SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 27, 2008

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: W. Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:42 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Anmarie Rodgers, Kelly Amdur, Kearstin Dischinger, David Alumbaugh, Angela Heitter, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Aaron Hollister, Michael Smith, David Lindsay, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

• CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION ON SAN FRANCISCO HOPE/HUNTERS VIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT – 227 West Point Road, Assessor's Block 4624; Lots 003 and 004; and Assessor's Block 4720, Lot 027 Informational Presentation on HopeSF and Hunters View Housing Project. The City is embarking on a project to transform the existing Housing Authority project sites into new mixed-income residential neighborhoods that provide variety of housing types and are better integrated into their surrounding neighborhood fabrics. This presentation is to discuss the overarching "SF Hope Principals," the first proposed project at Hunters View, and the next steps for the overall effort.

(Proposed for continuance to April 3, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

2. 2007.1267X (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

631 FOLSOM STREET - south-east side between 2nd and Hawthorne Streets, Lot 090 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request for an exemption pursuant to section 309 to add 52 off-street parking spaces to the previously approved 64 off-street parking spaces in a mixed-use building currently under construction. The building is to have 114 dwelling units, each containing at least two bedrooms and at least 1000 square feet. Under this proposal there will be a total of 116 off-street parking spaces, 108 of which will be stored and accessed by mechanical stackers. 2 of the spaces will be dedicated to car-share vehicles. No physical expansion of the approved building is proposed. This site is within the C-3-S Zoning District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2008)

(Proposed for continuance to April 10, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2008

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

3. 2007.1355T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 785 to establish the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict and to amend Section 703.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict [Board File No. 07-1561]. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Ammiano amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 785 to establish the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; amending Section 703.3 to prohibit formula retail uses in the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; amending Sectional Maps SU 07 and SU 11 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to establish the boundaries of the Mission/Bernal Formula Retail Restricted Use Subdistrict; adopting finding, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 28, 2007)

(Proposed for continuance to April 24, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

4. 2005.0142E (B. BOLLINGER: (415) 575-9024)

733 27^th Avenue– The proposed project is located at 733 27^th Avenue (Assessor's Block 1617, Lot 003) in the Outer Richmond neighborhood. Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The existing two-story building is approximately 1,848 square feet in size, 23'-9 in height, and has one off-street parking space. The proposed project would construct a horizontal addition that would extend the existing building about six feet to the north property line and 18 feet west into the rear yard and a vertical addition that would add a third floor to the existing building. The proposed horizontal and vertical additions would add approximately 2,850 square feet to the existing 1,848-square-foot building and would remain a two-unit residence. The proposed building would be a three-story, approximately 4,698-square-foot building with two off-street parking. The project site is within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) zoning district and within a 40-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Proposed for continuance to May 22, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued to June 5, 2008

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. ELECTION OF VICE PRESIDENT: The Commission may take action to elect a Vice President to complete the one-year term (through 2008) with the ability to continue to hold office as the Commission's Rules and Regulations and the Charter allows.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 10, 2008

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

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 Moore

- Reflecting back on last week on the presentation from the Mayor's Office and Economic Development, I would like to point out an article in the New York Times of March 26.

- Millions of jobs of different colors; green jobs are little more than just a trendy term that just hand out prospects that are still to be defined -- blue color jobs upgrading to green to address the environmental challenges of our country.

- I have sent it to the Mayor's Office of Economic Development, Mr. Michael Cohen. It is a very interesting article.

- Another article, Amit Ghosh was quoted  Planning start thinking how to feed us. There are 600 green plots in the City that could be potentially used for food production.

Commissioner Olague

- I read an article last week in the Sunday's Chronicle about San Francisco Open Spaces. There were 15 or 16 listed there.

- I would like to know if there is such a listing in the Planning Department or maybe in Park and Recreation.

- It says that all these are governed rather subjectively. Is there any kind of enforcement?

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We can get you a list of Public Open Spaces created since 1985. There are other plazas that have been created. That article is listing only 16 and I think there are more.

