May 29, 2008 SpecialSAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, May 29, 2008
1:30 PM
Special Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:39 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Corey Teague, Kevin Guy, David Alumbaugh, Brittany Bendix, Mary Woods, Glenn Cabreros, Aaron Hollister, Tina Tam, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Christine Lamorena, and AnMarie Rodgers – Acting 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. 2008.0095T (T. Sullivan-Lenane: (415) 558-6257)
Amendments to the Planning Code by adding Section 226.5: Alcohol Reduction and Safer Neighborhoods Act - Permitted Locations on New Liquor Stores and their Conditions of Operation. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Sandoval amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 226.5 to impose a distance requirement of 500 feet or more between new off-sale liquor stores and existing liquor stores, elementary and secondary schools, public libraries, and recreation centers throughout San Francisco and establishing conditions for operation of liquor stores.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2008)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 26, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
2. 2006.0441E (J. BATTIS: (415) 575-9022)
721 BEACH STREET- Lot 017 of Assessor's Block 0025, is located within the block bounded by Beach Street to the north, Hyde Street to the east, North Point Street to the south, and Larkin Street to the west. in the Fisherman's Wharf neighborhood - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for demolition of the existing 558-gross square foot (gsf), one-story commercial building constructed circa 1912 and construction of a new 40-foot-high, 12,857-gsf mixed-use building consisting of four residential units within 6,299 gsf on the third, fourth, and partial-fifth floors and 6,558 gsf of retail space on the ground and second floors. The existing structure provides no off-street parking and no off-street parking is proposed. The 3,644-gsf site is within the Northeastern Waterfront Planning Area, Fisherman's Wharf Subarea, is within the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2, is within a C-2 (Community Business District) use district, and is within a 40-X height and bulk district. The project would require a variance from the off-street parking requirement.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Proposed for continuance to July 17, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
3. 2008.0132C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)
542 GREEN STREET- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to operate a business under this application between the hours of 2 AM and 6 AM and to operate a walk-up facility recessed less than three feet from the front property line. Specifically, the project proposal is to extend the hours of operation of the existing restaurant (dba Golden Boy Pizza ) to 4:00 AM and to allow the existing walk-up window to continue operating recessed less than three feet from the front property line. No construction is proposed under this application. This site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions of Walk-up Facility, Disapproval of Extended Hours of Operation Request
(proposed for Continuance to July 10, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
4. 2007.1268D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)
2332 MORAGA STREET - between 29th and 30th Avenues; Lot 012F in Assessor's Block 1914 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.06.14.3942 - proposing to construct an approximately 18-foot deep two-story horizontal addition at the rear of a one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 24, 2008)
NOTE: On April 24, 2008. following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing,continued the item to May 29, 2008, and required the submission of a new set of drawings by a vote of +4 -0. Commissioners Sugaya and W. Lee were absent.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
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
Item 5 was taken off the consent calendar
5. 2007.1034C (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)
2809San Bruno Avenue - east side, between Wayland and Woolsey Streets, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 5457 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 for a reduction of residential off-street parking spaces in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The site currently contains 2 dwelling units and 2 off-street parking spaces. The proposal is to convert the ground floor, which currently contains one dwelling unit, into commercial space and remove the 2 off-street parking spaces. Additionally, a third floor would be constructed to add a second dwelling unit. No parking spaces are proposed for the dwelling units or commercial space.
preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended by staff to add another condition to include window recessing and aluminum windows.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17602
6. 2008.0308C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)
755 Portola Drive - at the northeast corner of Evelyn Way; Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 2901C - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.44 and 790.91, to allow a small self-service restaurant (dba Miraloma Taqueria) to be located within the existing retail grocery and liquor store (dba Miraloma Market). The business owner proposes to add a seating area to the existing accessory use food preparation area of the market, thereby constituting a small self-service- restaurant. The property is located within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17600
Item 7 was taken off the consent calendar
7a. 2006.1419VX (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
19 Tehama Street - south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lot 079 of Assessor's Block 3736 - Request for a Variance to modify the requirements for publicly-accessible open space. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story light industrial building and construct a new 7-story mixed-use building containing 6 dwelling units and approximately 930 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within a C-3-O (SD) Zoning District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider the Variance request concurrently with the Planning Commission's consideration of the Section 309 Review at this same hearing.
