January 24, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 24, 2008

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:37 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Scott Sanchez, Jessica Range, Angela Heitter, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Aaron Hollister, Ken Rich, Sue Exline, Jonathan Swae, Claudia Flores, Sarah Dennis, Tim Frye, Andres Power, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CLOSED SESSION (Tape IA; IB)

The Planning Commission will take public comment on the matter to be discussed in Closed Session and will consider a motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matter listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel.

SPEAKERS: None

THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING ITEM:

Conference with Legal Counsel - Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d) to discuss whether to initiate litigation against the Academy of Art University.

ACTION: Passed a motion to go into closed session

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

FOLLOWING THE CLOSED SESSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION.

The Planning Commission will make an announcement following Closed Session and will consider a motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during Closed Session.

ACTION: Passed a motion to not disclose any information

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

B. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE (Tape IIA)

The Commissionwill 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. 2007.1163C (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

140 Ellis Street- between Cyril Magnin and Powell Street; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 326 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to convert 65 of the existing 77 residential hotel rooms into tourist hotel rooms within the six-story mixed use structure. This change of use would increase the number of tourist rooms from the existing 66 rooms to a total of 131 tourist hotel rooms with 12 residential hotel rooms still remaining within the building. The project does not propose any modifications to the building exterior or interior and consists of the change of use only.As required under the San Francisco Administrative Code, the 65 residential hotel rooms at the project site(to be converted to tourist hotel rooms) willbe replaced at 317 Leavenworth Street. (A companion variance case for 317 Leavenworth (Case No. 2007.1164V) will be considered by the Zoning Adminstrator concurrently with this case.) The project site is located in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 10, 2 008)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 31, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to February 7, 2008

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

2. 2007.1164V (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

317 Leavenworth Street- northwest corner with Eddy Street; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0334 - Request for Residential Open Space and Off-Street Parking Variances. The proposal is to convert the existing 65 tourist hotel room into 65 residential hotel rooms in conjunction with a reverse conversion at 140 Ellis Street. The existing building occupies the lot almost entirely, and none of the proposed residential hotel rooms would be provided with any private or common open space, nor would any off-street parking spaces be provided. The project site is locatedin an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, Combined, High Density) Zoning District and an 80-T Height and Bulk District. (This is a companion case to conditional use authorization Case No. 2007.1163C, 140 Ellis Street.)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 31, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to February 7, 2008

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

3. 2007.0916C (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

52-54 DORE STREET- southwest side, between Howard and Folsom Streets, Lots 042 and 043 in Assessor's Block 3518 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 816.18, 816.21 and 303 to establish a residential care facility and social service provider (Progress Foundation) in an approximately 12,750 square foot building within an SLR (Service, Light Industrial, Residential) Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk designation. The proposal is to offer a short-term residential care, urgent care, and community placement facility with no exterior expansion of the existing building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 13, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 7, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2007.0703D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

850 Francisco Street- north side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0045 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.18.5416 proposing to revise an issued building permit application for new construction of a four-story, single family residence. The revision consists of construction of two additional basement levels within the footprint of the proposed new construction project. The property is located in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve project

(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2007.0072C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

2367 Market Street- aka 3970 17^th Street north side between Castro and Noe Streets Lot 036 of Assessor's Block 3563 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 186.1 to expand an existing nonconforming Neighborhood Commercial use (a bar and place of entertainment on the second floor), Section 721.44 to develop a Small Self-Service Restaurant on the ground floor of the addition, Section 721.48 Other Entertainment, to expand nights of dancing and live entertainment (DJs) to 7 nights per week, and Section 721.53 to develop a Business Service use space on the top floor in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to March 20, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6. 2007.1113ET (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 303/Protection of Solar EnergySystems- Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi as part of Board File No. 07-1338, that would add Section 303(n) to the Planning Code, to require Conditional Use authorization for any structure that would shade a previously registered Solar Energy System, and requiring the Planning Department to review and manage system registrations.

Preliminary Recommendation: pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 6, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS (Tape IIA)

7. Commission Comments/Questions

· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

- I just wanted to bring up the subject of this yogurt shop  The Red Mango' situation because there has been a lot of mention of that in the press.

- Briefly, the situation is that a particular individual had gotten the permit and during the time before they were able to activate the business, a number of outlets increased and they became a non-permitted use because they were within the formula retail.