- They were not in exchange and they are maintained in good shape.

Commissioner Sugaya

- The issue is not whether they are well kept but that many people just do not know they are there.

- We have one next door that was part of the Conditional Use. They have a terrace but it is not visible. You even have to go inside the building to see the plaque, if they have one, saying that there is a public accessible open space.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I believe that we have a standardized plaque and I believe that it should be on the outside.

Commissioner Moore

- For significant building security, many of these spaces you cannot access.

- How are we looking ahead in dealing with building approvals which in reality can not provide these spaces anymore? I think we need to come to terms at some point.

Commissioner Antonini

- Is there a differentiation between ground level and above grade open space? Is there a requirement that some of them be on ground level?

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- The preferences are 7 or 9 categories of open space in the Downtown Open Space Guidelines and we try mostly on grade and open. Hotels would have it inside.

Commissioner Moore

- I would like to have a special meeting on the subject matter to sit together and talk it through for standards and expectations of how to move forward with open space.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)

7. Director's Announcements

John Rahaim, Director

- Regarding my trip to New York last week: there were five cities - the others were Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and Boston - represented in the meeting of primarily housing development officials.

- They invited the Planning Directors because the topics were the inclusionary zonings. Other cities approach it differently, where San Francisco has an interesting mix.

- Secondly, there is a memorandum in your packets about your request on Van Ness corridor and we came up with the same numbers as the article in the Businesses Times. It is about 2,000 units with a potential for about 1,000 more.

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

Anmarie Rogders

Land Use

• Zoning Controls for the removal of Dwelling Units – This legislation would establish numerical criteria to establish when a demolition had occurred and establish processes for reviewing the loss of a dwelling unit either by a Conditional Use for buildings with 4 or more units or by Discretionary Review for buildings less than that. The Committee directed that the demolition criteria be codified into the Planning Code. The Committee will pick up this item again next Monday, March 31.
• 55 Laguna Detail briefing later in the calendar.

Full Board

• Northeast Waterfront Historic Sign District – This legislation would establish the Northeast Waterfront Special Sign District. It is modeled on similar sign controls for Jackson Square. This district holds the largest number of pre-earthquake industrial warehouse buildings in the City. Passed
• Enforcement Penalties – There was an article on the Examiner about the ordinance creating enforcement penalties. It was passed [published] by the Examiner on January 24. It would greatly improve the Department's capacity for enforcement creating two different processes: one for complex enforcement cases and one for minor enforcement cases. Passed.
• Introductions:
  • Mayor's motion to appoint Ron Miguel to the Planning Commission
  • Supervisor Daly's extending the life of the Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force
  • Supervisor Peskin's Ordinance to the Subdivision Code to modify the definition of conversion to include air space.
  • Supervisor Peskin's Ordinance amending the San Francisco Environment Code to prohibit commercial buildings from lighting unoccupied interior spaces after business hours.
  • Hearing Request by Supervisor Daly on the Bay Area effort to link performance targets to Land Use.
  • Substitute Ordinance by Supervisor Sandoval creating the Excelsior Alcohol RUD (removing North Beach and making corrections to the map).

Board of Appeals

NONE

Item taken out of order followed item 11

9. (Tape IB) (S. SANCHEZ (415) 558-6326)

ACADEMYOF ART UNIVERSITY ENFORCEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN UPDATE(IMP) - Informational presentation on the status of pending enforcement cases and preparation of IMP by the Academy of Art University. Item to be presented as new information is available.

SPEAKER(S)

John Bardis

- There is no environmental review for the properties and the Institutional Master Plan is not ready. You should get from staff a very clear factual picture.

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

Item 10 was taken out of order and followed item 8

10. (Tape IA) (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

77 Van ness avenue- West side between Fell and Hickory Streets, Assessor's Block 0834, Lot No. 022. The subject property is within the C-3-G (Downtown, General Commercial) District and a 120-F Height and Bulk District. Informational Presentation on the public art proposal for the mixed-use development project that is currently under construction on the project site. The project was approved by the Commission on December 13, 2001, and consists of an 8 story building with two retail spaces and 58 parking spaces on the ground floor, approx. 20,000 sq.ft. of office space on floors 2 and 3, and fifty residential units on floors 4 through 8.

