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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco
May 24, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 24, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee and Moore

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:30 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Sophie Middlebrook, Aaron Starr, Viktoriya Wise, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1a. 2005.0633DDDD (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

113 PIXLEY STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0516 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.01.31.3422 to construct a 4-foot tall vertical addition to accommodate a third floor of occupancy in an existing two-story single-family home located in an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project is also the subject of a rear yard variance (2005.0633V), which will be heard by the Zoning Administrator immediately after the Planning Commission hears the requests for Discretionary Review.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve as revised.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 31, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

1b. 2005.0633V (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

113 PIXLEY STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0516 - Request for a Rear Yard Variance to construct a rear addition of approximately 4-feet deep and 10-feet wide within the last 15 feet of the lot containing a two-story single-family home located in an RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 31, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

2a. 2006.1414C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay and Washington Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 228.2, 228.3 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert the property's use from a gas station (Shell) within an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District, and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The gas station ceased operation in approximately October of 2004. The subject case will address land use violations on the property. A companion case (Case 2006.0741C) will seek to establish an off-street parking facility (temporary).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 7, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

2b. 2006.0741C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay and Washington Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 209.7 and 303 of the Planning Code to establish an off-street parking facility (temporary) within an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The surface parking lot will provide approximately 33 parking spaces. A companion case (Case 2006.1414C) will seek to authorize the conversion of a defunct gas station (Shell). The subject case will address land use violations on the property.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 7, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

2c. 2004.0890CV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Sections 253.2 and 303 of the Planning Code to allow the construction of a building which exceeds 40 feet in height, to construct a mixed-use building of 80 feet in height with approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, up to 35 dwelling units and 35 below-grade off-street parking spaces within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combine, High Density) Use District, an 80-D Height and Bulk District, and the Van Ness Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 7, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

2d. 2004.0890CV (S.VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Variances from the rear yard and exposure requirements, pursuant to Sections 135, 243(c)(6), and 307(g) of the Planning Code to allow a modified required rear yard for the project and an exception to the exposure requirement for 14 units. The Zoning Administrator will consider the request following the Planning Commission's consideration of the Conditional Use authorization.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 7, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

3a. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for review by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 309 of a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor) requiring exceptions to Planning Code standards for freight loading and building bulk, in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office – Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 7, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

3b. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for allocation of office space by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 321 in conjunction with a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor). This project requires the allocation of approximately 67,310 square feet of office space. The site is in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office – Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 7, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

4. 2006.1303C (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

77 OAKWOOD STREET - east side between 18TH and 19TH Streets; Lot 059 in Assessor's Block 3587 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to demolish a single-family structure and construct a new two-family structure, pursuant to the Board of Supervisors' interim zoning controls requiring conditional use authorization for the demolition of a residential structure. This site is located within the RH-2 (Residential House, Two Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

5a. 2005.0930DV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1355 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets, Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 0184 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006 0824 0472 proposing the construction of a five-story, 65-foot-high building containing 24 dwelling units and a garage with 24 parking spaces. The project site is within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

5b. 2005.0930DV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1355 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets, Lot 031 in Assessor's Block 0184 - Request for a rear yard modification and a dwelling unit exposure variance in connection with a proposal to construct a five-story, 65-foot-high building containing 24 dwelling units and a garage with 24 parking spaces. The project site is within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The request for the modification/variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Proposed for indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

6. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of March 15, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of May 10, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

7. Commission Comments/Questions (Tape IA)

  • 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 W. Lee

  1. Regarding the retail formula ordinance:
  2. What is the issue with Quickly Drinks?
  3. My understanding is that they are covered by the retail formula controls.
  4. [Staff] please give us a little history of what happened, how we found out, and how we are planning to resolve it.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

