July 19, 2007SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 19, 2007
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: W. Lee
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:37 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Delvin Washington & Julian Banales – Acting Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Anmarie Rodgers, Craig Nikitas, Tim Frye, Mary Woods, Ericka Jackson, Kate Connor, Ken Rich, Susan Exline, Tim Frye, Moses Corrette, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.
A. 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.
1. 2007.0052D (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)
45 ALVISO STREET - west side between Estero and Holloway Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6926 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.08.4063, proposing construction of a third-story vertical addition, a two-foot horizontal side extension and an eight-foot horizontal rear addition to a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to August 2, 2007)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
ABSENT: W. Lee
2. 2007.0212D (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)
1430 DIAMOND STREET - west side between 27th Street and Duncan Street; Lot 004C in Assessor's Block 6588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.11.4737, proposing construction of a 12-foot horizontal rear addition and a vertical addition to an existing two-story single family residence in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)
(Proposed for Continuance to August 9, 2007)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
ABSENT: W. Lee
3. 2007.0514T (S.EXLINE: (415) 558-6332)
Amendments to Planning Code Section 315/Inclusionary Housing: Alternative Rehabilitation for Rental - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly as part of Board File No. 070444 that would amend portions of the Planning code to allow a new alternative to meet the requirements of the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing ordinance by allowing payment to a nonprofit to acquire and rehabilitate units for permanent affordable rental housing if the number of units is 25% greater than the amount provided under the existing off-site alternative.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to August 9, 2007)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
ABSENT: W. Lee
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.
4. Consideration of Adoption:
§ Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 28, 2007
§ Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 14, 2006.
§ Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 19, 2006.
§ Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 19, 2006.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
ABSENT: W. Lee
5. The Commission will meet to discuss whether or not they will schedule a special meeting on Thursday, August 30, 2007.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Schedule two special hearings on August 30, 2007 – one would be to serve in place of the Regular Meeting, and the other would be a special joint meeting with the Building Inspection Commission
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, Moore and Sugaya.
NAYES: S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
6. 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 Antonini
- First, an article in yesterday's Chronicle caught my attention [Home and Garden]. It actually shows an individual who has done a 500 square foot condominium.
- It was very interesting to see how creative things can be done. We often hear about small places being hard to make comfortable. But this person certainly has done a beautiful job.
- My second item is in regard to another article that actually occurred on Sunday, July 1st. The article is regarding tower number 1 on Rincon Hill.
- I just want to take up a few issues that were raised. One issue was the fact that residents in high rises are not as active members of the community as people in lower structure.
- I think that is an erroneous assumption. What floor someone lives on I do not think determines how active you are going to be.
- In some studies it shows that a large number of people are buying into these places and a high number of them are registering to vote.
- It implies that people moving in those places are considering them as their primary residence. I think that reinforces the fact that there is an interest in some participation.
- The other interesting thing that was brought up was the vision situation. We went into a lot of process when we approved the Rincon Hill Plan.
- I do not see that as being a factor even though everyone has different taste in architecture.
- San Francisco always is densely diverse and we have an advantage over other cities that are very small.
- Density is important in some areas and perhaps we can encourage people to live here and cut down on the number of commuters.
- One thing that was brought up in that article that I agreed with was the importance that if these towers are built in commercial or residential areas there should be plenty of open space around them.
- My final item has to do with the case report from Ken Rich on draft of the proposed interim historical procedures.
- It talks about some policies in regards to the Eastern Neighborhoods; setting some parameters. It maps out these different procedures and I do not remember having a discussion about this.
- It seems to me that if we are going to have interim procedures we should have the Commission's input before it becomes a matter of policy.
- This talks about the Eastern Neighborhoods. What about the rest of the city?
- We have all these issues being raised and we see an appeal on the historic merits of a house on 27th Avenue. When is it coming to us? And why is this appeal being taken [before] there is a policy established?
Commissioner Olague
- I would like to have a hearing on the City College in Chinatown.
- My original request was to have that hearing before the comment period expired on the draft EIR and that was not possible because people were on vacation and there were scheduling conflicts.
- I would like to have an informational presentation to understand the process behind it and how it compares to the Chinatown Plan.
- I would also like to announce that I found some trees that I am going to submit or nominate for landmark status.
- The trees are located at 1661 Octavia and they were planted by Mary Allen who was an African American women often referred to as the Mother of Civil Rights in California.
- I know that the African American Historical Society has recognized those trees and there is a plaque.