SPEAKER(S): None

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

Item 11 was taken out of order and followed item 10

11. (Tape IA; IB) (J. LAU: (415) 554-7672)

BACKSTREETS REPORT – Informational presentation by members of the Back Streets Business Advisory Board to review the findings and recommendations contained in their recent report  Made in San Francisco.

SPEAKER(S)

Supervisor Sophie Maxwell

- This particular presentation is near and dear on my heart because some years ago I sponsored a legislation that established the Backstreets Business Advisory Board.

- At that time there was much discussion about the need for new housing developments in San Francisco as well as the growth of high technology related businesses in the City.

- Receiving less attention form policy makers with the thousands of small and light industrial businesses in San Francisco, many located in the South East sector of the City.

- These businesses continue to play an important role in the local economy by providing 6,000 well paying jobs, relatively stable jobs for residents of San Francisco.

- We need to allow space and place for businesses to growth and to come and incubate.

- The Backstreets Advisory Board compromises small business owners, industrial operators and community builders. I thank all of them for their commitment to San Francisco.

Peter Cohen

- This report is an attempt to tell our story in understanding a segment of the City's economy through the perspective of real people who run businesses.

- We did research with other cities to see what others are doing proactively to deal with their industrial sectors.

Mark Clement

- We have a broad range of recommendations that fall into six general categories: (a) improves City's data and tracking of industrial land, (b) proactive methodologist, (c) land use creating some king of certainty, (d) infrastructure, (e) workforce/employer development program, and (f) development of industrial business alliance.

Bob Legallet

- We come today with our report to create awareness to the Planning Commission that there is a segment of the economy that does not have a voice with the Chamber of Commerce or at City Hall.

Todd Ruffus, Office of Economic and Workforce Development

- I serve as the primary point of contact for information and assistance for industrial businesses in San Francisco.

- That assistance typically manifests itself in four ways: (a) navigating City's government for industrial businesses, (b) incentives, (c) connecting businesses to talent/employees that they are looking for, and (c) retaining workers.

Tom Raduvolich

- These businesses are high technology businesses located here and serving for artists.

- I urge you to think about a logistic center strategy as part of supporting the Eastern Neighborhoods as well as supporting our retail businesses.

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

Item 12 was taken out of order and followed item 9

12. 2004.0773E!MTZC (Tape IB) (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

55 LAGUNA STREET: (aka 218 – 220 BUCHANAN STREET) - most of the blocks bound by Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets, Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 870 and Lots 1 and 1A in Assessor's Block 857- Discussion of the Planning Commission condition requiring Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board review of the project, and related CEQA findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

SPEAKER(S)

Cynthia Servetnick

- In accordance with the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, no environmental impacting activities or no choice limiting activities take place prior to NEPA clearance [National Environment Policy Act] if HUD money is to be used.

- No demolition permit should be issued until this project either clarifies whether it will or will not use HUD money. And if they will, that NEPA clearance is completed.

Steven Vettel

- Concerned about the timing of when to go back to the Landmarks Board.

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

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES (Tapes IB; IIA)

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)

Joe O'Donaghoe

- In 1986 there was no balance between neighborhood needs and growth and the Commission set forth a policy for RH-1 and RH-2 to choose whether to build out or up. Plans are being approve now allowing both things.

- I urge the Commission to readdress those policy matters.

John Bardis

- Requested the Commission to ask the Zoning Administrator to put in writing his statements about the Academy of Arts University.

- Last week I requested the five largest industries in the City and I hope you take the time to respond.

Judith Berkowitz

- In the Backstreets report, there was much discussion about the need of infrastructure. As it was presented, perhaps you can entertain a series of meetings addressing the caring capacity of the land to figure out the kind of growth San Francisco can bear.

Mark Solomon

- The Eastern Neighborhoods economic section for the Mission Plan does not speak at all to business to consumer businesses.