- That is part of the history. There is more to it because there is a conditional use situation too.

- I just want Mr. Badiner to talk a little bit about that because my understanding is that previous business had been there.

- There is an 18 month situation were food service if it is discontinued for more than 18 months in the North Beach area, then another conditional use is needed.

- There is a question of timing and the permit exceeding the 18 months.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- There are a number of issues on Red Mango. 11 or more outlets are considered formula retail and the City requires a conditional use but in the North Beach it is not a permitted use.

- The other issue is that this is the former site of the Gold Spite Restaurant that closed.

- It was not brought to our attention that the site was vacant for such a long time.

- I believe that the project sponsor is now proposing to operate the yogurt store as a full service restaurant. That raises some questions but the original application was for a small fast food.

(Tape IIA; IIB) (S. SANCHEZ: (415) 558-6326)

8. Discussion of the Academy of Art University's code violations, enforcement actions and institutional master plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational/discussion only. No Action.

SPEAKER(S)

Jorge Carbonero

- There are some issues that the Academy of Art is facing that are purely life safety and we would like to move forward independently of other issues that have to do with environmental review, change of use, or conditional use.

Michael Burke, Academy of Arts University Representative

- We have submitted a letter acknowledging that none of the life safety issues would confer into any use rights.

- My instructions are to work as quickly as I can to bring the University into compliance and we are doing that.

Jeff

- It is not right what the Academy of Arts is trying to do to the Flower Market.

Patrick McCann

- This town needs the San Francisco Flower Market. It needs institutions to abide by the rules and not force small businesses out.

Diana Scott

- Read a letter from a student of the Academy of Arts University sharing their negative experience with the University.

Ann Ronce

- To provide housing to students at the expense of elderly citizens is unconscionable.

- I suggest you begin a process to investigate what happens to the tenants of these buildings acquired by the Academy six months before the sale and up to a year after.

Sue Hestor

- The Academy of Arts University has a practice of ignoring the Planning Department because they have been consistently buying buildings after the warning letters from this department.

- There needs to be a discussion about whether for-profit educational institutions should be pulled-in under the jobs housing linkage program and require them to build affordable housing.

Joan

- The Flower Market should remains in San Francisco and I'm asking you to look at the big picture because these businesses would not function in the space that the University intends for them.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Information only

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IIB)

9. Director's Announcements

John Rahaim, Director

- I am becoming more familiar with the Commission's Action List. We are reviewing it and hoping to bring resolution of those items on a regular basis.

- We have asked the Mayor's Office of Economic Development to combine the Charles Schwab move of employees and the City's Economic Strategy, and to bring a presentation to you in a future meeting.

- About Dean Macris' role: The short answer is that he is helping me and also working on a few projects that we will bring to this Commission when ready.

- There was also an item about the Japantown boundaries and I am having a discussion about this and trying to figure it all out.

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

Scott Sanchez

Board of Supervisors

None

Board of Appeals

A- Notice of Violation Appeal for a Massage Establishment– Rehearing request -- the Board of Appeals originally upheld the notice of violation in September. Original decision was Upheld and the Planning Department will now forward the matter on to the City Attorney's Office for enforcement.

B- 45 HudsonThe use was operating in violation to the Planning Code. The building permit was granted and eventually appealed. The Board of Appeals upheld it because it is in the interim zoning controls requiring conditional use for most uses in the Bayview. They filed a conditional use and it is coming to this Commission as soon as possible in order to address the enforcement issue.

11. 2001.1398 (D. Alumbaugh: (415) 558-6601)

TreasureIsland. Informational Presentation on the Treasure Island Development Plan-Staff of the Mayor's Office and representatives from Treasure Island Community Development, LLC will give an informational presentation on the status and content of the development plan for Treasure Island.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only, no action requested.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 14, 2008

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

E. GENERALPUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES (Tape IIB)

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.

SPEAKER(S)

Dawn Trennert

- We will be talking with you in the months ahead regarding some developments within the area along Pacific Avenue where we are currently meeting with the developers and trying to find some common ground.

Frank Cannata, Middle Polk Neighborhood Association

- I ask you to give the recommendations of the neighbors who live in the neighborhood the most weight when making your decision.

