July 10, 2008 SpecialNotice of Special Joint Meeting
of the
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION
and the
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 10, 2008
1:30 PM
Special Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:45 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Christine Lamorena, Lily Langlois, Brittany Bendix, Aaron Starr, Debra Dwyer, Amnon Ben-Pazi, Ken Rich, Sarah Dennis-Phillips, Sue Exline, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2006.0070T (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)
Legislationto Control theLOSS OF DWELLING UNITS- Code Implementation Document - Proposed procedures and criteria to implement newly-enacted adopted Code Section 317, requiring Planning Commission hearings for the removal of certain dwelling and live-work units. The document also sets numerical criteria, some of which are subject to administrative adjustment in response to changing economic conditions.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption
(Proposed for Continuance to July 17, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
2. (A. KIEFER: (415) 575-9065)
UPPER MARKET COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN - Consideration of a Resolution to Endorse the Upper Market Community Design Plan, and apply its guidelines in the review of new development, by supporting the Upper Market Community Design Plan. The San Francisco Planning Department has published a document entitled Upper Market Community Design Plan. The plan area generally includes properties fronting Market Street between Octavia Boulevard on the east and Collingwood Street on the west.
Prior to initiating community workshops, the Department and its consultant team explored existing conditions in the neighborhood. The Department conducted outreach meetings with representatives of the Castro and nearby neighborhood organizations. The Department held three community workshops. The themes of the workshops focused on: 1.) Community Vision (September 2007); 2.) Community Design Framework (October 2007); and 3.) Design Strategies (December 2007). The outcome of the workshops is a Design Plan that contains a program for public realm improvements and design guidelines for private development that incorporate the identity, character, economic and social composition of the Upper Market area and its surrounding neighborhoods.
The Plan responds to physical, social, and economic conditions in the Project area, and establishes a plan for public and private improvements in the Project Area. The Plan identifies existing physical, infrastructure and economic conditions in the Upper Market neighborhood, considers historical context and identifies key neighborhood assets, challenges and opportunities to revitalize the neighborhood. It includes an Urban Design Framework section that: describes planning strategies that may be used to guide Urban Design improvements along the upper Market Street corridor. The Plan also proposes improvements to the public realm, including public spaces, sidewalks, and plazas.
The Plan incorporates Design Guidelines that may be used to guide design character for new buildings, and provides an overview of the steps that may be taken to achieve neighborhood improvements. The Upper Market Community Design Plan:
" Identifies the community's five highest priority public infrastructure improvement projects,
" Actions that neighborhood residents, business owners and community organizations may take to support improvements, and
" Outlines design guidelines that may be used by both developers and city planners
" The Plan also identifies potential funding sources for street and sidewalk improvements.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Motion endorsing Plan
(Proposed for Continuance to July 17, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 29, 2008)
(Proposed for Continuance to July 24, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to July 17, 2008
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
4. 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 29, 2008)
(Proposed for Continuance to July 24, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued to July 17, 2008
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
5. 2007.1426C (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)
1800 HAIGHT STREET - northwest corner of Haight and Shrader Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 1228 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 719.56 and 303 of the Planning Code to legalize the establishment of a public parking facility (dba Haight Street Parking Lot) on an approximately 79.5 feet by 100 feet vacant portion of the subject lot, the remainder of which is occupied by a one-story medical and commercial building. The proposal will provide up to 19 parking spaces during the hours of operation of 7 a.m. to 2 a.m.; of which, 10 parking spaces will be designated for use if needed by the medical clinic (dba RAI Care Center) and retail store (dba Skates on Haight) on the subject lot between the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Vehicular access to the parking lot currently is from Shrader Street. The subject property is within the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District, the Haight Street Alcohol Restricted Use Subdistrict, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 24, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
6. 2008.0677T (Ken Rich: (415) 558-6345)
Proposed ordinance to create an Eastern Neighborhoods community stabilization fund and a Production, Distribution andRepair (PDR) business replacement fund [Board File No. 080777]Ordinance amending the Planning Code to add Section 319A et seq. to create a community stabilization fund and a Production, Distribution and Repair (PDR) business replacement fund and imposing fees on specified new developments in the Eastern Neighborhoods (East Soma, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, Mission and Central Waterfront); making a declaration of policy concerning pending residential development projects in the Eastern Neighborhoods that are compliant with the current Planning Code; and 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.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 24, 2008)
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
B. 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 taken off consent
7. 2008.0187C (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
3298 PIERCE STREET (aka 2197 Chestnut Street) - at the southeast corner of Chestnut and Pierce Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0490 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 711.26, 781.7 and 790.140, to allow a walk-up facility (ATM) that is not recessed from the property line by 3 feet to be located on the Pierce Street façade of the existing financial service establishment (dba Wachovia Bank) within an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) Zoning District, Chestnut Street Financial Service Subdistrict and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKER(S)
Leslie Burns, Project Sponsor Representative
- This is a very small branch and recessing the ATM would bring it next to a break room table and these machines generate warmth.