- This is going to be recognition of her work and the nomination would be of cultural significance.
Director Dean Macris
- We tried scheduling a hearing on the Chinatown City College project. It was difficult but we will try again.
Commissioner Moore
- I am glad see Commission speaking more about what is on their mind.
- I want to encourage us to work with staff to continue to work with the Action List. For a number of weeks we had updates but at the moment it has become quite.
- The Action List is indeed a summary of questions for information and clarification raised by Commissioners.
- The issue on interim historic preservation guidelines and getting an early presentation for the Chinatown City College are issues on the list.
- I would like to formalize this list as becoming a working agenda and pick one item each hearing to briefly get an update with the public's participation.
- It is informational and has significant importance. Staff is doing a very responsible job in responding but the broad affect of sharing and briefly reflecting on it is not being offered to the public.
- I would like to encourage all of us to take some work, formalize it and start to work with more creatively.
- This is a compliment to staff and it is a remainder to us to be vigorous in pursuing answers and bringing them into our weekly discussions.
Amit Ghosh - Chief Planner
- I just want to make one quick comment on Commissioner Antonini's concern and thank you for recognizing what we are trying to do through the Action List. That is precisely our intent.
- What Commissioner Antonini read is the packet item that is before you today and staff will present that as a proposal to be part of the Eastern Neighborhoods proposal.
- That is similar to the one you had considered in Market/Octavia regarding interim historic preservation policies that you might adopt when the Eastern Neighborhoods come before you.
- This is not something that staff is implementing or wishing to implement before you have considered it and approved it. Perhaps it would be sometime in January.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)
7. Director's Announcements
None
8. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
Anmarie Rodgers
Land Use and Economic Development Committee
A.- An ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Sandoval that would establish minimum qualifications for firms marketing below market rate units through our inclusionary housing program. Passed to the full Board
Full Board of Supervisors
A.- Appeal for the CEQA Negative Declaration for 3400 Cesar Chavez Street. The project had a conditional use permit issued by this Commission. The CU was not appealed to the Board of Supervisors. It was limited to the adequacy of the CEQA. After over 5 hours of public comment on this issue, the Board requested more information from the Department relative to potential cumulative impacts on the loss of affordable housing on the site. Continued to July 31, 2007.
B.- Introductions:
Supervisor Alioto-Pier introduced an ordinance that would establish a process for adoption of neighborhood impacts fees. It would amend the Planning Code to establish a process that would require the Department to only enact the fee until we have conducted an impact study supporting the imposition of such fees.
Delvin Washington, Acting Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals
A.- 1050 Taraval Street – This was an appeal of the Planning Code Violation Notice. The sale of coffee and non alcoholic beverages is allowed in this district but the sale and preparation of food is prohibited. A site investigation conducted early this week revealed evidence of food sale and preparation despite the appellant's allegation that there is no kitchen and no onsite cooking. The notice of violation was upheld with the condition that the appellant remove all food preparation or re-heating equipment.
B- 1039 Ocean Avenue – Small fast food restaurant in a NC-2. This is a Planning Code Violation Notice. The Code does not permit fast food restaurants in this district. There is no evidence of intent to comply with the Planning Code. Violation Notice was upheld.
C- 121 Brighten Avenue. Project Sponsor was hoping to construct a new vertical addition and a rear horizontal extension to an existing, two story building plus add a single family dwelling unit. This Commission did not take discretionary review and approved the project. The appeal was denied and the permit was upheld.
9. (Tape IA; IB) (C. NIKITAS: (415 558-6306)
An informational presentation about the Planning Department's participation in the establishment of sustainable ("green") building policies in the City.
SPEAKERS
Jeff Heller
- This is extremely timely for our firm and for the profession.
- In the last two years, The American Institute of Architects, The Urban Land Institute, and the National Council of Architectural Registration Board have moved forward with aggressive green policies.
- This is very consistent with that and involves tens of thousands of design and in real estate professionals.
- We are pleased to be doing at least two gold LEED rated buildings right now and you will see more to come.
- We are finding as a practical matter that building materials, construction techniques and engineering are constantly bringing the price down.
Emeric Kalman
- About two years ago, San Francisco hosted the local World Environment Day.
- I did not hear any report on what has happened in these two years.
- Questioned staff about water savings and if the codes allow approving buildings without water and electrical meters on each apartment.
- If somebody else pays for water and energy consumption, most people do not care about it.