SPEAKER(S)
Andrew Junius, Project Sponsor Representative
- Our entire team is here to respond to any questions that you or the public may have.
Sue Hestor
- Requested that staff put up the photo of the posting and clarification of the property's actual use as proposed. How is it zoned? It looks like a residence.
- How do we deal with the adjoining parcel that we have as an active project?
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance subject to standard conditions of approval and an equivalency payout for 64 square feet to the downtown open space with a range of $115 per square foot.
7b. 2006.1419VX (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
19 Tehama Street - south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lot 079 of Assessor's Block 3736 - Request for Determination of Compliance under Planning Code Section 309 (the Downtown Plan), with an exception to the "Separation of Towers" requirement. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story light industrial building and construct a new 7-story mixed-use building containing 6 dwelling units and approximately 930 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within a C-3-O (SD) Zoning District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 7a
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17603
8. 2006.0391C (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1122 POST STREET- north side between Polk Street and Van Ness Avenue, Lot 002 of Assessor's Block 0691 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 723.41 to add a bar to an existing full-service restaurant (dba Maharani Restaurant) within the Polk Street NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District), and a 130-E Height and Bulk District. If granted, the Conditional Use Authorization would allow the applicant to seek a Type 75 License from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This license would permit the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for on-site consumption in association with the restaurant, plus the operation of a microbrewery. The size of the restaurant would not change.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17601
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.
9. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of May 1, 2008
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 1, 2008
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008
· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of May 15, 2008
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved as amended: Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 1, 2008, page 4 – Commissioner Sugaya's comments, last bullet should read: Board President Peskin picked up the award for the Board of Supervisors. Add at the end: The other award winner was Sue Hestor for saving the Flower Mart.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
10. ESTABLISH A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION– Under the Commission's Rules and Regulations, the President will consider whether or not to form a subcommittee of the Commission to hear staff reports and to take comment on the proposed Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan. The President may consider limiting the purpose and duration of such a subcommittee.
President Olague announced the formation of a subcommittee of 2 to 3 Commissioners in order to continue the process of public hearings for the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan.
SPEAKER(S)
Marilyn Amini
- Setting a subcommittee to hear such an important matter as the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, it sets an extremely dangerous and counter productive precedence.
- If there is no quorum, it would be important to continue the Eastern Neighborhoods instead.
11. 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
- A few weeks ago we had a representative from ABAG. Frequently we hear about ABAG's numbers in regards to housing production. Generally what ABAG does is produce suggested housing production figures by cities and counties at certain income levels below the 50 percentile, up to 80 and above the 120 percentile.
- I called ABAG just to see if anything has changes. Most of what has been used in the past is figures from the year 2000 or a little bit before.
- I talked to Mr. Phasinger who is the ABAG Research Director who says that actually there are new numbers out that were calculated in March of 2008 and released on May 5, 2008 that say that San Francisco has some fairly significant changes.
- There are two reasons for these changes. One, we have looked a the income levels in San Francisco much as the report did and noticed some changes in income. Significantly, many areas where there were higher incomes than before it acknowledged that San Francisco had done a very good job relative to many parts of the Bay Area in providing housing at the 50 percentile or lower.
- What they did was to sort of revise the goals for San Francisco. I have a copy of this and I will submit it to staff here.
- They have probably about 35% of their suggested goals below the 80 percentile, about 65% above the 80 percentile with the highest amount by numerical total being above the 120 percentile.
- This is what he pointed out in contrast to San Ramon, Pleasanton, and Dublin -- areas that are growing a lot but have provided no lower and affordable housing.
- They have figures, for example, where they have provided about 68 percent of their housing below the 80 percentile with a very significant amount below the 50 percentile because they probably have none or very little at all and a much lower allotment on higher levels which they are producing a lot of.
- I thought that was interesting and the key for the whole thing is that when we talk about affordable housing it is really important to specify what part of the affordable housing market we are talking about.
- ABAG acknowledges different levels are getting different housing production. They have taken that into consideration.
- I think it is really important as proposals come forward and when they talk about affordable housing to question what we are specifically talking about. Are there any restrictions on levels or limited to percentages of income or things like that?
Commissioner Moore
- I would like to share something that for the first time I observed last night in a small neighborhood restaurant.
- We all know that in response to sky rocketing cost for health care and the lack of coverage for most Americans, that the City enacted a landmark ruling to add health benefits as a mandate for all businesses.