- One solution may be to create a wall which would make the space even smaller.
- We would like to have it on the main street but it is not feasible.
ACTION: Disapproved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17646
Item considered together with item 10a & 10b
8. 2008.0441Z (L. LANGLOIS: (415) 575-9083)
Amend Height and Bulk Provisions on Third Street and Mendell Street in the Third Street Neighborhood Commercial District. [Board File No. 080478] - On April 8th, 2008 Supervisor Maxwell proposed an Ordinance amending the Height Map HT 10 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to change the height and bulk provisions from 105-A to 55-X for Block 5323, lots 13, 14, 14A, 15, 15A and 15B. The proposed Ordinance is before the Commission so that it may recommend adoption, rejection, or adoption with modifications to the Board of Supervisors and adopt findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 12, 2008)
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 17644
Taken out of order and followed item 8 and 10
9. 2008.0309C (B. BENDIX; (415) 575-9069)
2790 HARRISON STREET - west side, between 23rd and 24th Streets, Lot 011 in Assessor's Book 3640 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 727.44 and 303 to allow for a Small Self-Service Restaurant (dba Humphry Slocombe) within the 24th Street - Mission Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
EXCUSED: Antonini
MOTION: 17645
Item considered together with item 8
10a. 2006.1422D (A. Starr: 415-558-6362)
850 – 29th Avenue - east side between Fulton and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 008M in Assessor's Block 1671 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2006.11.15.7797 proposing to demolish a two-story, single-family building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, 2-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
DRA: 0006
10b. 2006.1470D (A. Starr: 415-558-6362)
850 – 29th Avenue - east side between Fulton and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 008M in Assessor's Block 1671 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential construction in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.11.15.7801 proposing to construct a new three-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, 2-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
DRA: 0007
C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
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 Moore
- I just want to share with other Commissioners that I went to 2345 Third Street, the American Can Building 1 and 2, and I would like to report that it is an extraordinary building.
- It is not only extraordinary because of its history and what it looks like but how the owner has done a remarkable job to have old fashion manufacturing in many parts of the building but then also combine it with the most advance & wood that is far outside of the PDR that you can possibly ever think of.
- I was stunned and hope that all of you have the opportunity to go there and that we all find ways to fully take advantage of this being a model of what creative PDR should be.
Commissioner Sugaya
- I attended a workshop last night with respect to the Japantown Better Neighborhoods Program. It was very well and run by staff.
- I extend my congratulations to people working on it from Planning Department staff.
- Just to inform the Commission, the original schedule has slipped just a little bit. They are expecting to bring back plans of some kind before the end of the year.
- That still does not mean that it will be before us because they still have to do the environmental impact report on the plan itself.
- Part of the delay is that an outside developer purchased a good portion of the Japan Center a number of years ago and those plans have not been forth coming as rapidly as the community and Planning wanted.
- As well as there apparently was a meeting with the developer of the high rise between Laguna and Gough across from Saint Mary's. There has been some movement, I think, from their part to perhaps reduce the density there.
- The process seems to be working very well and hopefully there will be a good plan coming before the Commission at the end of the year.
Commissioner Borden
- I want to also share that I visited the American Industry Center and it was phenomenal space with all the different kinds of businesses that I did not even know they were in San Francisco and the work they are doing.
- I think it is such a model project that more people should see it to get a sense of what PDR can truly be and it is really remarkable.
- The other topic that I want to bring out and I know that this is not our purview is that I have been hearing from a lot of people that are really concerned about the Presidio Museum process.
- I just want to find out if there is any appropriate conversation or hearing.
Commissioner Olague
- We have asked for that several times and I think we are kind of waiting to get through the Eastern Neighborhoods.