ACTION: Informational Only. No Action required of the Commission.
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
Jim Meko
- We had AGI Capitol visiting the SOMA Leadership Council last night to hear their views on a site at 5th and Folsom Street - whether they should develop or not a lot of housing there.
- Two major concerns came up: what is real mixed use and real affordability.
- This area is currently zoned as a residential service district that has 40 feet [height] as-of-right and 85 feet under conditional use, which is within your discretion.
- That brings the question of affordability, specifically on low and moderate income, within your right to impose higher levels of affordability in that district. It has worked well that way.
- In terms of mixed use, I do not know about any successful developments. You are really getting lot of housing while getting some tokens of something on the ground floor.
- The work that we have been doing with Art Stone Smith on 8th and Harrison Street. This work includes housing, a park, a community center, housing or retail, a stand alone commercial building, and commercial space complementing this commercial alley.
- This is a true mixed use of buildings. That concept should be what the Department follows.
- When this project [5th and Folsom Street] does come back before you, there are two questions that I would like you to try to remember: tell me more about the mix of uses and give an explanation of what was wrong with RSD and why we have to replace it.
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.
10. 2006.1356C (Tape IB) (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
19 WILMOT STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 061 in Assessor's Block 0660 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 122-07 to allow the demolition of a two-story two-family dwelling and replacement with a two-story over garage two-family dwelling within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee
MOTION: 17461
Item 11 was removed from the Consent Calendar
11. 2006.0572C (Tape IB) (T. FRYE: (415) 558-6822)
842 MOULTRIE STREET - south of Crescent Avenue; Assessor's Block 5810, Lot 009 -Request for Conditional Use Authorization for residential demolition pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 122-07 to remove a 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shack from the property to allow for its preservation at another location, to demolish the non-historic additions, and to construct a new single-family dwelling. The property is located within an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2007)
SPEAKERS
Jerry Veverka, Project Sponsor
- Mr. Frye gave an accurate representation of the history of the Earthquake Shack and the design of the building.
- We are proposing to build slightly over 1800 square feet on a regular Bernal Height lot that is 25 by 70 feet. By today's standards this is a relatively modest structure.
- There are three stories. The upper story is set back 11 feet from the front in order to somewhat minimize the height.
- A couple of doors down there is a building that is slightly larger.
- The character of the building in the area is very mixed. We feel that the design of this building would contribute to the character of the neighborhood.
Allan Massetti, Owner
- We have lived in this block for 22 years and have seen changes in the neighborhood during that time. We have been responsible for many of those changes.
- With neighbors, we established and manage the Bernal Action Alias to successfully get rid of local drug dealers.
- We have organized children on the block to create a mosaic mural at the end of the street. We have promoted and taken part in street tree planning throughout the neighborhood.
- We are an asset to this community and building this house would allow us to continue living, working and contributing to the neighborhood.
- We have a very narrow window of opportunity to complete this process and build this house.
- It has been two years since the purchase and we have no permits.
- We are replacing a poor building that has a termite infested foundation with a beautiful new house that has been designed to compliment and add to the neighborhood.
- We have support from our neighbors with over 40 signatures on a petition for moving the shack and building the new house.
ACTION: Approved as amended: The Western Neighborhood Project is to look at the agreement to make sure it complies with the Secretary of Interiors Standards.
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
ABSENT: W. Lee
MOTION: 17462
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
12. 2007.0219C (Tape IB; IIA) (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
536 CENTRAL AVENUE - east side between Grove and Hayes Streets; Lot 024, in Assessor's Block 1198 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.2(d) and 303 to construct a replacement facility for its existing hostel for the overnight emergency shelter of homeless youth, in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story building, which is currently used as an overnight youth shelter operated by the Larkin Street Youth Services, and construct a new three-story building (approximately 4,630 square feet) for the continuance of the same use. The facility will contain five bedrooms that will accommodate 15 to 20 beds.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKERS
Sharol Adams, Executive Director of Larkin Street Youth Services
- Diamond Youth provides overnight shelter to youth ages 13 to 24 years of age.
- It serves youth on the street through no fault of their own. They have been abused or neglected within their homes, foster care program, or in the group homes.
- They have become run aways because the streets are safer than their homes.
- The overnight shelter is complemented by a drop-in program during the day so they can attend high-school, get meals, individual counseling and participate in different projects to build skills and address issues they face as run away homeless youth to help them rebuild their lives.