  1. You are aware of the issues with Supervisor Yu and the reports that have been in the newspaper, in the Chronicle, are very accurate of our involvement.
  2. Director Macris and I have met with Supervisor Yu to see what his interest was in his community.
  3. At that point, a particular case came up. You eventually saw the Wonderful Dessert and the Supervisor expressed that there was a neighborhood interest and mention Quickly.
  4. We asked Supervisor Yu to describe what was Quickly and he mentioned it could be a formula retail, which is a co-word for chain store.
  5. The Commission might be aware that the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance around 2003 or 2004 saying that any formula retail with 11 retailers or more in the country requires notice to the neighborhood.
  6. At the elections of last November, the electorate requires all formula retails to have conditional use and come to this Commission.
  7. I did some research and found out that Quickly has hundreds of outlets throughout the country and across the world.
  8. I started an investigation and there are 12 Quickly's in the city according to the website.
  9. There are actually 11 and we started sending out notices of either an alleged violation or violation on all of them, towards the end of March.
  10. Since then, we have been working with the owners and we think five comply with the formula retail ordinance. Six still need to comply.
  11. They need to comply. And if fast food is not allowed in the district they are located, it must close down.
  12. Some of them are at the Board of Appeals.
  13. You would eventually see these as conditional uses.

Commissioner W. Lee

  1. If someone put in an application to convert a store to Quickly, does not Planning have to sign off on it?
  2. Does not the normal procedures of Building Inspection refer all commercial applications to Planning?

Mr. Badiner Zoning Administrator

  1. If it is a conversion you are correct.
  2. As staff indicated to the Board and the Commission, we may see cases where someone has an existing restaurant and might move in without going through the proper permitting process.
  3. Some may not have filled out the proper forms - whether by error or by evasion.
  4. You may have a restaurant being replaced by another restaurant and a reasonable business owner might think I do not need to come for a permit for that, when in fact, you do.
  5. Because of the formula retail, owners need to fill out applications. Not all do that.
  6. We are cooperating with local and federal authorities and if the state has an interest, we would cooperate with them also.

Commissioner Moore

  1. First, I received a call from Deborah Walker asking us to schedule another meeting with DBI to discuss tall building guidelines
  2. I suggest calendaring such meeting and would like President Alexander's support on this.
  3. Second, Commissioner Sugaya had asked the Department where the Transit Center District RFP stands.
  4. On the website of the Office of Contract Administration posted on May 16, it indicates the RFP has been reissued.
  5. Please explain what the differences are of the two RFP's.
  6. Thirdly, I would like to suggest an informational issue for the Planning Commission.
  7. Many communities use eminent domain as an important tool for community revitalization.
  8. There was a joint panel between Urban Land Institute [ULI], AIA and EPA to resurface eminent domain as a viable tool for community revitalization.
  9. I got the document this morning and would like to share it for us to know what other communities are doing.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. With regards to the DBI meeting, we should definitely do it.
  2. If no one objects, we might calendar it on a fifth Thursday.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. I would like to know what the proposed agenda would be to meet with DBI.
  2. What would be added that has not been discussed?

Commissioner Moore

  1. The issue of tall building performance is an extremely important topic to weigh in on.
  2. We would ask policy organizations interested in public safety to be present.
  3. There have been advance discussions on new performance criteria and we should be updated on that and more.

Commissioner Antonini

- It would be the third joint meeting. It should be based on factual information.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

  1. I would like to inform you that Commissioner Sugaya called me last week and I informed him about the RFP.
  2. The Planning staff that would have details on the differences between the two RFP 's is involved in a mid-course review and is not present this week.
  3. We would like to give you that information in the coming week.
  4. The first RFP was issued in December and went through the selection process.
  5. Just before awarding the contract, other agencies raised the issue about conflict of interest and advised us to reissue.
  6. We have reformulated the RFP with a few differences because some of the work has to be started.
  7. We have reassigned staff to meet the expected deadline of December 2008 for the Environmental Review Impact [EIR].
  8. We should be able to award contracts in late July.