Commissioner Miguel
- I had the opportunity to actually do business with three of the firms at the old American Can Company building and walked through those halls. It is just a pleasure because of the variety and mix on the re-use. It is a fantastic example of a manufacturing building
- I would have joined Commissioner Sugaya last night but I had a conflict. I had been in on the early meetings on Japantown and I am very happy that they are coming along.
Commissioner Antonini
- I just want to mention that I had an opportunity yesterday to visit the Glen Park Market place which was one of the first projects that was approved when I was on the Commission in 2002 or 2003.
- I think there is a very successful creation of the library on Market and some condominiums, modern increase in density in the area, very eclectic and pleasing blend in with the neighborhood. It has a lot of potential while still keeping a small town neighborhood feel to it.
Commissioner Moore
- I just want to make one additional comment on the American Industry Center – it is all San Francisco grown enterprises and hats off to the phenomenal amount of creativity in that building, including a family who has been running it for 33 years in San Francisco through the entire thing -- 800,000 square feet PDR.
D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)
12. Director's Announcements
John Rahaim
- The only thing that I want to mention is that in fact next week we will be hearing a presentation by The Presidion Trust on their Master Plan and we have asked for hard copies of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Commission.
- In addition, there is an invitation from the sponsor of the proposed museum project for a tour. We would be happy to arrange those with you.
13. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals (Tape IA; IB)
AnMarie Rodgers reported:
Land Use Committee
A- 901 SUD – This would create an SUD that would enable reconstruction of 38 units in a historical building, as new construction. Forwarded to the Full Board with recommendation for approval.
B- GreenBuildingRequirements – This would amend the Building Code to impose green buildings standards on a number of different types of new constructions and rehabilitation of certain size buildings including commercial, residential, and also some very large interior reconstructions. The Committee made some technical amendments and also added two controls pertaining to historic resources: (a) to off-set demolition by requiring additional sustainability for projects involving demolition, (b) offers historical resource credits for projects retaining character defining historical features, attain additional points toward green building requirements. Both of these changes are intended to increase incentives to reuse historical resources.
C- Eastern Neighborhoods Program – Continued the series of concurrent hearings.
Rules Committee
A- Three Charter Amendments: To be heard again on July 14 to forward to the Full Board for approval or disapproval.
a. Landmark Preservation Board Amendment – It was amended again this week. The draft amendment changed the name of the Commission to the Historic Preservation Commission. It would comprise of seven members, six of whom would be in seat-specific assignments including: two licensed architects and an architectural historian. These seats would need to meet the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. Further there would be general historian and a historic preservation professional.
The historic district designations would be referred directly to the Board. However, the Planning Commission will have 45 days to review and comment on those designations.
This week multiple entitlement controls were significantly amended:
-Certificate of Appropriateness that require a Conditional Use or 309 review and does not concern a landmarked property can be modified by the Planning Commission by a 2/3 vote.
-Multiple entitlements in conservation districts in the C-3 could be amended by the Planning Commission if they require a Conditional Use or a 309 permit and do not concern Category I, II or III buildings. In these instances the Planning Commission could alter the decision by a 2/3 vote.
Decisions of either the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission could be modified by the Board of Appeals by a 4/5 vote.
The Historic Preservation Commission shall recommend a Preservation Element to this Commission which you would be entitled to modify if appropriate. Other Historic Resources policies that were going into the General Plan would be referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for their review and comments first. The Planning Commission should then, as you know, forward these General Plan Amendments to the Board of Supervisors for their approval or disapproval. The Historic Preservation Commission could also forward comments.
b. Music and Culture Amendment. No changes
c. Commission of the Environment Amendment. No Changes
Full Board
A- Ordinance modifying the fee refund provisions for inclusionary housing projects. Passed
B- Urgency Ordinance that would extend Interim Zoning Moratorium on enterprises that sell tobacco Paraphernalia. The Board passed a 45-day moratorium in April and expired on May 29th. This new moratorium would extend it for 6 moths. Passed
C- Introductions:
a. Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Alioto-Pier introduced an ordinance expediting permits and waiving fees related to seismic retrofit upgrades.
b. Supervisor Peskin introduced an ordinance amending the designation of 690 Market Street from an unrated Category V building to a significant Category II under Article 11
c. Supervisor Amiano introduced an ordinance requiring air quality assessment and ventilation for certain urban infill residential developments near freeways
Larry Badiner reported
Board of Appeals
A- President Garcia welcomed new Commissioner Rafael Mandelman to the Board.
