To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

July 23, 2009

July 23, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 23, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Olague

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1: 33 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Craig Nikitas – Acting Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Rick Crawford, Adrian Putra, Edgar Oropeza, Aaron Starr, Aaron Hollister, Glenn Cabreros, Shelley Caltagirone, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2007.0007AEKX (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

750 2nd STREET - west side between Townsend and King Streets; Lot 002A in Assessor's Block 3794 - Requestfor Large Project Authorization under Planning Code Section 329 for Large Project Authorization with exceptions for (1) rear yard; (2) off-street parking spaces; and (3) dwelling unit exposure requirements for seven units not fronting onto a public right-of-way or a qualifying rear yard. The project is demolition of a one-story with mezzanine building and construction of an eight-story with mezzanine approximately 40,000 gross square foot and 95-foot tall building with up to 14 dwelling units, approximately 500 square feet of ground floor retail space, and 14 off-street parking spaces. The subject property is in the MUO (Mixed-Use Office) Zoning District with a 105-F Height and Bulk Designation. The subject property is also a non-contributing resource to the South End Historic District designated pursuant to Article 10 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to September 10, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: Sugaya

2a. 2008.0505DV (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

1321 DEHARO STREET - east side of DeHaro Street between 24th Street and 25th Street; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 4218 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2008.04.03.8737 to demolish an existing single family dwelling within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition

(Proposed for Continuance to August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams and Tony Kelly requested that the item be continued indefinitely or at least to a later date

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: Sugaya

2b. 2008.0505DV (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

1321 DEHARO STREET - east side of DeHaro Street between 24th Street and 25th Street; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 4218 - Request for Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134, to allow a rear yard of 10 feet where a rear yard of 28 feet is required within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams and Tony Kelly requested that the item be continued indefinitely or at least to a later date

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: Sugaya

2c. 2009.0107D (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

1321 DEHARO STREET - east side of DeHaro Street between 24th Street and 25th Street; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 4218 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.04.03.8738 to construct a three family dwelling as a replacement structure to the proposed demolition of a single family dwelling within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to August 13, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams and Tony Kelly requested that the item be continued indefinitely or at least to a later date

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: Sugaya

3. (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT SURVEY AREA C (AKA INDIA BASIN SHORELINE) COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS - Informational Presentation on the India Basin Shoreline Community Planning Process. In August 2007, the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency began a collaborative planning process to develop new land use controls and amend the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area to include the India Basin Shoreline. This informational presentation will focus on the community planning process to date, and provide an overview of the draft Sub-Area Plan and related materials presented and distributed at the community workshop on June 25, 2009.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 6, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: Sugaya

4. 2009.0523U (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT SURVEY AREA C (AKA INDIA BASIN SHORELINE) - Approvalof the Bayview Hunters Point Survey Area C Preliminary Plan, a Redevelopment document that initiates a process to amend the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area to include India Basin Shoreline. The subject area is generally bounded by Jennings Street to the northwest, the Hunters View Housing site and Innes Avenue to the southwest, Earl Street to the southeast, and the San Francisco Bay to the northeast; and includes: Block 4580, Lot 002; Block 4602A, Lot 014; Block 4603A, Lot 005; Block 4604A, Lot 002; Block 4606, Lot 100; Block 4607, Lot 025; Block 4620, Lots 001, 002; Block 4621, Lots 016, 018, 100, 101; Block 4623A, Lots 002; Block 4629A, Lots 010, 012; Block 4630, Lots 002, 005, 006, 100; Block 4631, Lots 001, 002; Block 4644, Lots 001, 002, 002A, 002B, 003, 003A, 003B, 004, 004A, 005, 005A, 006, 006A, 007, 008, 009, 010, 010A, 010B, 010C, 011; Block 4645, Lots 001, 002B, 003A, 004, 006, 007, 007A, 010, 010A, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 031, 035; and Block 4646, Lots 001, 002, 003, 003A, 005, 005A, 006, 006A, 007, 009, 010, 011, 019, 020, 021. According to state law, the Planning Commission must approve and submit a Preliminary Plan, containing proposed boundaries, goals, and general land uses, to the Redevelopment Agency, to initiate amending an existing Project Area to include an additional area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve motion to formulate the Preliminary Planfor Survey Area C and find it generally consistent with the San Francisco General Plan and submit to the Redevelopment Agency.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 6, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: Sugaya

5a. 2006.0431CEKV (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1080 SUTTER STREET - north side between Hyde and Larkin Streets - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 157 for off-street parking in excess of accessory amounts (up to 39 spaces when the Code would permit 14) and Section 253 for height above 40 feet in a Residential District, to permit a new 11-story residential building with approximately 36 dwelling units, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0279, in a an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: Sugaya

5b. 2006.0431CEKV (J. Miller: (415) 558-6344)

1080 SUTTER STREET - north side between Hyde and Larkin Streets - Request for granting of Variances of Planning Code standards for rear-yard area (Section 134), projections over streets and alleys (Section 136) and dwelling-unit exposure (Section 140) to permit a new 11-story residential building with approximately 35 dwelling units, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0279, in a an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Lee, and Moore