- Staff works with youth to find more permanent housing since this is a temporary crisis overnight shelter.
- The drop-in center is open 8a.m. to 8p.m. every day. Staff ensures that youth get to the overnight shelter.
- At any one time, the shelter generally operates between 8 – 12 youth per night. We are not increasing the number of overall capacity.
- We want the option to increase to 20. They would move into a bedroom as opposed to a dormitory style.
- The purpose of this project is to improve the living condition for the young people for the brief amount of time that they are with us; try to help them heal and find a more permanent housing solution.
Sam Davis, Architect
- I have been doing affordable housing and housing for the homeless for 35 years.
- This is the fifth project that I have done for Larkin Street Youth Services. It is an organization that I have the deepest respect.
- One basic thing regarding this project – the current building is not efficient for its current use and the building is not compatible with the neighborhood in type, scale and design.
- We are replacing it with a building that does both things.
- The existing building was originally a laundry facility and we are creating a house for youth in need.
- We have worked diligently with Planning staff and designed a building with many of the features common along the street.
- Many of the features include a permanent entry, bay windows, single hung windows with a deep profile, wood siding on a distinct corner line and a rear yard.
- There would be no signage and only an entry porch light.
- The neighbors have indicated that the prominent building material on the block is stucco. You can see from this picture that many of the adjacent buildings have wood horizontal siding.
- The siding provides texture and additional details to the façade.
- We have conformed to the Residential Design Guidelines. We are matching the height of both adjacent buildings.
- This is a new building where we employed green building strategies and is a LEED qualified building.
Mark Harris
- Although I support the Larkin Street services, I have concerns about the building itself.
- This building would obstruct the light to the adjacent north. They do not take into account the shadow cast.
- The proposed building should take into consideration our concerns and eliminate some of its height.
- They are building a parapet substantially higher than they actually need for the roof line.
- They are trying to keep with some of the buildings in the area, but this building would actually stick out because it is very new looking.
Dina Wilderson, Larkin Street Youth Services
- Diamond Youth Shelter serves the youngest and most vulnerable of our clients.
- They come to us from homes where there is neglect, parental substance abuse and their parents were either unwilling or unable to take care of them.
- We thought about bringing some youth today with us to talk about their experience with our program.
- We have to balance the fact that we are very protective of them and felt that they did not need to be here to hear again how they are not wanted in the community.
- We have an improvement track record with those youth that have come to our doors.
- The project would rehabilitate that site and make it a more welcoming environment.
- The current structure does not allow us to serve youth to the best of our ability.
Cheryl Barth, Operating Officer for Larkin Street Youth Services
- I have been involved in the process of preparing applications and meeting with Planning Department staff and also with the community.
- I want to assure you that we have every intention of being as transparent as possible and answering/addressing all questions of the neighbors.
- If we lose this opportunity to rebuild the shelter, we are going to be there repairing it constantly.
- New construction would allow us to build a shelter that will be safe in both a residential and feeling context for our youth, but also for the entire neighborhood.
- Fifty percent of the size increase is around hallways, stairways, an elevator, and access issues. We are not increasing the capacity or the beds.
- We simply would meet the code, the needs of the building, and the community.
Anita Felger, Volunteer Member of the Board of Larkin Street
- I agreed to serve on Larkin Street Board for four reasons: the importance of the mission, quality of the program, excellence of the governance structure, and the dedication of staff.
- The Diamond Street Project provides a unique service to minor homeless in the city.
- Staff and the Board have worked very hard to provide a plan that would minimize the cost of housing on a short term basis for these at-risk youth.
- Safety and stability of this particular well run non-profit should have your support.
Tim Emmanuels, Board of Larkin Street
- I just want to voice my support for this project.
- Staff of Larkin Street will try to meet the needs of the community and the needs of our youth.
Perry Vermilyea, Program Manager
- Larkin Youth Street Services exists exclusively to understand and collaborate with youth that are struggling with survival.
- This safe and supported residence for youth on Central Avenue has operated from dusk until dawn in the same location for over ten years.
- This secure home encourages a positive and supported environment that simply has not been a part of the youth we serve in their development experience.
- At Diamond, we have designed a welcoming atmosphere of love and responsibility that many of us had driven into us when we were growing up.
- Diamond Youth Shelter fills in the missing link for our youth: structure, limits, safety, acceptance, warm meals and showers, trained counselors, nurturance, positive social interaction, community and guidance.