F. 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

SPEAKER(S): None

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

12. 1999.536E (TapeIIB) (J.RANG(415) 575-9018)

Chinatown YMCA Renovation and Building Addition Project- Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - prepared for proposed additions to and renovations of the existing YMCA to create approximately 48,750 square feet (sf) of expanded recreation, community services and residential uses at 855 Sacramento Street (Assessors Block 0242 and Lot 27). The proposed project would include three elements: (1) interior renovation of the existing three-story-over-basement/ground floor, 45-foot-tall, 25,950-sf building; (2) construction of a new three-story, approximately 39-foot 9-inch-tall, 19,350-sf east wing addition; and (3) construction of a new four-story, approximately 32-foot 4-inch-tall, 3,500-sf rear addition to the existing building along Sabin Place. The proposed project would result in a total of 25 residential hotel rooms, a new aquatic center, new wellness center and expanded community center. The project site is located within the Chinatown Residential/Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and within a 65-A height and bulk district.

NOTE:The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on November 30, 2007. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify EIR

ACTION: FEIR certified

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

MOTION: 17538

H. REGULAR CALENDAR

13. 1999.0536EC (Tapes IIB; IIIA) (A. HEITTER 415-558-6602)

855 SACRAMENTO STREET- south side between Grant Street and Stockton Street N., Lot 27, in Assessor's Block 242 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow an expansion of the Chinatown YMCA on a parcel greater than 5,000 square feet in lot area and in excess of 50 ft. maximum street frontage; and building height exceeding 35 feet related to the proposal to construct an approximately 40-foot-tall, 19,350 sq. ft. addition to the existing east façade; to construct an approximately 32-foot-tall, 3,500 sq. ft. addition at the rear of the existing building; to renovate and reconfigure the interior of the existing building; to convert the existing 21 residential hotel rooms and 10 tourist hotel rooms of the existing building in to 25 residential hotel rooms and related facilities. The subject property is in the CR-NC (Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S)

Charles Collins, Project Sponsor

- The new addition will continue the tradition of serving families in the Chinatown community by creating a deeper foundation and increasing the vital program capacity.

- It would provide safety, studios, a gymnasium, swimming classes, will retain 25-single residence occupancy units, and provide a wellness center. All will be integrated in the YMCA facilities.

- We currently serve about 2,000 people and this addition would permit us to serve annually 8,000 people.

Kari Lee, Executive Director of YMCA

- Submitted over 3,000 post cards and 55 letters of support for the project from the community.

- Gave a summary of services to the community including after school programs, tutoring, family activities, summer programs, etc.

- In the last ten years, we have done extensive community assessments to make sure that we are responding to the needs of our community.

- Every square foot has been planned carefully and it is necessary to fulfill our needs.

- [Shared their own experience of growing up as a member of the YMCA and is proud of working there]

Bill Worthington, Vice-President of the YMCA

- [Presented the revised project with different views including the courtyard, the entrance corridor, sections, and atrium]

- We would continue working with your staff to improve the atrium by exploring various structural approaches to making the columns and beams as small as we can in order to have as much of the original historic façade exposed.

Ford Li, Capital Development Committee

- [Shared there experience of being in the YMCA and how meaningful it is for youth.] It is about the people.

- The new fitness center in the new building is the economic engine to make all this possible.

Wayne Hu, Project Manager

- We have strong community support. [Asked supporters in the audience to stand up]

(-)Don L. Whitney

- Asked for a continuance because there are concerns about excessive height, demolition done without a permit, and the use of the property without a permit. These are outstanding violations.

(-)Richard Fong

- This is a landmark area and they are not going to do much in terms of the demographics in the Chinatown area that is in need of residential development.

(+)Enid Lim

- The proposed redevelopment honors the historical significance structure of the site with its architectural details and allows the YMCA to expand the quality of programs to the community.

(+)Phil Choy

- The YMCA is an example of the preservation of our history, not just architecturally but with the services to the people as well.

(+)Melvin Lee

- Requested the Commission to approve this project for the Chinatown community, which would allow the community to benefit from the same experiences we had growing up but with more expanded programs.

(+)Pauline Roothman

- We do a lot of wonderful things with, in and for the community but we need more space.