- In terms of the City Economic Plan, which is a very dense document, it is a nice exercise to use as a guide post but not to be a bible or cast in stone situation because the economy varies with time.

Sarah Karlinsky

- SPUR has embarked on a project to take a look at privately owned already developed public spaces in terms of if they have met what we wanted when regulations were put in place as well as how they are managed and the public nature of the spaces.

E. REGULAR CALENDAR

13. 2003.0347UU (Tape IIA; IIB) (K. DISCHINGER: (415) 558-6284)

Amendments to the Market and Octavia Plan Area, Update of Board Proceedings And Request for Comment [Board Files No 071156, 071157, 080255 and 071159] On October 24, 2007 the Board of Supervisors adopted the Market and Octavia Area Plan and corresponding General Plan Amendments. The Land Use Committee has held subsequent hearings on the Planning Code Amendments to implement the Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District [Board File 071156]; Planning Code Amendments to implement the Market and Octavia Area Plan [Board Files No 071157 and 080255]; and Zoning Map Amendment in connection with the Market and Octavia Area Plan [Board File No 071159]. The Board's Land Use Committee will hold its next hearing on or after March 24, 2008. At that time the Committee will consider additional amendments to these files. The proposed Ordinances, as currently amended, are before the Commission so that it may comment on the amendments and recommend adoption, rejection, or adoption with modifications to the Board of Supervisors.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 13, 2008)

SPEAKER(S) on the consideration for continuance

Judy Berkowitz

- Requested continuance until it is properly noticed and takes as much time as necessary to allow the public hearing on the new modifications.

Marilyn Amini

- Requested continuance because it has not been noticed on the agenda that you the Commission is going to take action on this.

Robin Levitt

- Opposed to the continuance because it is time to move on and get it finished.

Marc Solomon

- Plans are determined by timelines. Every piece must be in place. Requested to move forward what is consolidated and spend some more time to figure out the parts of concern.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- Supported the continuance because there is a lack of proper process. Do the right thing to prevent further delays.

In the absence of a motion for continuance, this item was heard as calendared.

SPEAKER(S)

(-)Hiroshi Fukuda

- The plan is going to drastically affect the larger units and garages allowing them to split.

(-)Marilyn Amini

- The proposed changes are material to take density controls out for over 1700 city's blocks and you need to make findings and make public notice to let the population know about it.

(+)Sarah Karlisnky

- Supported Supervisor Mirkarimi's amendments especially the elimination of density controls on the RTO [Residential Transit Oriented].

(+)Tom Radulovich

- Supported Supervisor Mirkarimi's amendments because they strengthen the plan and brings back several things from the 2002 draft plan.

Mark Solomon

- You are making a poor businesses decision for San Francisco because you are entitling a big amount of new expensive housing production and getting hardly anything out of it.

(+)Robin Levitt

- The plan came out of a very intense community process. The plan itself and the amendments really reflect that process.

(-)Judith Berkowitz

- No body was informed or invited to be part of the discussion on these amendments.

Rich Hillz, Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development

- We are certainly supportive of the amendments because we think they strike a good balance between the impacts of the plan -- especially affordable housing and encouraging new developments.

ACTION: Approved as amended by Deputy City Attorney reaffirming CEQA findings in motion #17407.

AYES: Antonini, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17573

14. 2001.1398 (Tapes IIB; IIIA) (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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 14, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Jack Soven, Director Joint Development - Office of Economic and Workforce Development

- The former Naval Station at Treasure Island was originally selected to be closed in 1993 and it was officially closed as a navy base in 1997.

- The island needs seismic strengthening and environmental mediation. It is now predominantly dilapidated and full of empty buildings. We have the opportunity to transform it.

- The development plan is a comprehensive presentation of every aspect to the project including an outline of land uses, housing programs, transportation, infrastructure, sustainability, community facilities, physical impacts, employment and many others as well.

- We expect to be ready for approval by the end of 2009.

Chris Maynie, Treasure Island Community Development

- The master plan is committed to a LEED gold certification and every individual building would comply with the Treasure Island green building specifications.