StanleyJoseph, Assistant Manager of Drop-in at Diamond Youth Services
- Our organization helps youth to get back into society.
- This is a transitional program. We do not house teenagers for too long.
- [He thanked the neighborhood for welcoming the youth.]
- We take simple things for granted. But for a teenager who is only a step away from being an adult, this is really important for them.
Lara Tannenbaum
- On a personal level, I really believe that we all have an opportunity in our society and our community to take care of people in need.
- This shelter is an intrinsic basic thing that we should be doing for a teenager on the street because it is safer than their home.
- We have been doing this well for a number of years, but we are not doing it well enough and our youth deserve the best.
- We are going to serve the same youth with the same number, but service them better in a better environment.
- What does an average 16 year old need in terms of housing? Think about your own experience.
- It would be better for a teenager to have a bedroom, a space to study and a rood that does not leak.
Phil Estes, Board Member of Larkin Street
- I have been active for 18 years and have seen over that period of time what an incredible and positive impact this project has had.
- We have gotten well and off the street enough young people in our 23 years history to approximately filled AT&T Park.
- This program serves our youngest and most vulnerable young people.
- We are not changing the size or the scope of this project. We are simply upgrading it to better serve our people.
- We have a track record on which you can evaluate us. We are not perfect but we have been responsible, respectful and concerned about our neighbors.
- The financial funding for this project is based on solid ground.
- The cost of this project is about $3.5 million dollars and we have raised $2.5 million as of today. We have very generous sponsorship from every single member of our Board, residents in this community, business people, and long term donors.
Erika
- We sent a letter yesterday with 23 signatures from residents on the block and five additional signatures of residents in the surrounding blocks that have serious concerns about the proposed project.
- We included a list of conditions that should be attached to the conditional use authorization in the case the Commission approves this project.
- We are collectively concerned that the proposed project would ultimately increase the traffic, loitering, littering, noise and drug problems on our street.
- We do not feel that the design is in keeping with the historic buildings on the block nor has interesting features like the Edwardians or Victorians do.
- We believe that violates certain sections of the Planning Code including Section 303.C.
Andrew Kelly
- I have been living across the street for six years.
- There is consistent drug use and graffiti.
- Two doors down there is a pink house that is actually a crack house. We have tried to improve this and nothing has happened.
- Doubling the size of Larkin Street facility would increase the use of the pink house with burdening our block by bringing youth to be more at risk.
John
- Submitted a letter requesting the Commission to deny the use permit.
- Although I support the shelter, it is inappropriate for our neighborhood.
- There have been issues with the shelter, mostly with quality of life issues like graffiti, noise, and smoking pot once in a while.
- I am concerned with the size of this building and the future use of it being so large in a residential neighborhood. What if the shelter is not going to be there in the future?
- At risk children should not be in that block with the crack house and with the by drive by shootings there.
Colen
- I submitted a letter of objection.
- I would like to echo the same concerns that other residents have brought up.
- We have been dealing with a major drug problem in the area and this would be adding a burden to the neighbors.
- We have already taken our fair share of these kinds of issues that are not being addressed from public authorities.
- The building is not in character with the neighborhood.
- We have no guarantee from this group that they will not increase their program or sell this property for an alternative use when fund decreases.
- Our preference is to keep our neighborhood as a family oriented one.
ACTION: Approved as amended:
-Staff to alert police about crack house activities
-Staff will continue to address design concerns.
-The youth are to be referred to as residents instead of clients.
-Use the '85 language for loitering.
-Delete the requirement to provide off-site parking for construction staging.
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
ABSENT: W. Lee
MOTION: 17463
13. 2007.0469C (Tape IIA; IIB) (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)
1049-1053 Howard Street - south side, between 6th and 7th Streets, Lot 074 in Assessor's Block 3731 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 816.15 816.21 and 303 to amend a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization for A Woman's Place (Case No. 94.306ECV, Motion No. 13815) to expand the existing 30-bed group housing facility to 55 beds, and allow the existing basement level commercial kitchen to prepare food for persons who reside off-site within an SLR (Service, Light Industrial, Residential) Zoning District and d a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2007)
This item was considered for continuance at the beginning of the meeting and the Commission decided to hear it today.
SPEAKER ON THE CONTINUANCE CONSIDERATION
[No Name]
- Requested extension on this matter.
- We have met twice with the project sponsor on the last two weeks and still gathering information and having a dialogue with them.