(+)Pamela Dufty, Council for the YMCA

- I have a copy of the 1991 permit for the renovation work done on the second floor, and it is true that it was not finalized because we forgot to call the inspector to review the work that was done.

- I have the list from 1990 that defines the residential use and I have the 1989 conditional use permit from the Planning Commission.

- I thing we have dealt with the issues raised by a previous speaker.

(+)Rev. Fong

- We support this project because we like the increase of affordable housing.

(+)Allen Lee

- The YMCA is not just a historical place but a safe place for the youth and coming generations.

(+)Larry Yee

- I urge the Commission to support this project because it is a place for families to work and enjoy leisure time.

ACTION: Approved with a modification to findings under the new paragraph 7a:

Minor revisions were made to the currently proposed project from the project evaluated in the FEIR. The Planning Commission finds that the changes do not affect the analysis or conclusions of the FEIR.

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

MOTION: 17539

14. 2006.0689D (e. jackson: (415) 558-6363)

585 Texas Street- west side, between 20^th and 22^nd Streets, Lot 052 in Assessor's Block 4102 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application number 2006.06.13.3915 under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions. The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling unit and construct a two-story two-unit structure. The subject property is located within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the Building Permit Application with modifications.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

15. 2007.1266T (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to Planning Code by adding Sections 785 and 786 creating the Excelsior Alcohol Restricted Use District and the North Beach Alcohol Restricted Use District [Board File No. 07-1464].Ordinance introduced by Supervisors Peskin and Sandoval amending Planning Code by adding Section 785 to create an Excelsior Alcohol Restricted Use District prohibiting new off-sale liquor establishmentsand providing a five-year sunset provision, and adding Section 786 to create an North Beach Alcohol Restricted Use District prohibiting new off-sale liquor establishments and providing for a five-year sunset provision, amending Sectional Maps SU 11 and SU 12 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to establish the boundaries of the Excelsior Alcohol Restricted Use District, and amending Section Map SU 01 to establish the boundaries of the North Beach Alcohol Restricted Use District, making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S)

David Noyola, Office of Supervisor Peskin

- Over the past 20 years the increase in the number of bars and restaurants in North beach have slowly but surely been crowded out.

- The idea is to try to preserve small businesses that make the neighborhood what it is. However, we are wide open to suggestions from the Planning Department to figure out ways to do that.

- We would love to incorporate your suggestions on how to do this best.

- Establish the number of existing permits for alcohol use and say that would be as many as permitted in this area going forward.

(+)Steven Currier, President of Outer Mission Residents Association

- This is good for us and we look forward to it and hope the Commission would support the moratorium.

(-)Tony Gantner, North Beach Merchants Associations

- I'm concerned that his would result in many more empty stores. It contains many provisions that are hard to interpret for the North Beach.

(-)Robert DiFranco

- This legislation, as written, would not allow opening of restaurants with a beer/wine license in the North Beach where it is low in these types of businesses.

(-)Jalal Heydari, North Beach

- We are proposing a wine shop and are in the process and are coming before the Commission on January 31. This would stop the permit process.

(-)Kathleen Dooley, President of North Beach Merchants Association

- The continuing disappearance of neighborhood serving businesses in North Beach is a disturbing trend and needs to be addressed but we do not believe that this legislation is the solution.

(-)Marsha Garland, North Beach Chamber of Commerce

- The intent of this legislation is to force out businesses and not allow any new liquor licenses to come in. There has not been outreach to neighborhood organizations for input on this legislation.

(-)Stefano Cassolato, North Beach Chamber of Commerce

- No one in the community was contacted to discuss this vital legislation.

(-)Carl Hilsz

- It would be almost impossible for businesses to survive without the selling of alcohol in the North Beach area.

(-)Steve Worsley

- This legislation needs more time to be understood.

(-)Terrance Alan, SF Late Night Coalition

- This legislation needs to go back and be rethought for the community benefit.

(-)Lynn Jefferson, North Beach Neighbors

- This legislation is not going to help anybody. The community needs to be involved in this.

(-)Martin Kickwood, Terra Nova Projects

- This legislation needs to be split because it suits the Excelsior but seems heavily restricted for the North Beach businesses.

(-)Joel Campos, Pagoda Theater

- This legislation would prevent restaurants from being opened in the North Beach.

(-)Ursula

- I'm opposed to the legislation for the North Beach not being able to serve alcohol in the restaurants.