B- 1060 Gillman Avenue – The Planning Commission took Discretionary Review on this building permit a while back. A permit was resubmitted and we did not recognize that it was essentially the same DR. We realized it prior to going to the hearing and we recommended the Board of Appeals deny this permit send it back to the Planning Commission for review. Upheld the permit with conditions that all windows facing the appellant side be obscure glass and requiring an NSR limiting the use of the property to single family.
E. 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)
Rose Tsai, Re: 1675 11th Avenue - DR
- This project was before you on May 22nd and it is a de facto demolition. They should have applied for a demolition permit because the roof was taken off as well as much of the building.
John Bardis, Re: 1675 11th Avenue, and What is the most important industry in San Francisco
- There was no demolition application and as per the photographs, it shows that basically the front façade was left up and the rear was demolished. The responsibility falls on you for not taking action and doing your part.
- Welcomed Commissioners Borden and Miguel and hoped that they can help in responding to which industry is the most important in San Francisco. I have asked for this for a long time.
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
14. 2006.0881E (Tape IB) (D. DWYER: (415) 575-9031)
420-430 29TH AVENUE(ST. PETER'S CHURCH RELOCATION AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT. - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Deir). The proposed project includes demolition of Saint Peter's Episcopal Church, renovation of the existing Parish Hall and Rectory, relocation of the church sanctuary to the Parish Hall, a lot line adjustment to reconfigure the two lots, and the new construction of a 20-unit housing development to serve developmentally disabled adults. The project site is located at 420-430 29th Avenue (Assessor's Block 1460, Lots 014B and 015). The 20-unit housing development would replace the Sanctuary. The existing Sanctuary, built in 1913, is an historic resource. The project site is located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X height and bulk district. The proposed project would require rezoning of the property from RH-2 to RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District. The proposed project would also require a Conditional Use Authorization for relocation of the church use in an RM-1 Zoning District, a rear yard variance, and a parking variance.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required
Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on July 15, 2008.
SPEAKER(S)
David Rickey, Director of Saint Peter's Church
- We feel that the environmental impact review is a good description of the process that Saint Peter's Church has taken to get to today's hearing.
- We value the history of the existing church building and agreed with the expectations of the EIR to maintain the history of the church.
- We also honored the concerns of our neighbors but feel that the possibility of temporary inconvenience is over ridden by the long term benefit to the church and the neighborhood.
Elizabeth Grigsby
- Affordable housing for people with physical disabilities is a great need in San Francisco and issues with parking should not be a problem because we do not drive.
Sabrina Davidson, Bernal Height Neighborhoods Center
- Seniors and adults with disabilities deserve housing that is accessible. The site would replace the unused church and will not impact the existing community.
Kristy Feck
- This project keeps the original use of this parcel by allowing Saint Peter to have a place to worship.
- Additionally, it provides small scale infill housing to provide housing to an under served population and it would not have a great impact on the neighborhood in terms of traffic.
ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Public comments only
15. 2008.0135C (Tape IB; IIA) (A. Ben-Pazi: (415) 575-9077)
1248 Leavenworth Street - east side between Clay and Sacramento Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 0220 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to demolish an existing residential building and to construct a new building exceeding a height of 40 feet in a Residential Zoning District. The project proposes to demolish the existing two-story over garage, two-unit residential building, and construct an approximately 49 foot high, four-story over garage building with three dwelling units. This site is in an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) Zoning District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2008)
SPEAKER(S)
[Inaudible], Project Sponsor
- 7 months ago the initial notice went out to the neighbors and we have tried to contact as many people as we could. We have collected 100 signatures supporting the project.
- For a long period of time there was no opposition until 4 days before our first hearing, the Planning Department received complaints about the project.
- I would be available to answer any questions.
John Hood, Architect
- Although we believe that the demolition of this building does not meet exact standards of the Department's requirements for demolition, the existing two unit residential building does not represent quality housing because both units are small in size and contains only one bedroom.
- These issues do not make the building unsound. We believe that it should be considered when deciding whether to retain the existing building.
- We have worked very closely with the Planning staff on this project.
- In it's originally form, it was considerably larger. But by working with staff and paying close attention to the Residential Design Guidelines, we have come up with a positive project for the City and the neighborhood.