Commissioner Moore

- Are you making new contracts besides reassigning staff?

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

  1. There have been some changes in the work scope with a reassignment of staff.
  2. We will make the presentation to you when staff is available and familiar with the differences on the two RFP.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

  1. Also, we would like to have Dean Macris here for that presentation since this has been of particular interest of him.
  2. We are hoping to do it early in June.

Commissioner Moore

  1. You made reassignments and shifting off the scope without reassigning additional money to the Department. Am I getting it correct?
  2. The Sum is the same and fee of the RFP is $430,000.
  3. Staff doing more work has to be paid from somebody.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

  1. There is more work that needs to be done.
  2. Those are reformulated in the new RFP.
  3. Amounts are the same, but specific tasks are different.

Commissioner S. Lee

- We should schedule a discussion at a future meeting on how the Department moves forward with RFP's without coming first to the Commission.

  1. It would have been helpful to discussion this particular RFP prior.
  2. This is a major policy area and we need to discuss our role and the Department's budget.

Commissioner Antonini

- We had a presentation by AIA and I wanted to respond with some questions about design.

  1. It's hard to duplicate the past because the craftsmen might not exist any longer and/or the material might not exist any longer.
  2. Shared pictures of buildings and thoughts about matching past designs and old structures, new contexts, best possible things, and capturing features [fixtures].

Commissioner Moore

  1. Respectfully acknowledged Commissioner Antonini's preference on architecture, but stated that this particular body is not an architectural review body.
  2. For the projects in front of us I hope we rely on all professional judgment we can master.

Commissioner Olague

  1. It was me who requested an informational hearing on City College.
  2. I was reviewing the draft Environmental Impact Report and realized that the public review period ends July 16, 2007.
  3. I would like to get some information. Although this is not our jurisdiction, but I am getting a lot of questions from the public that I am unable to answer.
  4. I would like a better understanding of their process in terms of having campuses approved. [Main concern is the Chinatown Campus.]

Commissioner Alexander

  1. I am hesitant to spend time to hear something that we have no authority on other than its context.
  2. Maybe it could be addressed with a memorandum.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I am getting phone calls from members of the public.
  2. It is not just about me trying to understand the process better.
  3. I have some concerns with some descriptions in the brief that contradicts the Chinatown Plan.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

  1. As a secondary institution, they are required to come and present to you their Institutional Master Plan.
  2. That is information about their campus needs and the relation within the larger city.
  3. City College has its own district and it may choose to exempt itself from local processing.
  4. It has not happened yet.
  5. There are some overlap concerns because of expansion to other parts of the city affecting land use and planning concerns.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. We would calendar it before the Environmental Impact Review deadline of July 16.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I received an email from the public about Block Book Notation.
  2. The cost for notification has dramatically increased.
  3. Major change is to pay $10 per year for each lot instead of $10 per block.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I have to do some research on that and respond with a memorandum.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. I have a question for the City Attorney.
  2. Most projects have phases of application approval, permitting and construction.
  3. I am looking for City Policy or a legality statement on the imposition of fees or exceptions.
  4. At what point in the process have historically imposed these in reference to residential and commercial projects in the past?
  5. What, if any, is the legal position for these fees relative to the timing of various projects with references like Rincon Hill and Visitacion Valley.

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney

  1. I can give two general frameworks.
  2. The Planning Department can give you a history of what the City has generally done.
  3. With respect to the imposition of the law or fees, the City applies it in effect at the time that application is approved.
  4. However, legislator may insert an effective clause into an ordinance [grandfather clause].
  5. I will follow up on the Rincon Hill and Visitacion Valley.

8. COMMISSION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS - Discussion and possible action to amend the Commission's Rules and Regulations to address imposing time constraints on submittal of documents and material for review by the Commission and the public; discuss and possibly establish rules or policies that address other areas of interest of the Commission.