(-)Kevin

- This legislation is not helping to improve the North Beach Neighborhood.

MOTION: To approve Excelsior BUT modify North Beach by extending the time to 18 months, no CAP, require conditional use, and allowing the transfer liquor license.

AYES: Antonini and W. Lee

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

MOTION FAILED

MOTION: To approve recommendations provided by staff on the North Beach component

AYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee

MOTION FAILED

ACTION: Approved the proposed changes for the Excelsior; did not adopt the proposal for North Beach but encouraged continued dialogue.

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

RESOLUTION: 17540

16. 2007.1444ET (D. JONES: (415) 558-6477)

Consideration of an ordinance initiated by Supervisors Sandovaland Maxwell on December 4, 2007 (Board File No. 071651)which would amend Planning Code Section 176 (Enforcement Against Violations) to authorize the Zoning Administrator to assess administrative penalties and by adding Section 176.1 to establish Planning Code enforcement remedies of the Director, which include issuance and recording of orders of abatement, assessment of administrative penalties, and a hearing and appeal process; making findings including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

17a. 2006.0660BEKX (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6344)

100 CALIFORNIA STREET- northwest corner at Davis Street, a through-lot to Sacramento Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0236 - Review under Planning Code Section 295 of a proposed addition of approximately 76,500 square feet in six stories to an existing 13-story office building with an additional 1,530 square feet of new ground-floor retail space, requiring exceptions to Planning Code standards for off-street freight loading, building bulk and shadowing of public parks - in a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 350-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Find that the new shadow cast is not adverse.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 13, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

17b. 2006.0660BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

100 CALIFORNIA STREET- northwest corner at Davis Street, a through-lot to Sacramento Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0236 - Review under Planning Code Section 309 of a proposed addition of approximately 76,500 square feet in six stories to an existing 13-story office building with an additional 1,530 square feet of new ground-floor retail space, requiring exceptions to Planning Code standards for off-street freight loading, building bulk and shadowing of public parks - in a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 350-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 13, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

17c. 2006.0660BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

100 CALIFORNIA STREET- northwest corner at Davis Street, a through-lot to Sacramento Street, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0236 - Request for allocation of approximately 76,500 square feet of new office space pursuant to Planning Code Sections 321 and 322 - in a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 350-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 13, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

18. 2007.1211D (Tape IIIB) (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

1140 POTRERO AVENUE- west side between 23rd Street and 24th Street; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 4211 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application number 2007.05.21.1784, proposing to add a third story with a flat roof, a 3-story horizontal expansion in the rear, and two additional dwelling units to an existing 2-story single-family home in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Plans as submitted.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

ABSENT: Moore

Item 19 and 20 were called together

19. 2002.0194C (Tape IIIB) (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

464 Broadway- north side between Montgomery and Kearny Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0144 - Informational item request for exploration of revocation of Conditional Use Permit authorization for extended hours of operation for the subject full-service restaurant (dba Cable Car Pizza). This site is within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only, no action required

SPEAKER(S): [In addition to the speaker listed below, other speakers include those listed on item 20.]

Saied Amin, Project Sponsor

- I got an extended permit about 10 years ago and if you take the permit away, my business will fail because the business is very slow.

- There is a lot of competition in the area and if you are revoking my permit, you should revoke it to all the businesses on that street so there would be no people on the street, meaning no businesses in the neighborhood.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational item

20. 2007.0461C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

448 BROADWAY- north side between Montgomery and Kearny Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0144 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to operate a business under this application between the hours of 2 AM and 6 AM. Specifically, the project proposal is to extend the hours of operation of the subject business (dba  Broadway Express Pizza Restaurant ) to 3:00 AM. No construction is proposed under this application. This site is within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

PreliminaryRecommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 15, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): [In addition to the speakers listed below, other speakers include those listed on item 19.]

(+)Carolyn Margit Ritchie

- As a member of the community, I support the permit extension.

(+)Karim Khelifi, Owner

- Our business is failing because we have to close at 2a.m. and many businesses in the area are open after hours. We are just trying to survive.

(+)Carl Hilsz

- I suggest you empower the Police Department to enforce the loitering policy. Stopping the service of food is not the optimal solution to reduce crime in the area.