SPEAKERS
Joanne Coy, Executive Director of Community Awareness of Treatment Services
- We are a non-profit agency serving chronically homeless men and women in San Francisco with multiple problems.
- We provide a wide range of services from transportation, outreach projects, emergency shelter, etc.
- A Woman's Place is a very unique program. Women come to this place that are traumatized by men and do not feel safe in other shelters where males are also present.
- We are asking to add 25 beds to our original permit as well as permission to serve food to two off-site residence programs: Golden Gate for Services and Medical Respect Program.
- We have abided by the original use permit. We have a community liaison.
- We continuously monitor the waiting area and maintain the sidewalk in the vicinity.
- We are very interested in being a good neighbor and being actively involved with our neighbors in resolving issues.
Felicia Houston, Program Director of A Woman's Place
- I have met with three different groups in the neighborhood.
- We had an open space on the roof and there was an issue around the quality of conditions; that this may not have been a safe place to be.
- It was necessary to close down and engage with another city's agencies to get some help in correcting that.
- There is smoking outside of the building, which is monitored and limited.
- There is a schedule on that because some of them have conditions of their program that does not allow them to be able to leave the area or building.
- I also feel the support of the neighborhood. I became a member of the neighborhood to address neighborhood concerns as well as our client's.
Jennifer Stephens, Program Coordinator
- I have reviewed the complaints of the neighbors. As someone who has been part of the community for over five years, we also have those concerns as well.
- One of the things we have really tried to do as a program is to address concerns of the neighbors and also as a facility as well.
- Having a safe community is important. We make sure the outdoor area is clean on a regular basis.
- The women that we work with are a difficult population. We want to be a resource and an asset to the community.
- This is a unique service for women and this project is very needed to make a safe place for them.
Gregg Witkowski
- I'm opposed to this project to amend the previously approved conditional use authorization for this facility.
- The original conditional use expressly prohibited the preparation of meals for people that do not reside on site. It should not be changed now.
- The proposal raised several questions about the physical capacity of this facility to provide this service.
- Will the approval of this service be allowed to expand in the future without limits or conditions? Is there a limit to the number of other facilities that the A Woman's Place could provide this service?
- The facility is already providing more than 30 beds that they were authorized in the original conditional use approval.
- They are simply requesting approval for what they have been doing over the years in violation of the original conditions of approval.
- There is a lack of parking in the area. The original variance for required off street parking should be reassessed in conjunction with the changes proposed today.
William Plumlee
- I urge you to reject the proposal to increase services.
- The original conditional use permit allows for the presence of 30 residents and the facility currently houses 49 residents, an increase of 63 percent.
- The other residents of the neighborhood were never consulted during this expansion of services.
- The request represents approximately an increase of ninety seven percent.
- Because of the intense utilization of the facility, it has deteriorated dramatically since its opening.
- Only $60 thousand dollars is budgeted for repairs and maintenance, which is not enough.
- Graffiti covered windows have been boarded over; historic ornamentation has been damaged; safety lights are broken - these did not happen overnight.
- They need to show a sense of urgency about issues outside the scope of client's care.
- The solution which best serves the interest of the community, neighbors, and the residents of A Women's Place are the revalidation of the original terms of the existing conditional use agreement.
Marc Bosschart
- The project sponsor has disregarded the most important conditions of approval mandated in exhibit A of the 1994 conditional use permit.
- I have summarized a few items as a testimony of the neighborhood's opinion about the conditions imposed by this Commission.
- I disagree that the waiting areas have been provided to keep people off the side walk and they hardly ever met the condition of cleaning the sidewalks.
- I have not seen these notices that should be on all entrances of the establishment.
- They did not comply with the condition that they plant trees that were supposed to be provided on Ross Street and on Howard Street.
Max Haptonstahl, Program Director of Mobile Assistant Patrol - MAP
- We patrol the streets 24 hours a day looking to assist people on the streets.
- We are in a position to see how few resources there are devoted to help women at risk and have worked closely with the A Woman's Place even before they were at this present site.
- I understand the concerns of the residents. Our vans are there to just drop off the individual.
- If we are going to stay for a longer time, we find a legitimate parking space.
- We support this conditional use and hope you consider the nature of the facility and the importance of it.
Melinda Cortez
- We have watched every phase of the operation of this organization since the beginning.
- It has become a larger and more serious issue.
- Parking is a big problem and not providing on site parking increases the lack of spaces on the street.
