: 5: 01 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

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