(+)Stefano Cassolato

- The businesses are forced to depend on the revenues they get on the weekends to pay for their bills.

(+)Erick Arguello

- I support the extended hours because he has been a very responsible owner on 24^th Street.

(+)Khelifi, Owner

- We really need your approval because our business is very slow during the day and staying open late on weekends would help us and the community by having patrons eat something after drinking.

(+)Nancy

- They have been in the 24^th Street Neighborhood for about 2 years and they have improved the area very much. We need these kinds of businesses in the North Beach.

(+)Terrance Alan, SF Late Night Coalition

- This the tail-end of a several year process that is actually working. The desire now is to encourage that success.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Olague and S. Lee

MOTION: 17541

21a. 2005.0298KECV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1285 SUTTER STREET- southeast corner of Sutter Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0691 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Sections 157, 209.8, 221.1, 253, 253.2 and 303 of the Planning Code to allow off-street parking in excess of the amount permitted as accessory parking, to permit the sale of alcoholic beverages within 1/4 mile of the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, to demolish a movie theatre, and to allow the construction of a building which exceeds 40 feet in height with an exception to the bulk limits. The project proposes to construct up to 107 dwelling units with approximately 15,800 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space (Trader Joe's) and up to 170 below-grade off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in an RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) and the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District and an 130-V Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

21b. 2005.0298KECV S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1285 SUTTER STREET- southeast corner of Sutter Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 0691 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Sections 253(c)(6), 307(g), 152, and 140 of the Planning Code to modify the rear yard requirement in the Van Ness Special Use District, to provide one off-street freight loading space where two are required, and for dwelling unit exposure for four dwelling units. The project proposes to construct up to 107 dwelling units with approximately 15,800 square feet of ground-floor retail/commercial space (Trader Joe's) and up to 170 below-grade off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in an RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) and the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District and an 130-V Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

22. 2007.1218C (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)

955 Geneva Avenue- north side between London and Paris Streets; Assessor's Block 6409 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 712.43, 703.3 & 703.4 to allow a large fast food restaurant (dba "Little Caesars Pizza") and formula retail use, within the NC-3 (Moderate Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District, and 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to January 31, 2008

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

23. 2007.0827C (a. ben-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

1760 Polk Street- east side between Clay and Washington Streets, Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0620 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add a full bar use to an existing full-service restaurant (d.b.a.  La Parrilla Grill .) No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed, nor any interior modifications. The bar use will require a type 47 ABC license which allows sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises, in conjunction with a bona fide eating establishment. This site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 14, 2008

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

5 7:00 P.M.

24. (Tapes IIIB; IVA; IVB; VA) (K. RICH: (415) 558-6345)

EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM- The Eastern Neighborhoods Program encompasses the Mission, Central Waterfront, East SoMa and Showplace Square/Potrero Hill. Planning staff, together with City Agency partners, will hold an informal discussion session with the Planning Commission to discuss and answer questions on the Final Public Review Draft Area Plans, which were released on December 1st. This is a continuation of the session held on December 13, 2007. (This session is expected to last several hours and will include opportunities for public comment.)

Preliminary Recommendation: No action requested (informational item)

SPEAKER(S)

Dan, Recreation and Park Department

- We have been working with the Planning Department staff over the pass year to review prospective sites for the Eastern Neighborhoods open space acquisition.

- We have identified around 5 - finding sources that could be available to us over the next few years as we move forward with implementation of the plan: Open Space Fund, Proposition C and 84, General Obligation Bond, and Impact Fees. In looking for maintenance we have been looking at alternate financing mechanisms.

Peter Albert, MTA

- We are on schedule to have the draft bicycle EIR this fall.

- The complicated process is just beginning to that point. Then we have to go through the appeal and the review of the comments.

- It is hard to predict when that would be ready. We are estimating that to happen in the summer of 2009.

- Early recommendations assessing a more efficient transportation system is coming up in the spring [of this year]

- Because we are one transportation agency, we are able to integrate bike, transit, pedestrian and traffic calming - putting the whole together in a comprehensive way.

Ariel Braunstein, North-Eastern Association

- This plan is catastrophic for our diversity of people and economic growth.

Jay Goldman, South of Mission Neighborhood Coalition

- The increase of height on 24^th Street is going to encourage building demolitions.

