San Francisco Planning Department : June 11, 2009

June 11, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 11, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore, and Sugaya

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lee and Olague

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1: 35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Joshua Switzky, Corey Teague, Ben Fu, Rick Crawford, and Jonas Ionin – Acting Commission Secretary.

CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2007.0118E (J. DEAN: (415) 575-9028)

San Joaquin Pipeline System Project - portions of Tuolumne, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes the San Joaquin Pipeline (SJPL) System Project, which is comprised of repair or replacement of an approximately 6.5-mile segment of SJPL No. 3 in the eastern portion of the SJPL System beginning at the Oakdale Portal in Tuolumne County and extending west to unincorporated Stanislaus County, and construction of a new approximately 11-mile pipeline, SJPL No. 4, beginning near a new crossover facility (Pelican Crossover) west of the San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County and extending to the Tesla Portal facility in San Joaquin County. The project also proposes construction of two new crossover facilities along the SJPL System: Emery Crossover located about 9.5 miles west of the Oakdale Portal in unincorporated Stanislaus County, and Pelican Crossover, located west of the San Joaquin River at the eastern terminus of the new pipeline in unincorporated Stanislaus County. Ancillary project components include site improvements at the Oakdale Portal, construction of two new throttling stations along SJPL No. 3 in the eastern portion of the SJPL System; upgrade/replacement of existing valves at the discharge facilities at Cashman Creek; and replacement of the existing valves and discharge piping and addition of a new discharge valve at the California Aqueduct.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report

Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on January 26, 2009. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 9, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

2. 2009.0337D (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

574 NATOMA STREET – north side, between Russ and 7th Streets, Lot 075 of Assessor's Block 3726 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2008.09.25.2702 proposing to construct a four-story residential building containing 11 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in a RED (Residential Enclave District) Zoning District and 45-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project as Proposed.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 18, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

3. 2009.0367C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1463 Powell Street - west side, between Broadway and Vallejo Streets Lot 028 of Assessor's Block 0148 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 722.44 to develop a Small Self-Service Restaurant on the ground floor in conjunction with the existing Bridal Salon (Jasmine Bridal Shop). The proposal is to designate 150 square feet of the Bridal Salon as a restaurant space to serve food to Salon patrons. The business may on occasion offer food service to the general public in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, North Beach Special Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

(WITHDRAWN)

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

4. Consideration of Adoption:

Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 12, 2009.
Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 19, 2009.
Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 14, 2009.
Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 28, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as drafted

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

5. 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:

In 1946 a couple of Italian brothers who were in the lumber business started a football team, named them the San Francisco 49'ers and they were admitted to the All American Conference. In 1950 they were granted a franchise in the National Football League, and ever since then with the exception of one game after the earthquake to my knowledge they have played every home game in the City and County of San Francisco. It's with a lot of sadness that there is talk about a possible relocation of the 49'ers to south bay 40 miles away. It's not just sentimental, there are definitely economic concerns. Projections of about a billion dollars in construction costs, tax revenues, and other items that are beneficial to the City and County of San Francisco, not to mention prestige is at stake. We also have $100 thousand [million (?)] dollars that has been approved at no cost to the tax payers towards a possible stadium here. But the 49'ers raise a legitimate concern that goes beyond a possible stadium and that is the access issue. That is something we have to look at very closely because we're doing housing in that area and a lot of different things in that south eastern quadrant of San Francisco. I don't know that there is a definite plan as to how the highways are going to lead into that area. Is there going to be lightrail? Is there going to be a bridge that goes across or around Yosemite Slough? Is this particular parkway going to connect up? How is this all going to fit together? I think that has to be looked at distinct from the larger transportation aspects of San Francisco. I think we have excellent public transportation as much as we have 10 BART stations – eight of them in San Francisco and two in the area just south of San Francisco, which is unlike the situation in the south bay where there are no BART stations. And even if BART is extended to San Jose, it probably is not going to reach any stadium site. Also, 75% of the population of the area from which the 49'ers draw their fans is to the north of the Santa Clara site and only 25% to the South. Many of those from the Central Valley would have to circle around to get to any possible south bay site. With that in mind, I would like to see some sort of hearing. We have had a couple on transportation issues in the southeast section of San Francisco, but I think we have to dovetail it all together. I think there are questions about what is going to happen with possible lightrail extension from the Balboa BART station and how we are going to access this area. Because whether there is a stadium there or not, there is development and development under construction. I think it is important that we hear from all the stake holders, not just the 49'ers, but commercial stakeholders, housing advocates, retail, and people that have an interest in that area and see what kind of access they think we need for that area to make it more attractive for development and make it a nicer place to live, work, and possibly take part in commercial or retail activities.