- That gives small businesses as well as large businesses a choice to either fold that 4% increase into the cost of what they sell or offer to people, or to declare it to patrons as an add on tax.
- I was at a small restaurant that took the position to disclose and add a special 4% pretax add-on to cover those costs.
- They indeed proclaimed participating in a landmark decision and I found that refreshing to have it disclosed instead of making it more expensive and not say why.
- They handed out a small sheet explaining the reasons and I commend small businesses to do that. I think it is easier to just disclose it and since we all support small businesses, all power to them.
Commissioner Sugaya
- I would like to ask Mr. Rahaim of Mr. Badiner if you know the current status of the Historic Preservation Element. I have kind of lost track.
Director Rahaim
- The specifics I do not know, but I do know that it is on hold because of a change in staff. Rachel left the Department. And being the primary staff person on it, we have to this point been unable to fill that position because of the budget issues.
- There is a draft out there but it has not gotten any further at this point.
Commissioner Miguel
- I just wanted to mention that last night there was a meeting at Cesar Chavez Elementary School. David Alumbaugh, Director Rahaim, Planning Department staff, as well as DPW and DPT were there.
- I was surprised because I have been in many community workshops and meetings that are put on by various departments in the City. There were about 60 people in attendance.
- It was well run and attended with a lot of enthusiasm from the neighborhood. This was for planning streetscapes in a large area of the Mission District.
- The second half was very specific to Cesar Chavez Street itself.
- This was the first one of about four [meetings] that will be done in the neighborhood. This was specific as to street and streetscapes that affect planning, housing, commercial and everything else, which dictated somewhat the manner in which it was handled.
- The comments that came out of the general public were extremely sophisticated. We have a lot of households in the City that know something about planning and they know what they want. They have some original ideas on how to go about it.
- I thought that the Planning Department did a good job.
Commissioner Olague
- A question for the City Attorney's Office: we are approaching election season in November and I think it is important for the commissioners to have some kind of understanding of what roles they can or can not play on local measures/issues.
- I think we need a private training or a venue like this one to have a better understanding of how we can or can not be involved in local issues.
Kate Stacey, City Attorney's Office
- Our office prepares written advice on participation in election and political matters. I will make sure that the Commission gets a copy and if there are any further questions, let me know.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
12. Director's Announcements
Director Rahaim
I want to thank Commissioner Miguel for attending last night's meeting on The Public Realm and Better Streetscapes and also thank staff for doing a great job.
- Next Thursday there is a noon public release of the Draft Better Street Plan that the Mayor is scheduled to attend on June 5th. You have a special hearing that day and I thought that it would be important that I attend the release and not the 11:30a.m. special meeting.
- We are scheduled to brief you on the Better Streets Plan that same day. You will be hearing about it just a few hours after the public presentation.
- We will also brief you on the budget next week. It is going to the Board of Supervisors. It has been changing fast and furiously over the last couple of weeks and we will brief you next week.
- We have been working on what I am calling the Process Improvement Strategy for the department in response to the Matrix Consultant Report as well as response to other reports such as the SPUR. We are having a series of meetings with some of our stakeholders.
- We are also planning to bring to the Commission next month some of our first phase of recommendations for that report, probably in the second half of June.
- Another item that I want to mention is the National AIA Convention. It is in San Francisco next June. They are expecting around 27,000 attendees.
- I have engaged with some local organizers to propose a couple of sessions that are based on San Francisco's design, architect and planning issues. Those submissions are due July 1.
- Finally, Commissioners have asked for a run down of what the former Director Macris is doing. He is a senior policy advisor in the Mayor's Office. His projects are the Transbay work, chairing for the Mayor the interdepartmental team focusing on things like the Better Street Plan, chairing an interdepartmental group looking at the Civic Center, and he is also working as a personal advisor to me on an occasional basis and to staff on projects that have a long standing history with the department.
Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator
- I just wanted to give a brief update to you on the general advertising sign program. We are about 20% through the program. We had 71 illegal billboards removed and I think that is an outrageously high number in terms of making progress. We have also 23 that were brought back down to their legal height.
- I have to commend Jonathan Purvis, Kimberly Durandet, and Dan Sider who is the team leader. Also, I'd like to thank Elaine Forbes, who has been very instrumental as a leader on that program for awhile.
13. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals
Board of Supervisors
NONE
Board of Appeals
NONE
14. (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)
Transit Center District Plan - Staff will give an Informational Presentation on its initial concepts for the Transit Center District Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only, no action requested.
SPEAKER(S)
Patricia Vaughey
- I am disappointed with what the Planning Department is allowing for the downtown. We have to be carefully of the topography and how it is being done.
Dick Millet
- I do not like this because I tend to think that we have to protect the view of the water to see the boats and the bridge. We can build everywhere but not on the shoreline.
Sue Hestor
- One of the things you should do and require is consider the perspective at car level on the Bay Bridge because that is what the urban design plan talks about -- having a relationship to the water as you're driving into San Francisco. We are loosing it by a wall proposal at this time.
- The Planning Department needs a post construction analysis.
ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational presentation
15. (B. Bendix: (415) 575-9089)
1250 Missouri Street - Informational presentation on the status of the project.
SPEAKER(S)
Jim Reuben, Project Sponsor Representative
- I did the public hearing in 2001 but I started working on it in 1998.
- This is one of those projects that we purchased at a time when certain things could be done on the property.
- This particular project got a lot of scrutiny and the plan was very detailed. It was clear that this was not to be a residential/live-work project.
- I have recently become engaged in this project again and I am asking for some time to be able to work with the project sponsor and work with staff to bring this building into compliance.
Dick Millet
- This project is in an industrial zone where the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan is rezoning and the plans are coming out for this particular area to remain industrial. We have to correct this.
Keith
- Concerned that the industrial zone remain in that area because personal opinion is that industry and residences do not co-exist.
Reese
- There are some points that are correct and the building requires some modifications to make it comply. For most part I believe they went to the building department and tried to get their permit. I hope that the end result is for this project to move on.
Sue Hestor
- The plans were made available just two days ago and the full bathrooms are still shown. Another thing that is very strange is that they still show the coffee-bars with a lot of removable walls.
- The other thing is that they added fire places in a place that are more than Planning ever sought.
Tony Kelly
- I think they are trying to build what they intended to build in 1998, which is a live-work building. They could not get it done in 2001 so now they are doing it incrementally through stages and revisions. They should build what was approved by this Commission in 2001.
Patricia Vaughey
- You need to go back to the process where real full sized plans were presented to the public. It is really hard to see what is being proposed on the small ones to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.
ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational presentation
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.
SPEAKER(S)
Tony Kelly
- I just wanted to check with Planning Department staff about the public record request on the Innovative Industry Special Use. I turned it in two weeks ago and it was supposed to be for immediate disclosure.
Marilyn Amini
- I want to address the formation of the Commission Sub-committees on matters as significant as area plans. The public has the right to be heard by the Commission as a whole as intended by the Charter.
[No name stated]
- There was a matter about two years ago, similar to the 1250 Missouri Street, at Golden Gate Avenue and Lion Streets involving tenants. The Board of Appeals took jurisdiction. You need to ask staff to contact DBI.
Michael McNigh, Re: 804 Lion Street
- 2 years ago our landlord had a permit to remove our back deck and stairs; we fought that permit. There was a notice of violation only requiring repair of the existing stairs of the deck.
- The current permit, with the Fire Department, should never have been issued because we were not informed about it and the work they want to do does not have to be done.
- Urged to bring this permit to this Commission as a discretionary review.
John, Re: 1998 Golden Gate Avenue
- This flat is in a rent controlled building, and in November 2002 a private owner investment purchased the building.
- The first action was to evict long term tenants. Then in early 2003, they filed notice of violations against their own property claming my flat and my neighbor's flat were illegal units.
- I urge the Planning Commission to take a close look at our property and request to take it back to Planning.
Jason, Re: 808 Lion Street
- The fire escape and back deck has always been there. The owner plans to remove the back deck and fire escape claiming that it is defective but we know it has a legal permit.
- Please bring this back to this Commission and review all of those permits under discretionary review.
Richard, Re: 804 Lion Street
- This building is under rent control and probably half of the tenants that now live in the building are paying below market rate on the property.
- The owner wants to remove the fire escape, back deck, and garden, which is a community area. These are very important in case of an emergency.
Danny, Re: 1960 Golden Gate Avenue
- All of the back decks are tide together into my back deck and there is some person who apparently lives in my place and applied for a permit to remove it. I do not know who that person is. I in no way want my back deck removed. It is really dishonest to do that.