Jenny McGrane

- I'm opposed to the rezoning of the Mission. This is unscrupulous.

Vicki Descalzo, South Mission Neighborhood Coalition

- The current proposal limits the future of the Mission.

Bhavik Vyas

- I oppose the rezoning plan because it is limiting the office space.

[No name stated]

- This ground plan would never happen in a PDR district. There is no excuse for any of this because we have already zoned the whole Bayshore and Bayview.

Jeana Snyder

- There is no need for this rezoning.

Lori Lusted, Howard Quinn Company

- The printing industry in San Francisco has declined in the last 5 years and there is no future for this type of industry with this rezoning.

Robert McCarthy, Gardens at Harrison

- This is the only block in the Eastern SoMa, north of the freeway, that is proposed for MUI.

Jim Allen

- The zoning description of UMU and PDR that is the proposed zoning needs to be clarified much more clearly that it is currently written.

Erick Arguello, Lower 24^th Street Merchants Association

- Requested that 24^th Street remains at its current zoning.

Jeff Fino

- Stores like Media Television Retail would not be able to be in the community. Creating companies and growing businesses should be encouraged to settle in these neighborhoods.

Brett Gladstone

- There is still a lot of work that needs to be done and there are many questions that you have made that are not answered yet.

Shawn

- Much burden is being put on developers of housing and commercial. The only financing source that has been identified is impact fees for affordable housing.

Fred Snyder

- Housing for middle income people is being overlooked.

Antie Kann

- I appreciate the work done so far but implementation of the plan and what really translated is really key.

Amy Sullivan, Rolph Park Neighborhood Group

- We need to really think what we are doing here because putting all affordable housing in one area is not right.

Andrew Dunbok

- This is not a wise plan; we have been working to have better neighborhoods but hundreds of coalitions are being unheard.

Lidia Fraser

- There has been a growth of diversity in the Mission naturally and it is not fair to have all affordable housing there.

Dwight Dolliver

- Stop this plan and put all the pieces adequately in every area in this City.

Mark Dambros

- We are very happy with the plan in our area [8^th and Brannan Street] with the exception that we are looking for more flexibility on which floors above the ground floor can be used for office space.

Erin Rooney

- My restaurants are depending on the current mix of the residential community with the variety of businesses. This zoning legislation would allow the flexible use to continue.

[Inaudible]

- Glad to hear that we are recognizing 16^th Street as one of the key east-west corridors and it needs to be zoned NCT.

Gillian Gillette

- 16^th Street should be zoned, as well as Valencia Street, for high density.

Dan Murphy

- This conversation would be a lot smoother if we start with a clear vision for specific areas and what we really want the City to look like.

Joe Boss

- The first thing to do is to figure out what is missing, lacking, broken, and/or nonexistent. The impact needs report was just finalized in December 2007 and we need more time.

Greg Miller

- Requested staff to revisit the East SoMa area plan with increasing heights for residential developments.

[Inaudible]

- Asked how to get more information and be involved in the process.

Glenn McNaulty

- This plan should not go forward until questions from Commissioners and the public are answered.

Elaine, 725 Harrison Street

- Asked the Commission to take another look at the zoning map and rezone the area to mixed use residential [4^th and Harrison Street]

Donna Kelincon

- Asked the Commission to not throw away the good things we've got in the neighborhood.

Josh Smith

- This plan needs to make economic sense and the definition of PDR should be expanded and made flexible to take technology into account.

Greg Markoulis

- The plan does not show any virtual retail on the entire stretch of 21^st to 23^rd Streets. The new zoning should have more retail to create more critical mass.

Sue Hestor

- We need to change the zoning and encourage affordable housing as well as keep businesses in the Mission and South of Market.

Pedro

- We would like to keep the diversity in the Mission in terms of having small businesses in the neighborhoods.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. This is an informational item.

I. 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))

SPEAKER(S)

Re: Easter Neighborhoods Plan

Robert McCarthy

- You should extend the public comment period after January 31 and have these kinds of items at the beginning of the calendar.

[No name stated]

- The bicycle plan needs to be equitable for the people's safety.

[No name stated]

- Send notices to business owners about this plan and not just residents.

[No name stated]

- I will keep track of our property value and see how they increase compared to other lots in the City.

Adjournment: 11:39 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 13, 2008.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: 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.