- We have the opportunity to create the next great recreational park - the biggest park since the creation of the Golden Gate Park.

- Corner stones of the project are: sustainability, open space, housing, and transportation.

- [Presented the development plan].

ACTION: No action is needed of the Commission. Informational item

15a. 2008.0014GU (Tape IIIA) (A. HEITTER; (415) 558-6602)

690 MARKET STREET - the Chronicle Building is located at the northeast intersection of Market, Geary and Kearny Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 311 - Consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors approval on a proposal to designate the subject property as Category II (Significant) per Article 11 of the Planning Code. The subject property consists of two sections: a nine-story plus mezzanine office tower originally designed by Burnham & Root in 1887 and constructed in 1889-90, enlarged in 1905 by D.H. Burnham & Co. and reconstructed in 1908 by Willis Polk. An eight story addition was constructed in 2007. The property is within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 285-S Height and Bulk District. The property is currently undesignated and is not within a Conservation District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meetings of March 13, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Scott Emblidge, Project Sponsor Representative

- This project was before the Landmark Board in 2004 and approved as a landmark. It received preliminary approval at the Board of Supervisors on a conditional basis.

- Essentially the Board of Supervisors said to the developer to finish the project and come back.

- The restoration has been very faithful to what was discussed with Planning Department, Landmarks Board and the Planning Commission.

Jay Thurnball, Preservation Architect

- Article 11 provides that for buildings considered significant under the Downtown plan they are also appropriate to be adaptively altered with a vertical addition. Category II is appropriate.

- The vertical addition and the setbacks were all worked out in a series of exchanges in 2003 and 2004.

Charles Louzej, LEED Architect

- Our task was to balance all the factors that would influence the historic design of the building.

- [Presented improvements to the property]

Marilyn Amini

- Glad to hear that the decision was made that the Mills Act is to apply only to the original historical section of the property.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17574

15b. 2008.0014GU (A. HEITTER; (415) 558-6602)

690 MARKET STREET - the Chronicle Building is located at the northeast intersection of Market, Geary and Kearny Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 311 - Consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors approvalof a Mills Act historical property contract for the subject property which is proposed for designation as Category II (Significant) per Article 11 of the Planning Code. The Mills Act authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with owners of private historical property who, through the historical property contract, assure the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation and maintenance of a qualified historical property. In return, the property owner enjoys a reduction in property taxes for a given period. The property is within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 285-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 15a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17575

6:00 P.M.

16a. 2007.0166DV (Tape IIIB) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

13551533 McALLISTER STREET – south side between Scott and Divisadero Streets, Lot 0023 in Assessor's Block 1180. Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.0214.4117 that includes removing a dwelling unit. The merger will reduce the number of legal dwelling units from three to two units. The subject property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S)

(+)John Donell

- Spoke in support of the project because it is an excellent configuration and the parking will be much welcomed in the neighborhood.

- Requested that framing construction should only go from Monday through Friday until 5p.m.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved requiring:

-Reconfiguration of the unit to a smaller studio room instead of a workout room on the bottom level.

-Framing and concrete work could only be done on weekdays, 8a.m. to 5 p.m.

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

16b. 2007.0166DV (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

13551533 McALLISTER STREET – south side between Scott and Divisadero Streets, Lot 0023 in Assessor's Block 1180. A Rear Yard Variance is sought under Planning Code Section 134. The proposal is to remove an existing wood deck and stair at the first and second floors and to construct an 8'-8 wide by 6'-9 deep addition at the rear of the first floor, and a new rear stair and deck at the first – through attic floors. Portions of the decks and stairs are within the required rear yard. The subject property is within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 16a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator granted variance subject to standard conditions of approval.