Commissioner Olague

- There are more concerns and a desire to present documents ahead of time for our hearings.

  1. I think it is time to review how we do our work.
  2. We should vocalize questions and concerns to make our work easier and maybe include other type of requests.
  3. Commissioner Sugaya raised some concerns and I feel uncomfortable going forward in his absence.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. I think we should continue it.
  2. I would like to have all Commissioners present for this discussion.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

  1. I wonder if there is anything that staff could include in a presentation to be helpful.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. Commissioners could contact you with concerns and you can come up with ideas/suggestions.

Commissioner Sue Lee

  1. I would like to give some ideas.
  2. It would be helpful to have a chart with standardized policy.
  3. The department needs to take advantage of technology.
  4. It would help me to have material online.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. I am generally happy the way it is as long as I get the material.
  2. If you are going to post it on the website, I suggest you have an abbreviated version of it.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to June 14, 2007

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator:

-We have been working with Building Inspection and the Fire Marshall.

-Multiple staff need to work together. Jonas Ionin from Planning is working on two issues:

1. Pre-applications: what and when do we involve DBI and the Fire Marshall?

2. Once permit is submitted, how do we get DBI and the Fire Marshall involved prior to sending out the 311 notices?

-We are focusing on creating contacts in DBI and Fire for the quadrant teams to be able to go directly to them on a regular basis.

-We also have outlined the top 10 things that DBI needs to know about Planning and vice versa.

-DBI is taking the lead on Business Process Review [BPR].

-The Director had a public meeting with interested parties for City Agencies and the Public on how they do their process.

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

Annmarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

- Considered a resolution to initiate designation of the First Saint Johns Methodist Church at 1601 Larkin Street as a landmark. Passed to Board of Supervisors

Board of Supervisors

1. Interim moratorium on installation of micro-cell antennas.

Without hearing, continued to June 12.

2. Consideration of Market and Octavia EIR. Without hearing, continued to June 12.

  1. Supervisor Daly requested a hearing on San Francisco's participation in Focusing Art Vision Program of the Regional Agencies [Focus Program]

- This program prioritizes regional infrastructure dollars towards areas that undertake transit oriented planning.

- It would be available to cities that designate what is known as Priority Development Areas [PDA].

- San Francisco has been participating in a process that is coordinating an application to designate PDA's in the city and be able to receive funding.

- Local agencies participating in this effort include San Francisco County Transportation Authority, Mayor's Office of Housing, MTC, and the Planning Department.

- Applications are due on June 29, 2007.

  1. Introductions:
    1. Ordinance to amend the Planning Code for the inner Clement Street Commercial District limiting the number of new full-service restaurants and wine/beer bar uses. Introduced by Supervisor McGoldrick.
    2. Permanent ordinance to amend the Planning Code for public review process for wireless telecommunication facilities as an accessory use. Introduced by Supervisor Peskin.
    3. Resolution urging the Planning Department and PUC to fully analyze a water supply alternative in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report that will not result in increased diversions of freshwater from the Tuolumne River. Introduced by Supervisors Maxwell.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES (Tape IA; IB)

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

SPEAKERS

Georgia Schuttish

- A year ago, I came to the Commission for a Discretionary Review case at 455 27th Street.

- It was an 8-foot long rear addition to an existing two-story dwelling unit.

- It is under construction. This photo shows that it is a demolition and not an addition.

- Even though, you did not take discretionary review I was happy with the response from Commissioners.

- At the Board of Appeals, I had this drawing and asked why this neighbor moved.

- They did not think it was important. I just want to point this out. It seems I should be skeptical and they should be open to neighbors.

Steven R. Currier, President of Inner Mission Resident Association

- We had an issue with the Arco gas station in our neighborhood at 5898 Mission Street.

- At the hearing you placed 16 conditions at this property including no alcohol sales and operating hours.

- In the last few months Arco sold this property and things started to happen.

