May 31, 2007 - Special Meeting

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Special Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 31, 2007

1:30 PM

Special Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Sarah Vellve, 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.

NONE

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.

1. Consideration of Adoption:

• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 8, 2007.
• Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of February 15, 2007.
• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 15, 2007
• Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of February 22, 2007.
• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 22, 2007.
• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 8, 2007.
• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007.
• Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007.
• Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of May 17, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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 Moore

- I would like to bring to your attention an interesting article about high-density living.

- John King wrote about merits, authentication, traps and shortcomings of what can happen when in need of an architectural issue, which is not quite meeting its potential.

1. It is a really interesting article as we are moving in the general discussion of the Eastern Neighborhoods.
2. Also, it can be folded into our coming discussion with the AIA of what is a good example of high-density architecture.
3. I think for us to broaden our understanding of what role constitutes good architecture is a really wonderful challenge.
4. I want to make a contribution by letting people read this booklet called Livability, 101.
5. If the public would like to read it or have a copy of it, perhaps staff could make it available.

Commissioner Antonini

- Thanked staff for getting involved with Eastern Neighborhood situations, particularly the springing conditions.

1. We had a meeting and some very good things came out of it. I appreciate that.
2. Staff is moving towards a logical progression in trying to figure out what the costs of improvement would be -- keeping in mind projects in the pipeline.
3. Doug Shoemaker, Mayor's Office of Housing, pointed out a few weeks ago a concept to look at inclusionary housing in a different way.
4. Raising the percentage that would be required but also allowing builders to build up to a higher price range.
5. By allowing them to do that, perhaps they would be able to build more affordable units and not be asked for lower inclusionary.
6. I have been in touch with Kate Stacey, City Attorney Office, in regards to looking at some projects that came through that could have had springing conditions.

Commissioner W. Lee

1. I would like to request that we invite the Executive Director of the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG] to come to the Commission.
2. They recently issued its housing goals for the Bay Area.
3. As usual, San Francisco and Oakland has a higher share of responsibility for building housing.
4. It would be good to have ABAG provide to us how they got the figures for San Francisco.
5. Also, regarding springing conditions, to provide information on what developers are required to pay as part of the development fee for affordable housing in Oakland and San Jose.
6. Also, mitigation measures [daycare and MUNI] comparing San Francisco with Oakland and San Jose.

Commissioner Sugaya

1. Regarding community impact or benefit fees.
2. So far, the city has done it either at Rincon or Visitacion Valley.
3. Basically, the Supervisors have negotiated the fee.
4. In other cases like Market-Octavia, it seemed to have more Planning studies to set the rate.
5. We had a briefing with Sarah Dennis on a memorandum presented earlier.
6. It occurred to me then that if we had had a nexus study on the need of the city, why are we not looking at them citywide in the first place?
7. It would seem like there would be different neighborhoods and different needs.
8. If you live across the street from the Market-Octavia boundaries for example, a developer can come and build without imposing those fees.
9. It does not seem to be fair or workable in the long run.
10. I think the controller is doing something with Recreation parks and it could be done with other kinds of need in the city [like transit].
11. The fees should be applied citywide and then pin point more specific priorities for certain neighborhoods.

3. (L. Avery (415) 558-6407)

Statement of Incompatible Activities – Discussion of the Planning Department's/Commission's Statement of Incompatible Activities.

SPEAKERS

Nilka Julio, Local 21

1. Local 21 represents the majority of staff in the Planning Department.

- I handed my comments to you as well as an attachment to our proposed Statement of Incompatible Activities [SIA] draft.

1. We are gratified to see these policies and regulations on the Planning Commission Agenda.
2. We've already had numerous meet-and-confer meetings and the process is on going.
3. Because this policy applies to the Commission and staff, we probably share common concerns.
4. Our initial problem is that the language is vague.

- Most areas we are concerned about are the protection of basic first amendment rights that we share as citizens and should not give up.

1. The purpose of this discussion is to provide you with support for arguing some of the provisions.
2. They are just not only overly restrictive as a matter of good sense and management, but also impeach on employee's constitutional or statutory rights.
3. This document will regulate your off-duty behavior.

- The due process of the United States of America and California's constitution requires that government's action regulating private conduct must be sufficiently clear.

- We want to clarify that volunteer activities with charitable organizations as proposed here, or non-profit organizations, are not to be restricted.

1. This document restricts civic participation and the ability to volunteer.

- The due process laws allow us to acquire, enjoy, own or dispose of property and the right to practice a profession and to work.

- Impairment of economic freedom will only be found to violate the constitution if the regulation blocks any relationship to a rational government interest.

- What is the rational behind a proposal to limit the use of a contractor, broker, or real estate license for the Planning Department employee?

1. We hope that you look at this and realize that a lot of provisions are restricted and unnecessary.
2. I have attached a proposed amendment and language to this.