- We have earned the support of the Planning staff, providing two new legal off-street parking spaces, with no displacement of anyone. We have broad neighborhood support; we meet General Plan requirements by adding family housing to the City; and have created a distinct home that fits well with the surrounding neighborhood.
(+)Dick Holm
- We look forward to off-street parking and the vitality of new families moving into the building.
(-)Silvia Cavallini
- Opposed to the project because of the height and has requested they remove the top floor and to start construction at 9a.m. instead of 7a.m. because of the elderly and sick people in the area.
(-)Yick Wong
- Concerned about the height and open space. It would block sunlight and air.
- It does not make sense to have three units in a four story building; it is too much.
(-)John Hsu
- The neighborhood is opposing this project because it is going to block natural light and air.
- Ask yourselves why they are really doing this and if it is really necessary?
(-)Lev Rankor
- This project is going to block natural light and air. It is a four story building above a garage.
(-)Dawn Trennett
- Concerned about the removal of needed affordable and rental housing in exchange for luxury condominiums.
- If it is approved, requested that the size of the project be reduced.
(-)James Joannides
- The project does not follow the contour of the hill, which is a basic planning principle.
- Concerned about the loss of affordable and rental housing.
(-)Garth McNabb
- Objected to the project because it would block natural light and we were told that this was a three unit building but were not told about demolition.
ACTION: Approved with modifications: project sponsor to continue working with staff for the removal of the top floor; further window detailing with more residential expressions; improve quality and detailing of materials; improve quality and detailing of entry; and exam extermination of the building.
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya
NAYES: Antonini, Borden and Lee
MOTION: 17646
6:00 P.M.
16. (Tapes IIIA; IIIB; IVA; IVB) (K. RIch (415) 558-6345)
EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS PROGRAM -
Hearing #8 - July 10, 2008 - (Commission workshop & public comment)
Staff will continue a discussion with the Commission on direction from the Commissioners regarding potential changes to the Eastern Neighborhoods Initiation Package, including Planning Code Amendments, Zoning Map Amendments, General Plan Amendments, Historic Preservation Interim Procedures, and the Implementation Program.
The Commission may also discuss any and all other subjects related to the Eastern Neighborhoods Program.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation and Public Comment; No Commission Action requested at the July 10 hearing.
The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on May 15, 2008 to consider Case No. 2004.0160EMTUZUU, and would include adopting a Motion to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings and consider resolutions to approve amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map and resolutions to approve Historic Resources Interim Procedures and Public Benefits Program and Monitoring Procedures related to the four Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans - the Mission, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront and East SoMa Area Plans. Hearings are currently scheduled for May 15, 2008, June 5, 2008, June 12, 2008, June 19 2008, June 26 2008, July 3 2008, July 10 2008. The Commission will consider and receive public comment on specific aspects of the Plans and proposed amendments at each hearing. The series of hearings will culminate in a public hearing to consider adoption actions after July 10, 2008.
The project encompasses a significant proportion of the San Francisco land area in the southeast quadrant of the City, encompassing:
" East SoMa (the eastern portion of the South of Market district), bounded generally by Folsom Street on the northwest, the Rincon Hill Plan area (essentially, Second Street) on the east, Townsend Street on the south, and Fourth Street on the west, with an extension to the northwest bounded by Harrison, Seventh, Mission, Sixth (both sides), Natoma, Fifth, and Folsom Streets;
" the Mission, bounded by 13th and Division Streets on the north, Potrero Avenue on the east, César Chávez Street on the south, and Guerrero Street on the west;
" the Showplace Square/Potrero Hill district, generally bounded by Bryant Street and 10th Street on the northwest, Seventh Street on the northeast, Interstate Highway 280 (I-280) on the east, 25th and 26th Streets on the south, and Potrero Avenue on the west; and
" the Central Waterfront, bounded by Mariposa Street on the north, San Francisco Bay on the east, Islais Creek on the south, and I-280 on the west.
The project Areas are comprised of the entirety or portions of 437 Assessor's Blocks.
Specifically, on or after June 19, 2008, the Commission will consider the following actions:
" Case 2004.0160E - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of CEQA Findings on the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.