- They are selling alcohol and are opening for business at 5 a.m. [instead of 6 a.m. as approved].

- On May 8, I sent a letter with the conditions to the new owner and let her know that if she wanted to change those conditions she needs to come back to the Commission.

- A violation was issued and I am going to wait and see how she responds. I might need to come back and ask for revocation of the permit.

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.

11. 2006.1182Q (Tape IB) (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

420-428 Vallejo Street - north side between Kearny and Montgomery Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 0133 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed five-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17432

  • F.REGULAR CALENDAR

12. 2006.0208C (Tape IB) (S. Middlebrook: (415) 558-6372)

4716-4722 Mission street - west side between Ruth and Leo Streets, Lots 014 and 015 in Assessor's Block 6955 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code 712.39 to demolish both the existing mixed-use building with a second floor dwelling unit and the existing commercial building in order to merge the two lots and to construct a 5-story, residential/commercial mixed-use building with 8 residential units, 8 off-street parking places, and ground floor commercial within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 65-A Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Bill Riddle, Project Architect

- This project has been trough several rounds of design revisions.

- The current design is what we came up with together.

Steven R. Currier, President of Inner Mission Resident Association

- Our association unanimously endorsed this project a year ago when the Sponsor presented it to us.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17433

13. 2006.1396D (Tape IB) (A. STARR; (415) 558-6362)

146 Funston Avenue - eastside between Lake and California Streets, Lot 034 in Assessor's Block 1372 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.02.3904 proposing to merge two dwelling units into one in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Allison Phong, Owner and Project Sponsor

- My mother lives with us and my parents-in-law will move in soon.

- We purchased this house in May 2004.

- Two homes were built at the same time in 1912, ours is the one on the left.

- It does not function for our family

- There is only one water meter, thermostat, and address for both units.

- Rear side is not safe to use and we would like it to become a single family home.

- We believe our removal application meets three of the five criteria.

- Removal of the unit is necessary to correct design and functional deficiencies that cannot be corrected trough interior alterations.

- We have received a lot of support from our neighbors.

- We really want to continue to live in the city.

Robert Mittlestadt, Architect

- We have considered staff's request to designate the lower area as a unit.

- It would be difficult because it would not allow private access to both units.

- There was no practical way, given the narrow width of the lot, to have a proper entrance to the second unit.

Andrew Nakahata

- I absolutely consider San Francisco my home.

- I would like to find a way for my family to stay in the city.

- This is a great place for us and it would accommodate my parents.

- No one would be displaced.

- I believe strongly that multigenerational and diversity brings compliance and conformity to the greater neighborhood in the Richmond district.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved as proposed.

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

NAYES: Alexander

ABSENT: Sugaya

14. 2004.0557E (Tape IB; IIA) (WISE: (415) 575-9049))

1601 Larkin Street - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project site (Assessor's Block 0620 and Lot 006) is located in the Nob Hill neighborhood on the northwest corner lot of the intersection of Clay and Larkin Streets. The existing project site is an 11,200-square-foot lot containing a two-story over basement church building of approximately 19,050 square feet and a ten-car surface parking lot. The church building is considered a historical resource under CEQA. The project sponsor, California Nevada Conference of the Methodist Church and Pacific Polk Properties, LLC, proposes to demolish the existing church and construct a 63-foot-high, six-story-tall building of approximately 67,500 square feet containing 27 residential units and 30 off-street parking spaces in two separate parking levels (one at ground level and one below grade). The main entrance to the residences and the driveway to the ground-floor garage would be from Larkin Street. Vehicular access to the below-grade parking garage containing 21 spaces would be from Clay Street. The project site is in a RM-3 (Residential Mixed, Medium Density) Zoning District and a 65-A Height-Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on May 29, 2007.

SPEAKERS

Kirstin Williams

- The building that would be demolished with this project has been there for a hundred years.

- The dimension [height] of the proposed project is not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood.