Commissioner Borden:

I saw in Business Times last week or the week before that the Stanyan Street Whole Foods project was not going forward and the Brenan's were quoted in the article and I want to know if the Department knows anything about that?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

We only know what we read in the paper. I will note that the project sponsor was fully aware of all fees that were due when he came in. It seems to me that if we had proceeded under his guideline he might now be breaking ground on condominiums that might be difficult to sell. I think it is highly unlikely that Whole Foods would have been able to access the site and be in there at this time.

Commissioner Borden:

Would you just elaborate on what you just said? It alluded to planning fees as the reason he couldn't go forward.

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

It was inclusionary housing fees. There are school fees and other fees. That is what I suspect. I haven't talked to the Brenan's on the issue, but it did seem to me that – this is my personal opinion, not the city's or department's position, it was an opportunity to flex the reality of the economic situation that everyone is facing.

Commissioner Borden:

He did not say that he wanted to give back his entitlements I suppose?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

I have not heard that.

Commissioner Miguel:

I tend to agree with the Zoning Administrator's assessment of that particular project. And I also definitely agree with Commissioner Antonini's call for a more detailed concept of transportation in the southeast sector. There has been a lot of comment but nothing in anything that resembles practical concerns there. In addition, on Monday I was at the EIR scoping for the Park Merced project and on Tuesday, the EIR scoping for CPMC. Both were reasonably well attended. CPMC more so, but then it deals with more areas of the city than Park Merced. There was very different testimony at the two meetings. Most of the information that came from the Park Merced meeting seemed to me to be obvious matters that the department would be fully aware of. Whereas at CPMC I thought there were some very cogent remarks that came from various members of the public and I think it was very successful in terms of a scoping session.

Commissioner Antonini:

I neglected to mention that I did meet with a number of neighbors from the Cathedral Hill area and they voiced concern about develop about CPMC on Van Ness.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

6. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Next Thursday the Department's budget hearing is in front of the Land Use Committee of the Board. It is likely to happen late Thursday morning. We have been talking to Supervisors in the last couple of weeks. Given the situation, I don't know where that will head or how long that will take so I may have to be late for this meeting. The Housing Element is coming to the Commission next week for our initial release of the draft of the Element. You will receive that today in your packet. I want to emphasize that this isn't necessarily a hearing about the substance of the Element as much as just a release of the draft for several months of public comment. There will be a number of public meetings coming up to allow for public comment. We will invite public comment. The purpose of next week's hearing is to release our first draft of the Element. Finally, today or tomorrow you should be receiving the final EIR on the Bicycle Plan. That is scheduled for June 25^th, two weeks from today. That is a substantial document and I just want to give you a heads up and hopefully we can finally move forward with that plan.

Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

LAND USE:

Massage Ordinance– This Ord. would amend Planning to restrict permitted accessory massage uses and to make most massage establishments, with a few exceptions, subject to a conditional use permit. The Ord. would also add criteria for the Commission to consider when reviewing the CU. The PC heard this item on May 21^st. At that time you recommended modifications to the Ord including: 1) adding an exemption from the CU process for state certified massage establishments and 2) asking that planning staff continue to work with the Supervisor to ensure reasonable access is provided to these establishments. The version of the Ordinance heard by the Committee was modified to accommodate these recommendations. The Supervisor added another clause for the Commission's consideration during CU that: Whether the use is reasonably oriented to facilitate public access. Barriers that make entrance to the use more difficult than to an average service-provider in the area are to be strongly discouraged. These include (but are not limited to) foyers equipped with double doors that can be opened only from the inside and security cameras . With those amendments, this week the Committee recommended approval to the Full Board. Supervisor Mar requested that the Board consider adding funding to assist victims of sex-trafficking in the City's budget.

FULL BOARD:

Union St. NCD– This Ord. would amend Planning Code to provide for up to (12) new Small Self-Service Restaurants and/or Self-Service Specialty Food uses subject to conditional use authorization. The PC recommended approval of this Ord. on April 23^rd of this year. You'll recall this Ord. followed up on a similar Ordinance to permit five (5) new full-service restaurants that was approved by the Board on January 16, 2009. This week the Full Board passed the Ordinance on first reading.

Building Code– This Ord. would require Amended Certificates of Final Completion & Occupancy for Changes of Occupancy of Existing Buildings. The Commission heard this item on March 26 and recommended approval with 3 amendments. The Commission recommended 1) expanding the breadth of the Ord. to the entire city; 2) adding language to ensure that fees normally captured at final occupancy would also be captured at amended occupancy; and 3) asked that the Board consider the impact of the ordinance on affordability. This week the Board heard an amended Ordinance that would pertain to the entire City and would capture any fees normally collected at final occupancy, as recommended by this Commission. The Board adopted this item unanimously on first reading.

NEW INTRODUCTIONS:

Supervisor Maxwell introduced a resolution to extend the interim zoning controls for BV/HP RA Area C for another 6 months. These controls generally require CU for all new construction, changes of use and for building envelope expansion.