17. 2007.0973DDD (Tapes IIIB; IVA; IVB) (A. Hollister: (415) 575-9078)

1420 MontgomeryStreet - east side between Greenwich and Filbert Streets, Lot 037 in Assessor's Block 0085 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.03.29.7588, proposing to add rooftop features to the existing subject building. A new roof deck consisting of wood decking and stone paving would be installed. The roof deck would include 42-inch-high glass railings, two 48-inch-high windscreens, an outdoor kitchen counter, a gas fire table, and four rectangular metal planters. Other rooftop features would include three skylights on 36-inch-high curbs, two 12-inch-high skylights, mechanical equipment, and a 28-panel photovoltaic array (solar panels). The existing stair and elevator penthouses would remain and would not be expanded. The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve plans with modifications

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Paul Weaver, 1^st Discretionary Review Requestor

- Opposed the size, scope and intended use of the rooftop expansion as it will also set precedence in our historic neighborhood.

- Objected to the way the construction has progressed because individual permits have been successfully pulled to enable completion of the infrastructure for the proposed rooftop.

- I feel that the project is in direct conflict with the historical Garden Daly's and it is unprecedented within the current scope of the neighborhood.

Terri Anderlini, 2^nd Discretionary Review Requestor

- This is going to change the character of the neighborhood and set a bad precedence.

- It is contrary to the attempt of what a roof is supposed to be about.

- The public view would be obstructed with an unappealing view of the Bay and tourists may not enjoy their walk as much as they have in the past.

Nancy Shanahan, 3^rd Discretionary Review Requestor

- This is going to set a bad precedence. It is not about preserving private use but preserving the scenic character and unique built environment of the area.

- This is about adding an entire floor of outdoor living space including a kitchen dining room, viewing area, planters, fire pits, compressors and solar panels.

(-)Garret Shean

- I think that the problem is that there are no clear standards for whether or not this project should be accepted. We do not have a target to compare it with.

(-)Stan Teng

- The rooftop is going to be so dense with so many elements spread out all over the place.

(-)Joan Wood

- I urge you to take discretionary review and reduce the extent of the proposed additions because it will set a bad precedent and affect the character of the neighborhood.

(-)Joe Luttrell

- The roof deck with sound equipment where a lot of noise is being generated is going to affect significantly the residents on this block.

(-)Judy Irving

- Concerned that glass railings/windscreens are not visible for birds and it is going to impact humans and other species.

(-)Mary Lipian

- This project is essentially a total floor of additional living space. It is not a rooftop but a fifth floor violating the spirit of the height limit.

(-)Nan Roth

- This appears to be an excessive exploitation of the roof as well as the product of a questionable sequential permit process.

- Concerned with the fire pit that potentially could start a fire with the high winds in the area.

(-)Don Rich

- This project looks like a new living quarter room and kitchen adding footage to the height limit.

(-)Patricia Shean

- Concerned with the potential open flame with so many things in a very small neighborhood. It is dangerous.

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor Representative

- The Residential Design Guidelines are clear on this. The use of private buildings and decks are not protected.

- The requestors have eating, barbecue, sitting and a pool. But somehow this sponsor should not have what the requestors have.

- Is the proposal an exceptional or extraordinary nature? It is not. There are a lot of big roof decks in the area.

(+)Kirk Scott

- Supported the project because the sponsor followed everything that staff recommended and private views are not protected in San Francisco.

(+)Alan Steremberg, Owner

- We have lived in apartment building and we enjoy that. Our intent is to provide rental units at a fair price.

- We want to highlight green features. We just won an award of honor from the Board of Supervisors for our help with the climate challenge in San Francisco.

(+)Paul Scott

- Supported the deck to use the space to the extent possible for children's activities and the deck is hardly seen in the neighborhood.

(+)Jane Gilespe

- Delighted that this is going to be available and that the sponsor is leasing that place.

(+)Courtney Minick

- The project is properly designed and will be a welcoming improvement.

(+)Todd Henry

- Read a letter on behalf of James Hong supporting the project and concerned about various delays impeding completion of construction.

(+)Charlotte Bannenstiel

- Supported the construction of the deck because it is organized and tasteful.

(+)Sylvia Johnson

- Supported the project.