- They have no place for the garbage containers and it is in front of our building creating disturbances at the time of collection and also damaging our walls.
- We brought it to the attention of the administration many times and just a few months ago they moved it.
Josephine McCreary, Department of Public Health
- I am here on behalf of Mitch Katz, Director of Public Health.
- We strongly support expanding this program. It is a very important program for the Department of Health.
- It serves women by providing a safe place to live.
- The two programs that they want to provide food for do not have the facilities to provide food for themselves.
- We urge you to approve this expansion that is so badly needed.
- [Submitted a letter of support from Dr. Katz.]
Lee Utterbach
- I agree with all the people that came before me and put forth their reservations about what is going to happen here.
- In 1992 they were allowed to have 30 beds and almost always they have had 49 people in the building.
- The service is very important to be here in the city but I just ask you to consider that a lot of the conditions stated before were not met.
- The main thing is that there should be some balance between what we want to do in terms of safety for these people and the neighborhood where they are at.
ACTION: Approved as amended:
-Required planting of 4th tree.
-Quarterly street steam cleaning.
-Address improvement of drop off, pick up & loading.
-Provide off-street garbage storage
-Other than for the residents and the identified off-site programs, no food is to be prepared or served to outside persons.
-Strengthen the liaison function and have at least two community outreach meetings within the next quarter.
AYES: Alexander, Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: W. Lee
MOTION: 17464
14a. 2006.1273EKBX (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)
535 MISSION STREET - south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 68 and 83 in Assessor's Block 3721 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions to setback and separation of towers, ground level wind currents, and bulk requirements, for the construction of a 27-story (plus mechanical penthouse), approximately 380-foot tall building containing approximately 293,760 square feet of office space, approximately 3,700 square feet of retail space, and approximately 12,600 square feet of parking on one underground level, with approximately 32 parking spaces using valet operation. The Project also includes approximately 6,000 square feet of open space in a combination of exterior open space, interior greenhouse and improvements to Shaw Alley. This project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District, Transbay C-3 Special Use District, and is within a 550-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKERS
Andrew Junius, Architect for Project Sponsor
- We are ready to go. We have the materials for the presentation and would like to have the hearing on this case today.
ACTION: Without Hearing Continued to August 2, 2007
AYES: Alexander, Olague, S. Lee, Moore, and Sugaya.
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: W. Lee
14b. 2006.1273EKBX (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)
535 MISSION STREET, South side between 1st and 2nd Street, Lots 68 and 83 in Assessor's Block 3721 – Request under Planning Code Section 321 for approval and Determination of Compliance for the construction of a 27-story (plus mechanical penthouse), approximately 380-foot tall building containing approximately 293,760 square feet of office space, approximately 3,700 square feet of retail space, and approximately 12,600 square feet of parking on one underground level, with approximately 32 parking spaces using valet operation. The Project also includes approximately 6,000 square feet of open space in a combination of exterior open space, interior greenhouse and improvements to Shaw Alley. This project lies within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District, Transbay C-3 Special Use District, and is within a 550-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2007)
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 14a.
ACTION: Without Hearing Continued to August 2, 2007
AYES: Alexander, Olague, S. Lee, Moore, and Sugaya.
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: W. Lee
15. 2006.1476D (Tape IIB; IIIA) (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)
880-882 DOLORES STREET - west side between 22nd and 21st Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 3619 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.11.20.8161, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from three units to two units, in a 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 proposal as submitted.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2007)
SPEAKERS
Juanita Donaldson, Owner
- The change of use for this property is in accordance with the City's priority master plan.
- We have resided at this property since February, 2000.
- We are a family of four with a home based business.
- Having a garage was a crucial necessity for our family life and we converted the basement into a garage.
- Our children are growing up and we are not able to purchase another property in the city. We would like to remain here close to their school.
- Home based business is economically convenient for us and it turned out to be a family activity with the help of our sons.
- This merger is in accordance with the San Francisco Master Plan.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the proposed merger.
AYES: Alexander, Olague, Moore and Sugaya
NAYES: Antonini and S. Lee
ABSENT: W. Lee
6:00 P.M. (7:00 P.M.)
16. (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (K. Rich: (415) 558-6345)
Eastern Neighborhoods Informational Presentation - The Eastern Neighborhoods Program encompasses the Mission, Central Waterfront, East SoMa and Showplace Square. Planning staff will present a progress report on the historic preservation surveys, an overview of the proposed objectives and policies in the Area Plans, and interim procedures for project review while the surveys are being completed. Planning Staff and Department of Public Health staff will present the collaborative work between the departments on the development of the Healthy Development Tool and its application to the Eastern Neighborhoods.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only
SPEAKERS
Lilly Farhein - Epidemiologist with the Department of Public Health
-In the environmental health section, we have a land use and health program that I have been working with for about four years.