Miriam, Re: 800 Lion Street #3
- We disapprove the removal of fire escapes and back deck because it is the only way out in case of a fire. I urge this Commission to bring back those permits under the discretionary review process.
John Bardis, Re: Academy of Arts University
- We have a crisis in our City with affordable housing and the Academy of Arts University is taking over 700 units from our housing stock without disclosing an Institutional Master Plan. This is an opportunity for the Commission to fulfill its duty to see that the laws of our City be upheld.
Patricia Vaughey
- I hope that Better Streets does not start working on Lombard and Chestnut unless they talk to the Chestnut Street Lombard Master Plan Committee.
- Subcommittees for the Presidio Trust is being set up through Michela Alioto-Pier's Office concerning the Environmental Impact Statement. We would appreciate someone from this department to be on that committee with us.
- Design guidelines are not being followed in residential areas.
Ron, Re: 804 Lion Street
- Thanked the Commission for helping us two years ago and we seek help again regarding the situation with the back decks and the back yard for decreasing our personal safety.
E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED
At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKER(S)
(-)Patricia Vaughey, Re: 1860 Lombard Street
- I went back to my Board and they agreed that we do not want formula retail stores in the area and there is no necessity for another sandwich shop. If you choose to support this application, please give no liquor license and impose a closing time of 7p.m.
(+)Peter, Re: 536 40th Avenue
- I looked at this project and spoke with the sponsor and they have made modifications. It is a good project and I support it.
(-)Patrick Mulligan, Re: 1860 Lombard Street
- I oppose another Subway restaurant because they already have many outlets in the City and over 29,000 outlets in the country, according to Google.
(+)Luis Galvez, Owner Re: 1860 Lombard Street
- I have been in business in that area since 1984 and many sandwich shops have gourmet prices that many people can not afford.
- That area has been deteriorated because many establishments are selling liquor.
(+)Michael Naulty
- All three sites on your agenda for Subway we support because it would be helpful for low income families. Subway is a fast food outlet and would not sell alcohol.
Susan Brian
- Subway offers more than sandwiches and the corporate culture promotes healthy food.
F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
16. 2007.1064C (M. Woods: (415) 558-6315)
1860 LOMBARD STREET- north side between Buchanan and Laguna Streets; Lot 023 (formerly Lot 011), in Assessor's Block 0494- Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a formula retail use that is also a large fast food restaurant (dba Subway) pursuant to Sections 303(c), 303(i), 703.4 and 712.43 of the Planning Code, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2007)
Note: On April 24, 2008, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to May 1, 2008 to allow absent commissioners the opportunity to participate by a vote of +3 -1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Sugaya and W. Lee were absent.
Note: On May 1, 2008, without further hearing, the item was continued to May 29, 2008.
ACTION: Intent to disapprove with final language on June 19, 2008.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
17. 2008.0271DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
536 - 40TH AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 7536 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.08.17.9803, proposing to construct a new two-unit, four-story building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A separate, private request for Discretionary Review has also been filed on the new construction project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2008)
NOTE: On May 1, 2008, following public testimony the Commission closed public and continued the item to May 29, 2008 for the new construction also encouraging further discussion and intent for the project of the neighbor by a vote +5 -0. Commissioners Sugaya was absent.
SPEAKER(S)
Susan Huang, Discretionary Review Requestor
- Opposed the fourth floor construction because it would severely impact the adjacent neighbors.
- The intent for the continuance was to allow further discussion and that has not happened.
- The planner and project sponsor make the allegation that there are two four-story buildings down the block, but they are adjacent to a 3 story.
(-)Paul Chen
- The proposed project is going to impact negatively adjacent neighbors on both sides.
(-)Edward Capland, Esther's Tang Representative
- Presented shadow studies showing the impact to adjacent neighbors.
(-)Esther Tang
- The proposed project would block air and sunlight impacting residents' health in my building. They are mostly seniors.
(-)Billy Wang
- Concerned about the health of seniors in the adjacent building with blockage of air and sunlight as well as the disturbances during construction time.
(-)Owen Brady
- The adjacent neighbors are cooperative and all they are asking for is that the project allows more natural light and to reduce the massiveness of the building.