" Case 2004.0160M - Adopt General Plan amendments that would, 1) add to the General Plan four new area plans (the "Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans"), which include the Mission, East SoMa, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill and Central Waterfront Area Plans; and 2) also make related amendments to the following portions of the existing General Plan: the Commerce and Industry Element, Recreation Element, Open Space Element, the South of Market Area Plan, the Central Waterfront Area Plan, the Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan, and the Land Use Index;
" Case 2004.0160T - Adopt Planning Code text amendments that would revise Planning Code controls, including, but not limited to controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, density, open space, and parking; establish 13 new zoning districts; amend the South Park District; RTO District, NCT Districts, and Downtown Residential Districts; and make related revisions to the Planning Code necessary to implement the General Plan as proposed to be amended and make related Planning Code Amendments pursuant to the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plans.
" Case 2004.0160Z - Adopt Zoning Map amendments that would revise the Zoning Maps of the City and County of San Francisco. Proposed Planning Code map amendments would a) update height and bulk districts, b) apply the RTO District and PDR-2 Districts in the Eastern Neighborhoods, and c) establish 13 new zoning districts.
" Case 2004.0160U - Adopt Interim Historic Preservation procedures that would establish interim procedures for additional review of proposed changes to or demolition of historic or potentially historic resources in the Eastern Neighborhoods, pending completion of the ongoing historic resource surveys.
" Case 2004.0160UU - Adopt Monitoring and Review Procedures in order to review development activity and progress towards the Eastern Neighborhoods implementation measures.
SPEAKER(S)
Doug Shoemaker, Mayor's Office of Housing
- We had a series of meetings to talk about the efficiency issues and small projects. It is not totally crafted but we are willing to keep talking.
- I am basically here for comments and questions.
Judy West
- I am interesting in making sure that the northeast Mission, mixed use neighborhood, is accepting principles of land use planning that should prevail and not spot zoning.
- [Power point showing various areas of the Mission]
- There are a lot of historic buildings in the Mission that were not considered in the EIR.
David Solis, TTMI Neighborhood Association
- We would like to give you a virtual tour of our neighborhood to show you what is happening there, the people who live there, and work there.
Steve, TTMI Neighborhood Association
- We want to give a tour of our neighborhood that consists of the section from 23rd to the North, 25th to the South, Indiana to the West and Third to the East.
- [Power point presentation of what exists in the neighborhood]
April Veneracion, South of Market Community Action Network
- I just want to report that we had a rally this afternoon on the front steps of City Hall with Mission, Potrero Hill, and Council of Community Housing Organizations calling for an area plan that meets the need of existing and future residents. [Showed photographs]
Chris, South of Market Community Action Network
- In your packets you have a list of our proposed conditional uses that we are looking at in our area: residential uses as a conditional use with 100% affordability and that each project have 20% 4-beroom, 20% 3-bedroom and 20% 2-bedroom; with institutional uses like Health Clinics and Childcare.
Angelica Cabande, South of Market Community Action Network
- Read a statement from a teenager requesting the Commission consider housing for low income families.
Jazzie Collins
- We need more senior housing to be built with services on-site because many are living in SROs.
[No name stated]
- There is an existing Community Advisory Committee in a strategic plan that is proposed for the South of Market and I would really liked it looked to as a model in a way to really think about the implementation of impact fees.
- We want to make sure that there is time for comments on the environmental impact report.
Madeline Bordan, Rainbow Grocery Store
- Appreciated staff's work and what the Commission has done for exploring the possibility of rezoning us to exist in our current place and continue to serve our community there.
Oscar Grande, PODER
- Specifically about 17th and Folsom Streets and being happy that the site is being looked at as a potential park. Having that along with family affordable housing is the way to go.
Brett Gladstone
- Non-conforming uses: in 1987 office users were moving into ground floor retail space and into upper floor housing units in neighborhood commercial districts throughout the City. The City then gave 3-years to come to compliance and I am proposing to do the same thing either with a variance, DR process, or CU.
Erick Tao
- Thanked staff for sitting down with us about the split height designation within RSD.
- We hope that the Commission would hold to the springing conditions on August 30 because we spent large resources in moving our development along.
Bernie Chodem
- The Supreme Court mandated the Housing Element, which was supposed to provide an array of diversity of needs for 95% of all households who cannot afford to buy in the ownership market.
- We are looking at zoning without a performance relationship for criteria.
Allan Marko
- Opposed to the PDR zoning of the Central Waterfront because there would be over 150 new residents for family and children and this rezoning would affect over 400 people in my neighborhood.