Discussion only. The secretary was instructed to set up a special hearing with the Deputy City Attorney and Local 21 for further discussion and possible action.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

4. Director's Announcements

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- Director Macris is still out on vacation. He is coming back next Thursday.

- There was an appeal filed yesterday on the Department's issuance of the categorical exemption on the Wi-Fi.

- The City Attorney is reviewing it to make sure the filing was timely. We will keep you inform.

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

Board of Appeals

None

Board of Supervisors

None

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

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

SPEAKERS

Jeremy Paul

- Asked Commissioner Moore for the date of John King's article that she referred to earlier.

E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

None

1. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

6. 2006.0734C (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

3192 16^th Street - north side between Guerrero and Valencia - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 726.48 and 790.38 for Other Entertainment within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The existing bar use, d.b.a.  Double Dutch , formerly known as  Cama , will not change. The new owner is seeking authorization for recorded amplified music and a DJ. Hours of operation will remain 5pm to 2am. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007)

Note: On January 11, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to 4/12/07 and required the project sponsor to do a sound study. The public hearing will be reopened if new material/information is put before the Commission for consideration.

NOTE: On April 12, 2007, without a hearing the matter was continued to 5/10/07.

NOTE: On May 10, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve as amended: six months to a year to review/report to Director of Planning who will report to the Commission; no use of the backyard by a vote of +7 -0. Final Language May 31, 2007.

SPEAKER: None

ACTION: Approved with Conditions as stated in the motion of intent.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17434

7. 2007.0084D (Tape IA; IB) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

75 FOLSOM STREET - south side between Spear and Steuart Streets; Lots 021, 022 & 023 (units no. 905, 906 & 907) in Assessor's Block 3744,  Hill Plaza - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, for Building Permit Application no. 2007.0116.1750. The merger would reduce the number of legal dwelling units from 67 to 65. The property is located within the RH-DTR (Rincon Hill Residential Mixed Use) District and an 80 / 200-R Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007)

Note: On May 10, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to May 31, 2007 by a vote of +6 –1. Commissioner Antonini voted no.

SPEAKERS: None

MOTION: To take DR and approve per agreement

AYES: Antonini and W. Lee

NAYES: S. Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: With public hearing closed, continued to June 21, 2007

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

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Alexander

• G.REGULAR CALENDAR

8a. 2005.0633DDDD (Tape IB; IIA) (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

113 PIXLEY STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0516 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.01.31.3422 proposing to construct a 4-foot tall vertical addition to accommodate a third floor of occupancy and a 4-foot deep and 10-foot wide horizontal addition within the last 15 feet of the lot 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 subject to a rear yard variance for the horizontal addition (Case No. 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 Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Phil Lalonde, 1^st Discretionary Review Requestor

- We (26 neighbors), and Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association, are opposed to the rear yard variance.

- We understand that the project sponsor has the right to build within San Francisco's planning guidelines.

- The Department encouraged all parties to try to solve issues.

- The neighborhood is strongly opposed to their first plan design.

- The final design was not presented to the neighbors.

- At a meeting, we learned that the Department was proposing approval of this project and we sent a letter opposing it.

- We submitted a letter and a petition opposing this project.

- The existing non-compliant structure already encroaches in the rear yard area.

- The proposed addition would have a negative impact on property values.

- Our second issue is to reduce the roofline.

- Shared photos showing existing rooflines and the ones representing the addition.

Debbie Ann Cucalon, 2^nd Discretionary Review Requestor

- I own the property adjacent to the proposed project.

- It would block our light and air in an already constricted area.

- It would set precedence for others to do the same thing.

- The loss of privacy would be of paramount importance. We would be shaded by its leaning presence.

- There is not enough space for this massive tower without impacting us.

- Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association supports us and urged you to consider an alternative to alleviate the impact on neighbors.

- Consider lowering the roof height by 18 inches and require the staircase to be built indoors.

- We have alternative designs for this project.

Michael Zucker, Architect

- We would like to share with you alternative designs with these sketches.

- It is possible to do it by lowering the roof and building inside the property.

Joanne Rosendin, 3^rd Discretionary Review Requestor

- I agreed to all the comments made previously.

- The proposed structure would totally shade my entire house.

- I am very concerned about light and air.

- Urged the Commission to consider the historic value of our homes.

Alice Barrlet, Attorney for Project Sponsor

- This location map shows the property of the proposed project and the discretionary review requestors.

- I just want to show you a project model of existing building conditions and the addition proposed.

- It does not touch the original cottage.

- Staff indicated that it was a little large because most of the addition was at the rear yard.

- Project was made smaller creating a deck.

- Sponsor then moved it forward to keep a 25-foot back yard.

- This is the model we came up with working with staff [model #5]

- We included in the project package a shadow study based on Pacific Gas and Electricity [PG&E] tables.

Irina Yuen, Project Sponsor

- We sent letters of support electronically.

- We are requesting a modest addition to accommodate our daughter.

- This process started when I was pregnant. My daughter is now 18 months old.