Ella, Project Sponsor
- The intent for the continuance was to work with neighbors to the south side considering their intent to do a construction on their building and present this Commission with a conceptual front elevation of both buildings.
- They have never provided any plans and we do not know the time frame for their work. They are even still developing their plans as stated in the letters sent to this Commission and to staff.
- Our project is in compliance and within the character of the block.
(+)Boris Levitz
- The proposed building is in absolute conformance and in compliance with every regulation.
(+)William Pashelinsky, Architect
- We received numerous calls the last week. We have done setbacks and increased light wells.
- It does not make sense pushing the entire façade one and a half feet backbecause it would not make much difference.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications:
-The building to be setback to align it to the adjacent building to the north
-Project sponsor to continue working with staff on designing the front façade with a parapet height of 2 feet maximum.
-Expand the light well to an additional 1½ feet creating a light well 4'6 six and the fourth floor to increase it to 3½ feet.
-Pull the deck back 10 feet from the front.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
DRA: 0004
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
18. 2007.1256C (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)
401-431 Columbus Avenue -west side between Stockton and Vallejo Streets, Lot 026 of Assessor's Block 0131 - west side between Stockton and Vallejo Streets, Lot 026 of Assessor's Block 0131 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 722.21, 722.41, and 722.42 to expand an existing full-service restaurant and bar (dba Panta Rei Restaurant), and to allow a use size in excess of 2,000 square feet within the North Beach NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District), and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to expand the existing 1,500 square-foot restaurant and bar to occupy the adjacent existing storefront. The expanded restaurant and bar would measure a total of 2,040 square feet.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 10, 2008
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
19a. 2006.0828CV (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)
1729-1733 Stockton Street - west side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets, Lot 007 of Assessor's Block 0089 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Section 161(j) of the Planning Code to modify the requirements for off-street parking on a property within an NC District. The project proposes to construct a one-story, vertical addition measuring approximately 500 square feet to the existing one-story detached cottage which is located within the rear yard of the subject property. The expanded cottage would measure approximately 25 feet by 22 feet horizontally, and would reach a height of approximately 25 feet. The project would require two new off-street parking spaces to serve the proposed dwellings units, however, the project does not propose any new off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
Albert Costa, Project Sponsor Representative
- This project is in the rear yard and the structure that we are going to be expanding above was historically an electrical shed that was converted to a single unit.
- Our proposed project is to go up approximately 10 feet - one story. We made cutbacks to the corner of the project as well as a light well to match another light well that was there.
- We think we have a very small and modest project.
(+)Francisca, Owner
- I would like to add two rooms/studios. The idea is to fill in the missing tooth because my two adjacent neighbors have constructed there and mine looks like an empty space in the middle.
(+)Tina Conway
- Supported the project because she has children and she is looking into the future.
(-)Armando Navarro
- Objected to the project because it would block the only air source in my building as well blocking the natural light.
(-)Joe Butler, Telegraph Hill Dwellers
- We feel that the building in the rear yard, the cottage, has not received adequate environmental review in addition to the blockage of light and air issues to the adjoining structures.
ACTION: Approved as modified to extend the light well form the existing roof level down at a 45 degree angle towards the adjacent building.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini and Moore
NAYES: Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
MOTION: 17604
19b. 2006.0828CV (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)
1729-1733 Stockton Street- west side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets, Lot 007 of Assessor's Block 0089 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Sections 134(a)(1), 135, 140, and 188 of the Planning Code to modify the requirements for rear yard, usable open space, and dwelling unit exposure, and to allow the expansion of a non-complying structure. The project proposes to construct a one-story, vertical addition measuring approximately 500 square feet to the existing one-story detached cottage which is located within the rear yard of the subject property. The expanded cottage would measure approximately 25 feet by 22 feet horizontally, and would reach a height of approximately 25 feet. The project would add two dwelling units, for a total of six dwelling units on the property. The project site is located in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider this item concurrently with the Planning Commission.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 19a
ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variances.
20. 2007.1280C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)
1680 Market Street - north side between Gough and Franklin Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0854 - Request for conditional use authorization to establish a Large Fast Food Restaurant (dba Subway) of approximately 1200 square feet. Additionally, Conditional Use authorization will be required for a Formula Retail use at the subject site as defined by Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. This site is within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale) Neighborhood Commercial District, and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
Akki Patel, Project Sponsor
- Many neighbors support this project. We would accept EBT cards and our value added does benefit low income people in the area.