Chris Chufo
- Asked the Commission to extend the UMU zoning a few more blocks to include the six block area between 23rd, 25th, 3rd, and Indiana Streets. PDR would have a negative effect in our neighborhood.
Tony Kelly, Potrero Booster
- Five quick points: SoMa Youth and Families Zone is a great idea; heights in the Central Waterfront should go back to the December '07 plan; formula retail should go by the City Wide Law for conditional use for PDR and UMU zone; a closer look more into PDR demolition in the Special Use District over the Central Waterfront; and you need to be more aggressive in the Neighborhood Commercial District than in the UMU district when talking about affordable housing.
Fernando Marti, Mission Anti-displacement Coalition
- The City in general does not have housing policies for putting affordable housing in certain neighborhoods but what we are seeing here is that housing policy within the Eastern Neighborhoods is to put all the affordable housing in the UMU zone and not all over the districts where services to the community are located.
Laura Mackenzie
- Requested to not rezone the area of 25th and 23rd Streets [Indiana Street] to PDR.
Ryan
- Rezoning my neighborhood [Dog-patch] to PDR does not make sense because it does not reflect the reality that is in my neighborhood today. We need more residential developments there.
Scot Kuipek
- I encourage you to look at the options for installing easy access to public art in San Francisco [more developments such as live/work for the artists]
Reza Ghobadian
- Concerned about the proposed PDR zone in our area [Indiana Street]
Steve Vettel
- Thanked the Commission and staff for the innovative retail industry special use district. We think it is a great idea to incorporate on the 16th Street corridor.
Debra Stein
- Requested the Commission to direct staff to exempt gymnasiums in UMU districts from size controls as well as from requirements of the 3 to 1 ratio.
- Non-conformance status is not enough to keep businesses in San Francisco because it would not allow extension of existing businesses.
Diana Wu
- Three points: (a) South of Market Youth and Families is an innovative way, (b) would like to see staff flush-out the analysis of pipeline projects to go by neighborhood and not by dates, and (c) requested that the environmental impact report be presented in a public space and debated publicly.
Jeff Young
- Expressed distress for the PDR rezoning in the Dog-patch because it is a thriving neighborhood with new construction. It is a vibrant community with families and their businesses.
Alexis McNulty
- The plan, instead of protecting us would put us all in an economic straight jacket and hurt us. [Owner of a business at 24th and Tennessee Streets]
Glenn McNulty
- Our neighborhood needs a wide range of uses including PDR businesses, mixed income housing, and larger retail to support the neighborhood plus larger office spaces. [Dog-patch]
- Requested to extend the UMU zone to our area. It is truly the best designation.
Robert Meyers
- I believe staff exaggerates the demand for PDR and rezoning that area [Dog-patch] is making business owners the sacrificial lamb for the entire Eastern Neighborhoods.
- Requested to extend UMU zone to the south of 23rd Street.
Antje Kann
- We believe very strongly that residential is appropriate on top of commercial along 16th Street with enterprise housing that would be creative and a feasible way for residential rental and to preserve businesses.
Pat Larson
- As a mother I would ask you to go slow and go fast with this plan and let us look back at our own areas and zone it appropriately. [Lack of parks and green areas]
Scott Wilkinson
- It is unfair to say that this area is already zoned as PDR and we are not going back because we want to see this neighborhood [Dog-patch] to continue to expand and develop.
Joe Boss
- It would be a good idea to take a look at Indiana Street and allow them to convert to residential legally. Staff is doing a great job.
Robert Herr
- Provided some information concerning the Sedway peer review and analysis.
Sue Hestor
- Every single property in the Dog-patch has an NSR exposing all the information. And all the live-work places for the artists' ended up with people living here and working in Silicon Valley.
- If you want to convert to housing and pay the fees for affordable housing and you have to do that, I will talk to you.
Phillip Lesser
- If we can decide everything in the next two or three weeks I request that you give a commitment to put also on the agenda the PDR replacement for the Eastern Neighborhoods.
Shawn
- We do have many issues with the affordability levels for the smaller developers. We are working with staff and will report back in two weeks.
Greg Miller
- Asked to direct staff to apply the UMU zoning designation to the Mission Linen building - block 4018 lot 2, and the Slow Cobb restaurant -, block 4015 lot 1. Both are currently proposed to be rezoned PD-1-G.
ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
SPEAKER(S)
None
Adjournment: 10:49 P.M.
THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, October 16, 2008.
SPEAKER(S): None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
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.