BOARD OF APPEALS

There was no report

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

The Commission did not meet

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

SPEAKERS: None

REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2009.0172C (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)

5898 Mission Street - northwest side of Mission Street, between Lawrence and Sickles Avenues, Block 7143, Lot 033 - Request to amend a Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 178(3)(c), 303 and 711.4 to extend the hours of operation of the retail market at the ARCO Service Station to 24-hours, seven days a week, within an NC-2 District 40-X Height and Bulk.

preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: (+) Representative of the Project Sponsor, (-) Steve Currier – OMMRA, (-) Joelle Kenealey – OMMRA, (-) Monika Yungea, (-) Alex Murillo, (-) Ahsha Safai, (+) Michael Murray, (-) Officer Cathy (name unclear) representing Captain Dave Lazar – Ingleside Police Station, (+) Mrs. Nancy Azar – Project Sponsor, (+) Edward Azar – co-owner, [(+) un-named family member of the project sponsor], [(+) name unclear – Pastor of project sponsor's church], (+) Andrew – night employee at the station

Motion: to Disapprove

AYES: Antonini, Borden, and Miguel

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Continued to July 9, 2009

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

9. (J. Switzky: (415) 575-6815)

Rincon Hill Area Plan Update - Planning Commission has requested a brief informational update on the status of development in the Rincon Hill area. The update will include a review of project entitlements, impact fees and implementation of plan area public improvements.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required, informational only.

SPEAKERS: Jamie Whitaker – Rincon Hill Neighborhood Association, Rig DeMent – Rincon Hill Resident's Association, Andrew Brooks – Baycrest owners, Sue Hestor

ACTION: Informational only – no Commission action required

10. 2009.0319X (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

340 FREMONT STREET - south side between Harrison and Folsom Streets, Lots 006 to 009 in Assessor's Block 3748 - Request under Planning Code Sections 309.1, 825 and 827 for the authorization of a change in previously approved conditions of approval to extend the performance period within the RH DTR (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use) District with a 85/250-R Height And Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 28, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Drew Sullens – Jackson Pacific Ventures – Project Sponsor, Sue Hestor, Howard Cheng – Metropolitan Condo Association, Michael Yarne – Mayor's Office of Economic Development, Lana Ng – Resident at the Metropolitan, Andrew Junius – on behalf of Jackson Pacific, Jamie Whitaker

ACTION: Approved with one new condition to read: The parking lot on the site shall be fenced and kept free of weeds, debris, and blight. The project sponsor shall keep the existing building secure and free of graffiti and postings.

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

MOTION: 17900

11. 2009.0237X (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

399 Fremont Street - northeast corner of Harrison and Fremont Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 3747 - Request under Planning Code Sections 309.1, 825 and 827 for the authorization of a change in previously approved conditions of approval to extend the performance period within the RH DTR (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use) District With A 85/400-R Height And Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 28, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Ben Ortega – Project Sponsor, John Maxum – Union Labor Life Insurance Co. – Project lender, Bruce Barardi – General Contractor for the proposed project, Jamie Whitaker, Dusty Derouen, Sue Hestor

ACTION: Approved with a new condition to read: The parking lot on the site shall be fenced and kept free of weeds, debris, and blight. The project sponsor shall install a fence to prevent vagrant camping, unlawful dumping and to minimize security threat to the neighborhood. The fence shall be kept free of graffiti and postings. Also, the Project Sponsor shall submit a plan to the Department for review and approval for revised fencing, grading/covering of the property within a month.

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

MOTION: 17901

12. 2009.0191X (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

45 Lansing Street - south side of Lansing Street on a through lot that also fronts Harrison Street, between First and Essex Streets, Lot 059 in Assessor's Block 3749 - Request under Planning Code Sections 309.1, 825 and 827 for the authorization of a change in previously approved conditions of approval to extend the performance period within the RH DTR (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use) District With A 65/400-R Height And Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 28, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Matt Jacobs – Project Sponsor, Jazzie Collins, Mark Renne – Attorney for Terra Gallery at 511 Harrison Street, [name unclear], Jamie Whitaker, Andrew Junius – Representing the Project Sponsor

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

MOTION: 17902

13. 2009.0150D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1101 Green Street - south side between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets, Lots 064 and 065, of Assessor's Block 0125 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of a proposed Dwelling Unit Merger. The proposal is to merge two owner occupied dwelling units in a condominium building into one unit in the RH-3, Residential House Three Family District and 40X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Permit with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Britt McConnel – Project Sponsor, Jamie Rossi – Barbary Consulting – Representing the Project Sponsor, Greg Iboshi – Project Architect, Gerald Asher – Representing the Home Owner's Association

Motion: To take DR and approve with amended conditions

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, and Borden

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee and Olague

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion, the project is approved as proposed

DRA: 0090

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS:

None

Adjournment: 4:50 P.M.

ADOPTED: June 25, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:38 PM