- It will bring safety to the environment as well as keeping the area well lighted.
(+)Jerry
- There are many SRO [Single Room Occupancy] buildings and hotels in the area that would be greatly benefited from this project.
(+)Susan Bryant
- Supported the project because it would offer employment opportunities to the surrounding community and their food is healthy, of good value and nutritious.
(+)Michael Nulty
- Supported the project because it is accessible, affordable and a small business that caters to low income and working families.
(-)James
- Urged the commission to follow the staff's recommendation because it is within the boundaries of the Market – Octavia Plan.
ACTION: Disapproved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
MOTION: 17605
21. 2007.1326C (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)
2333 BUCHANAN STREET - (a.k.a. 2140 Webster St. and 2340 Clay St.), north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets, Assessor's Block 0613, Lot 029, Block 0628 Lot 013, and Block 0628 Lot 014 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 303.4(d)(5) for the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Pacific Campus to modify conditions of a previous PUD authorization for way finding signs that exceed the number and size of signs principally permitted by Section 606(b)(1) in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 22, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
Miriam Halley
- The monument that will be at the corner of Sacramento and Buchanan Streets would be lit with direction to the emergency room directly below the emergency room sign. There is no need to have two brightly lit signs at the same corner.
- The purpose for the signs is for directions to the emergency room and not for the medical clinic or the hospital where people go during the day and have an address.
Carion Cliff, Chief Administrative Office for California Pacific Medical Center
- For many years we have received complaints from patients and visitors unable to find the emergency room. The proposed signs will help with that.
- These signs will better direct traffic to the proper parking area. Our intent is to reduce the wandering behavior of vehicles on the streets surrounding the campus.
Shawna Hackly
- The sign for the emergency room is currently set back from the corner and is not visible coming from Buchanan Street.
- Regarding the brightness issues: only the letters are lit and not the whole sign.
ACTION: Following a failed motion, the Commission approved this project.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, and Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT: Lee
MOTION: 17606
22. 2008.0291T (T. Sullivan-Lenane: (415) 558-6257)
Amendments to the Planning Code Section 315.5: Off-Site Affordable Housing Requirements - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Sandoval amending the San Francisco Planning Code Section 315.5 to provide that twenty-five percent of off-site units given site permits annually may be built outside of the currently-required one-mile radius from the market-rate project, and to provide that off-site units cannot be located in industrially-zoned areas or within a quarter mile of developments containing 200 or more publicly-owned and operated affordable housing developments.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
Steven Vettel, Sponsor's Representative for a Project on Presidio and Sutter Streets
- If you are to adopt the staff's recommendation and disapprove this legislation, I would suggest that you seek out some of the letters in the resolution that basically says that at no time should there ever be off site units more than a mile from the principal project.
- Alternatively; if you choose to recommend approval of this legislation, there are two points I would ask you to ask the Board to think about: (a) a limit of 25% off site units can be more than a mile from the principal project, and (b) place a prohibition on any off site units that are more than a mile away from being a quarter mile of a public housing project.
ACTION: Recommended disapproval to the Board of Supervisors
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: Lee
RESOLUTION: 17607
23. 2008.0245D (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
119 23rd Avenue - west side between Lake Street and California Street; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 1383 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.11.19.8573, proposing to add a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the two-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.
SPEAKER(S)
Phillip Ng, Requestor Representative
- The proposed project is not in line with our neighborhood and it would block air ventilation and natural light.
- The only ventilation that we get is from a narrow gap and it is crucial to keep it that way and not make it narrower.
(-)Christie Ng
- Read a letter from a neighbor opposing the expansion because it would reduce natural light, air, and it would impact privacy.
(-)Stephen Ng
- The project would create a lot of hardship by blocking air and natural light.
Scott Brady, Architect for the Project
- The addition is approximately 40 feet away from other properties and I do not think there is a real affect on air and ventilation. It extends only eight and a half feet.
- The addition if pretty much minimally intrusive.
(+)Gregory, Owner
- The scale of the project is very small. We are trying to accommodate my children and we need an additional room. We scaled back the project. We could have gone 25 feet but we are going only 13 feet.
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved requiring removal of second floor north bay window.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
DRA: 0005
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))
SPEAKER(S)
None
Adjournment: 8:58 P.M.
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 17, 2008.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, 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.