- 79 percent of the buildings in the immediate area are three or four-stories.

- This project would be 7-stories.

- Most buildings in this neighborhood were built over hundred years ago.

- The proposed project is very contemporary and it would be in strong contrast.

- Most of the surrounding structures are made out of wood.

- There are a number of points in this document that should be more thoroughly explored.

Linda Chapman

- There are inappropriate features relating to the garage entry. I'm also concerned about traffic and transportation.

- There are two garage entries and most of the traffic would be going to the Clay Street entrance causing the most possible interference with 1-California bus line.

- Very often that street is clogged with traffic.

- The project would add 30 parking spaces.

- The anticipation is that there would be a demand for 38, which means some would go on the street.

Michael Schoolnik

- Shared views of Saint John's Church in San Francisco.

Wylie Adams

- We do not have the actual dimensions of the lot.

- One of the main architectural fixtures would be aluminum and glass.

- However from the drawings, you do not fully understand the impact it would have on the neighborhood.

- The Draft Environmental Review Impact [EIR] has a potential discrepancy in the square footage.

- It says that lot is 11,200 square feet and we were told that it might be 11,087.

- This discrepancy should be addressed.

- The project describes itself as a 6-sotry building. In fact it is more because of the basement and mechanical penthouse.

- Page 28 of the site plan uses a very incorrect scale.

- The neighborhood group is very interested in some of the alternatives. However, there are no drawings of those alternatives.

Rowena Jen

- Initial study concluded that the draft EIR does not need to address the issue of shadow.

- The proposed building is significantly taller than all the existing residential buildings in the immediate area.

- There is a big difference between the proposed height of this structure comparing it with existing buildings in the area.

Frank Cannata

- I would like to speak of the inadequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report [DEIR] on open space and rear yard.

- This is the larger lot on the block and yet, the report is asking for variances because there is not enough area designated for rear yard and open space.

- There would not be rear yard space on ground level. It would be placed on top of the garages.

- The report does not explain the use of Larkin Street as the front of the building in order to determine the 65-foot height.

- Going down the hill on Clay Street, it would be a lot higher than 65 feet.

- It also does not explain that they have used Clay Street as the front of the building to figure out the size of the rear yard.

- The DEIR needs to be a lot more specific in coming to grips with their dimensions.

Dawn Trennert

- We live in a neighborhood that has been studied as a local historic district.

- It was rebuilt after the 1906 earthquake.

- There are 53 residential buildings and only 3 do not have bay windows.

- Only two of the buildings in this area are newer than those built in the beginning of the 20th century.

- Both buildings proposed would [not] have bay windows and do not conform within the character of the neighborhood.

- The DEIR proposes to construct the façade of the building creating the appearance of a bay window.

- The developer has not made an effort to get involved with the neighborhood.

Joe Buttler

- Requested more research on George Washington Cramer {sp?}.

- It would be helpful to understand his place in architecture when this building was created.

- Also, asked for more research into the registered landmarks that Cramer has produced.

- It would be helpful having the plans of the Church itself to relate it to the Environmental Impact Report.

- The Draft Environmental Impact Report should look much more carefully into the 1976 architectural buildings in the area.

- It does not show the character of the neighborhood as truly interesting and significant.

  1. We will submit written comments and we ask that you look more thoroughly into and do subjective research for the revisions to the draft.

David Chiu

- This proposed development would be the largest building on the largest lot of the block.

- Trading a century old historically significant Church for a bulky six-story concrete structure. Visually, it is not an improvement.

- I do not own a car because parking is extremely difficult in our neighborhood.

- This development would not produce parking for a third of the residents and it would be problematic.

- This neighborhood enhances and welcomes new development but we believe that this particular building is not consistent with our neighborhood.

ACTION: No action required of the Commission.

Hearing to receive public and commissioner's comments only

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

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

SPEAKERS None

Adjournment: 4:03 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 7, 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 10:00:27 PM