Motion to take DR and approve with modifications: no amplification of noise after 10p.m.; no glass wind screens or glass railings; no fire pit except staff's reduction as shown earlier; everything on the cross hatching green to be eliminated; we acknowledge that skylights are 1 foot height except for the originals.

AYES: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and S. Lee

ABSENT: W. Lee

MOTION FAILED

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with modifications:

-No amplification noise after 10p.m.

-No glass wind screens and railings.

-No fire pit except staff's reduction.

-Setback on the east side about 3 feet at the fire stairs allowing a 3 foot passage way that could result in a 4 to 6 foot setback on the rest of that edge.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: S. Lee

ABSENT: W. Lee

18. 2007.1467DD (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

1671 11^TH AVENUE– west side between Moraga and Lawton Streets, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1932-- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.24.7492 proposing to construct a one-story, full-floor, vertical addition and alter the front façade of a two-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 24, 2008

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

19. 2007.1193D (D. LINDSAY: (415) 558-6393)

(Tape IIIA; IIIB for continuance request and IVB for the project)

770 18^TH AVENUE - east side of 18^th Avenue between Fulton and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 1660 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.09.24.3528, proposing to revise previously-approved and issued Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.06.4962 by reducing the depth of the first and second floors by 4 feet. The originally-approved project, which is under construction, included horizontal and vertical additions and the conversion of the building from a single-family house to a two-unit building. The subject property is in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 28, 2008)

NOTE: On December 20, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to February 28, 2008, requiring 3-D renderings and architect drawn plans by a vote of +7 -0.

NOTE: On February 28, 2008, following Commission deliberation, the commission required a number of modifications that include: NSR; an open staircase/less direct access; removal of the 4^th floor; removal of ground floor extension; decrease number of ground floor bathrooms/rooms; and to bring the project back for a full public hearing on March 27, 2008.

SPEAKER(S) on the request for continuance

Tracy Boxer Zill, Project Sponsor Representative

- Requested continuance until there is a full Commission to consider the project.

David Silverman, Project Sponsor Representative

- We did notify the requestor by telephone and mail a week ago.

- Requested continuance because of the late hour and we would like to present our case to the full Commission.

(-)Richard Herold

- We did receive the notice and according to the rules and regulations even the President does not have to be present. This is a suspicious request.

(-)Ailene Herold

- I'm opposed to the continuance because the passage of time does not change the facts.

(-)Eva

- I received a phone call from project sponsor's attorney on March 21 after 5p.m. that they were requesting the continuance and the letter was not received until Tuesday the following week.

(-)Charles Walker

- You should ask the builder if the design modifications that you asked for at the last meeting are ready to be presented.

(-)Elaine

- Some modifications were requested at the last meeting and we are hoping that you would continue assessing if this building is proper for our neighborhood.

In the absence of a motion for continuance, this item was heard as calendared.

SPEAKER(S)

Ailene Herold, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The fact that the applicant has not yet complied with your recommendations, neither have they attempted to work on it is telling.

(-)Richard

- I thought the matter was settled when the applicant did not submitted new plans.

(-)Charles Walker

- We really do not have much to add but to ask you to act on this in a reasonable way.

(-)[No name stated]

- We are not sure what is going to happen and hoping you would still stick to your recommendations.

Sylvia Johnson

- This is a matter of perspective of things and valuing the situations. We put this on our schedule to come here.

(-)[No name stated]

- We thought that after the last hearing we were coming back to see the new plans.

David Silverman, Project Sponsor Representative

- There were opportunities to file reviews and appeals and they did not do it at the time.

- An error was found and the sponsor submitted the revisions without any enforcement notice.

- The requestor has not provided any evidence of any extraordinary circumstances.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the Commission's modifications as outlined in staff memorandum dated March 20, 2008

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

F. 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)

Marilyn Amini

- Concerned about a legislation heard at the Land Use Committee about demolitions and mergers. It has not been heard at this Commission since May 2007.

- Requested that this comes back to this Commission for public input and information.

Sylvia Johnson

- A lot of these contracts have been reported to the computer.

Adjournment: 10:56 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 22, 2008.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Adopted

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.