- ENCHIA [Eastern Neighborhoods Community Health Impact Assessment] was a collaborative multi-stakeholder consensus based approach that DPH [Department of Public Health] facilitated.
- Its goal was to really look at how developments in the Eastern Neighborhoods would affect aspects of community and individual level of health.
- The process had five broad goals:
a- Identifying/analyze the likely impact of land use plans and zoning controls.
b- Promote meaningful public involvement in land use policy making.
c- To develop capacity for inter-agency relationships.
d- To provide actual recommendations for the Eastern Neighborhood's policies and zoning controls.
c- To demonstrate the feasibility of health impact assessment methods.
- ENCHIA started in 2004 and ended in May of 2006. There was an ENCHIA Council and there were a number of concrete stages during this process.
- Initially, there was the creation of a vision for a healthy city creating a set of health objectives to help us in words what that really meant.
- Then, there was the identification of over hundreds of indicators that could measure progress toward those objectives. The group generated data profiles on those indicators.
- The last stage of the process was to take the vision, objectives, indicators, data and policies to integrate them into what we call The Healthy Development Measurement Tool.
- That was the combination result of the 18 month process.
- What exactly is The Healthy Development Measurement Tool?
- Its goal is to support comprehensive and health responsive planning using a sort of systematic and objective set of methods.
- It is a voluntarily evaluation metric. It is comprised of about 30 objectives and measurable indicators in development targets to help you understand how much you are meeting those objectives.
- The primary use of the tool is an evaluation of land use plan projects and policies.
- When we first released the tool, we shared it with many city agencies.
- We received comments from seven of them including the Planning Department, Redevelopment Agency, Rec. and Park, DBI, and DPW. They really helped us to refine some indicators and develop some targets.
- It was also reviewed by over 20 technical experts in land use and transportation planning, and public health assessment.
- We converted the tool into a publicly accessible website for easier facilitation and created transparency of what we were doing.
- We completed a sort of pilot application of that tool in the Executive Park Sub-Area Plan in the South Eastern sector of San Francisco.
- The tool is being used to develop a health element to the Richmond General Plan.
- We have also received several requests for applications including the Western SOMA Citizen Planning Task Force and Treasure Island Community Based Planning.
- The application of the tool is to really endeavor to answer two questions: Does a place have a living and healthy condition? Does a specific plan or project that you are interested in really advance health related conditions?
- We have worked with planning staff about using this tool for the Eastern Neighborhoods.
- We have used this tool for the Mission District and Western SOMA and we would work with other districts.
- There are three stages that comprised this joint review: screening, evaluation and recommendations that are based on community health conditions and data.
- The data shows that neighborhoods have different needs and as a result the plan must be assessed in relation to how neighborhoods are doing already.
- This is not an evaluation of the final plan but an evaluation for the draft plan.
- We are working on more specific recommendations. We are anticipating completing the application by the end of August.
- Some of our preliminary recommendations are that the plan needs to be improved in terms of the overall specificity - in particular in the design guidelines and their implementing actions.
- It is also very important that Planning and other City agencies continue to work together to address different communities needs.
Sue Hestor
- We seem to be very good on buildings when it is easy to characterize buildings by the area.
- These areas have a lot of history and a lot of it is the kind that you get from working class people.
- You are not picking up the nature and history because it is not visible anymore and you need to understand it.
- I would love to have a physical memorization of what the water front was from the South of Market to the Mission and then to Potrero Hill.
- We need to pay attention to the history part of the city, the nature and the people.
Judy West
- I am very pleased to see the Showplace Square and Northeast Mission areas treated together for the first time.
- I encourage you to expand this step and consider the land use issues in the same way.
- We really share more with the Showplace Square then we do with the commercial district in the Mission.
- I hope that you understand what you are doing to these properties that are at risk of sinking in the mud in a case of an earthquake.
- Keep in mind that you should try to incentive seismic upgrades of properties.
ACTION: Informational Only. No Action required of the Commission
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))
SPEAKERS: None
Adjournment: 8:37 p.m.
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, August 2, 2007.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Olague, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Antonini
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.