- We feel very fortunate to live in San Francisco.

- Even with this addition, our house would still be the smallest property on the block.

- This modest change would make a big difference in our lives.

- 10 immediate neighbors support our project as well as many others.

Jon Sobel

- We have worked closely with the city and our neighbors.

- Many neighbors support our project.

- We did everything to reasonably accommodate the concerns of our neighbors.

- We have made a number of changes by moving the addition forward, reducing the size, and increase the set back.

- This time, after our constant efforts to accommodate our neighbors' needs, we are asking this Commission to consider our project.

Roask O'Neil

- My family is the only one with small children on the block.

- We are sympathetic with challenges that families face today.

- It is difficult to find a place in the city that is good for families.

- We believe that reasonable accommodations for families to stay in the city should be supported.

- This project is a modest addition to a relatively small house.

- This family has made all efforts to take into account the neighbor's concerns.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

8b. 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 horizontal 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 8a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted variance subject to the standard conditions of approval.

9. (Tape IIA) (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

MISSION BAY - This is an informational presentation on the Mission Bay Planning Process, Design for Development Controls, and recent developments.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Amy, Senior Project Manager with the Redevelopment Agency

- [From a power point presentation she showed:] This is the area of Mission Bay from about two years ago with a large flat area.

- This was Federal and State Land given to the railroad after War World II.

- The Mission Bay Plan that was adopted in 1998 incorporates 303 acres.

- The goal of the plan is to create a new mixed-use community including university, residential, and commercial.

- The initial studies of 1998 suggested that the final population of Mission Bay would be about 11,000 residents and 31,000 workers.

- In the Northern part of Mission Bay, the Land use plan includes 6,000 residential units and at least 28 percent would be affordable.

- Most of the affordable housing would be built on [Redevelopment] Agency parcels.

- In the Southern part of Mission Bay is the University of California campus under development.

- The area surrounding the University is zoned for 5,000,000 square feet of office and biotechnology.

- On this plan [power point], it does not show the UCSF hospital, which is the area South of 16^th Street.

- There is also a plan for a hotel close to the Creek and AT&T Ballpark.

- There are sites for a fire station, police station and a new public school.

- About $5,000,000 has been invested in new infrastructure for streets, traffic system, under utilities.

- Any costs that cannot be covered by public financing are paid directly by the master developer.

- The Redevelopment Agency entered into an owner's participation agreement with the master developer to set forward the pace and timing within the Redevelopment process.

- The goal of this participation agreement is to bundle private projects with public benefits.

- I want to focus a little bit on the interagency cooperation agreement – a very innovative agreement.

- It was adopted by eight city departments including the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

- Each party had to commit into the redevelopment plan and controls.

- The Planning Commission has the lead role in design review for any project that is subject to Section 321 – Office space allocation.

- The Redevelopment Commission has final approval of residential projects not requiring office space allocations.

- These are some of the models we used at the time and have been developed since to help informed the review process [from the power point].

- The goals are to create high density, urban and pedestrian environments.

- The height limit for Mission Bay is 160 feet.

- There are extensive rules about height; towers; bulk and street walk requirements.

- In an attempt to create this high-density urban environment, there are requirements for all major streets.

- There is a planting plan to have trees on every block.

- [She showed some of models that have been done.]

- It is difficult to design on a 300-acre area where there are no surrounding buildings to use as a context.

- We required the developers to submit a major face plan for one or more serious blocks.

- Then, we look at a particular project.

- We have established [currently working through] the design process for commercial buildings.

- We have eight residential with 1,636 units that are completed and are being occupied.

- There are six residential projects under construction with about 1,000 units with additional affordable housing.

- UCSF has moved quickly. Five buildings are completed, one is under construction and they are in the planning process for the Children's Hospital.

- Two commercial projects are now in the construction drawings and permitting phase.

- Also, there are eight acres of completed parks in Mission Bay. They are maintained by the Redevelopment Agency with funding provided by private owners of the area.

- We have several more parks under construction and development including a spectacular children's park.

Joe Alioto

- It is important for responsible government to make sure that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

- Keep in mind that money needs to be allocated for police officers to patrol the neighborhoods.

- In the future when considering these plans, there should be some sort of communication with the Police Commission.

ACTION: No Action required of the Commission. Informational Only.

H. 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

Joe Alioto

- I am here as a private citizen.

- I sent a letter to Commissioners regarding a particular project at 770 Powell Street.

- Urged the Commission to take a close look at this project and support the expiration of the particular site permit that has expired.

- The Environmental Impact Report in this particular project came out in 1986.

- The conditional use permit was in the year 2000 and the site permit in 2004.

- We want the owners to come and talk to us about ways to make this particular project work.

- The Environmental Impact Report needs to be renewed.

- There should not be any more extensions for this project.

- This is a very important corner of San Francisco and it needs our attention.

Adjournment: 5:01 P.M

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 14, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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