NAYES: Borden and Olague

ABSENT: 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

6. 2009.0400D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

281-299 Turk Street - at the southeast corner of Turk and Leavenworth Streets; Lot 006B, of Assessor's Block 0344 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of a proposed Dwelling Unit Conversion. The proposal is to convert an existing dwelling unit in an apartment building into a laundry room and storage area in the RC-4, Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density District and 80-120-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the Permit

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the dwelling unit conversion

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

DRA: 0095

7a. 2009.0422XV (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

149 Fell Street - south side of Fell Street, between South Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Streets; Lot 017 of Assessor's Block 0834 - Request under Planning Code Section 309 for determinations of compliance. The project would demolish the exiting a one-story concrete and wood-frame commercial building and construct a 5-story mixed use building with ground floor retail, 3 floors of office and three residential units on the fifth floor. This project revises a project previously approved for this property on 12/08/2005 in case 2005.0818X. This project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown, General Commercial) District and within the 120-X and 85-R-2 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17923

7b. 2009.0422XV: (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

149 Fell Street - south side of Fell Street, between South Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Streets; Lot 017 of Assessor's Block 0834. The proposal is to construct 9,900 square feet of office space without providing public open space. On 12/08/2005, in case 2005.0818V the Zoning Administrator granted a Variance to allow development of 6,600 square feet of office without providing public open space. The project has been revised to provide for an additional 3,300 square feet of office space. Section 138 of the Planning Code requires 1 square foot of public open space for each 50 square feet of office use. The project would provide no public open space where 66 square feet are required. This project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown, General Commercial) District and within the 120-X and 85-R-2 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas closed the public hearing and granted the variance subject to the standard conditions and the previous condition that was granted requiring that a fee be paid into the Downtown Open Space Fund. The amount of the fee will be adjusted to current construction costs and to reflect the slightly higher square footage required under the new proposal.

NOTE: Items 8a & 8b were pulled off the Consent Calendar

8a. 2008.1341CV (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)

1794 San Jose Avenue - north side between Santa Rosa and Pilgrim Avenues, Assessor's Block 6793, Lot 011 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 to allow the construction of two new dwelling units with no off-street parking in the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: William Walters – Project Architect

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17926

8b. 2008.1341CV (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)

1794 San Jose Avenue - north side between Santa Rosa and Pilgrim Avenues, Assessor's Block 6793, Lot 011- Request for a Variance from the rear yard requirement pursuant to Section 134 of the Planning Code, to allow a two-story vertical extension above an existing one-story building. The proposed vertical extension will be setback approximately 14.5 and 60 feet from the front building wall at second and third floors, respectively, and will be located within the required 23.5' rear yard setback within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 8a

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas closed the public hearing and indicated his inclination to grant the variance but has taken the matter under advisement

9. 2009.0356C (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

1117 IRVING STREET - southwest corner of Irving Street and 12th Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1767 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 730.54 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert a vacant retail store with approximately 400 square feet of floor area into a foot massage establishment (dba Relax Feet), within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the existing ground floor commercial space. There will be no expansion to the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17924

10. 2009.0489C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

1052-1058 Folsom Street - - the corner of Folsom and Russ Streets, Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 3731 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a Large Self-Service Restaurant use (dba Beauty Italia) per Planning Code Sections 735.43, 790.90 and 249.40A within the SOMA Neighborhood Commercial Transit District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District. The project is also within the SOMA Youth and Family Special Use Subdistrict. The proposed eating establishment is not identified as a formula retail use.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17925

C. 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.

11. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 9, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

12. 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 the newspaper this week there was a discussion about residential parking permits and some talk about the possibility of putting meters in residential areas. This is in the early stages, but it did get a lot of press. In fact there was mention by one Supervisor speaking about the fact that we needed this to allow people who need to park their cars who didn't own property in the district. But it seems to me this policy applies to anyone who lives in the area. You don't have to be a property owner, you just have to be a resident there to be able to get a residential parking permit and own a car. That was a little bit confusing, but that leads me to a request. The request is to see if we can get some accurate studies of auto ownership and auto presence (for lack of a better word – that being cars that are in San Francisco but not necessarily owned by San Franciscans, particularly during weekdays, but also anytime during the day). Look at these numbers relative to the past and relative to population. Is auto ownership and presence in San Francisco becoming higher or lower? Also, we look at these various studies sometimes of areas that allege that there is very low auto ownership in these areas. I think it would be nice to look under the microscope a little bit and see who lives in these areas. Are there a lot of seniors who are no longer driving? Are there a lot of people of a generation or two ago who never did drive? Are there new comers who have not yet purchased automobiles or have driver's licenses? The reason I say this is because it sounds like there is a concern about parking in San Francisco, although we are trying to limit residential parking at the same time. It is kind of like we are moving at cross purposes and I don't know if you can have it both ways. Certainly these residential parking permits, it would seem to me, are one method whereby people who own cars and don't have garages can find a place to park. If these disappear or meters are put into residential areas it would exacerbate the problem even further. What I really want to see is what are the actual facts about auto ownership in San Francisco? Is it becoming more? If it is more then are our policies consistent? We have approved some density recently, some changes in zoning that allows certain areas to have more units such as parts of Market Octavia and the Mission district (the RTO districts) where you can have more units in the area than the prescribed two or three as long as the density is compliant. It would seem to me that would encourage more residents and conceivably more cars because none of these additional units have requirements to have parking with them. I think that when we make policies it is important to have the facts at hand and it's good to really know what the parking situation is. While we might all wish that there were fewer cars, and wish that if we pass regulations to eliminate or lessen residential parking that we will in fact result in fewer cars, that may not in fact be the case. I just pass that on to staff and see if we can look into that in the future.

Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas responded:

Commissioner I know that in the past Commissioner Lee also asked for numbers like this and they were very difficult for us to track down. I think with the MTA planning study that resulted in the report you referenced there may be some new data there that we can bring to you.

Commissioner Moore:

This leads to a very interesting discussion about city livability. There is a new measure called Walk Score which takes walkable cities and measures them by attractiveness, which is partially the presence of cars, but also all of those facilities and conveniences which are reachable by a walk within the neighborhood. San Francisco at this moment scores very high, but there is an on-going battle which Commissioner Antonini outlined – who needs a car and how many do we really need, and what is the perfect balance to keep a high walk score and still allow the convenience of the occasional use of a car? This is something that some people have really taken quite far and at some point we might have a discussion with people in MTA or some of the other public transit authorities, including Livable Cities, to see where we can take that and build into how we judge on projects. I think it's a fascinating measure and I'm really glad that San Francisco, I think in the entire Nation, scored with the highest score on that subject matter. You can actually put your own address in there and see how much your own house falls within the most favorable walking score. I think it's such a great tool and I was delighted to read about it. On another matter, the issue of how we use city owned open spaces is an interesting discussion. Just recently I participated in a discussion about the future of Sharp Park with the golf course, which by location it is more associated with the city of San Mateo than with us as the city of San Francisco who owns the park. I'd like to ask the City Attorney can another city who perceives that that golf course, at least in the physical realm of jurisdiction, pass ordinances which speak to the future use of that particular property? From what I understand, the city of San Mateo is trying to landmark that golf course, but it's ours. So where are we with that?

Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacy responded:

Commissioner Moore, there are issues of inter-governmental immunity. The general rule is where the government is using its property for governmental purposes in another jurisdiction. That government, San Francisco for instance, wouldn't necessarily be subject to San Mateo County's regulations. We haven't given advice on this particular question yet. We are looking in to it and it will depend a lot in each situation upon the facts, the use of the property, and what the local regulation is. There are some differences in State law and some limitations on the immunities. But it is an issue that comes up often when governments own land in other jurisdictions.

Commissioner Moore:

At some point it would be interesting together with planning staff to really talk about this to get a better understanding.

Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacy responded:

We will follow up with you Commissioner and we are working with staff on the issue.

Commissioner Olague:

I think I have an issue that is really related more to MTA, a project that falls under their jurisdiction. Central Subway, I think, has already come and gone through this commission and I'm wondering what the status of their relocation plan is? That is something that would be under MTA, but I'm wondering how residents are going to be relocated and to where and how that is being organized?

Commissioner Borden:

Piggy backing on what Commissioner Moore was talking about and walkability, there was an article today in the Examiner about the number of cracked streets in San Francisco actually jeopardizing the walkability and the upcoming bond. I was wondering if we would, because it is city work to be done in 13,000 to 52,000 places around the city, would that be something that would come before us because it would definitely impact a lot of the decisions we are making. Not that we would make a decision related to the bond, but just an informational note about it.

Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas responded:

Commissioner, in general, work in the public rights-of-way is under the jurisdiction of DPW (Department of Public Works).

Commissioner Borden:

Would it be possible to have an informational item on that just because we are approving projects in a lot of these corridors and to know about this work in conjunction with the stuff that we're doing and construction would be worthwhile? The other thing I was going to say is that I went to a Sunday Streets in the Mission on Sunday and it was amazing. So many people turned out. We had the AIDs walk going on on Sunday, and later in the afternoon there was a symphony in Dolores Park. It was tremendous the number of people. I was actually trying to bicycle through Sunday Streets and I made a joke to the Bicycle Coalition and Supervisor Dufty that you actually need a bicycle lane on Sunday Streets to get bicycles through because there were so many people. But that is just a testament to their success. I wonder if the Mayor's Office has any report on how it impacts the businesses. It looks like there was a lot of economic vitality. People were shopping and all these different restaurants and shops had lines out the door. And I remember after the first one happened in the northern part of the city near Fisherman's Wharf, they had found a huge boon in their sales on the days of the Sunday Streets. It would be interesting to look at that because maybe there are other ideas that we can look at with either Japantown or other neighborhoods in the city of indulging that. Maybe we can have a hearing with the Mayor's Office of Economic Development or whomever else is working on Sunday Streets and get some data on how these businesses are doing and get some creative approaches for street closures that would allow this kind of activity but also support the businesses. Particularly at this time when businesses are really suffering and having people kind of target and a neighborhood can really help neighborhood vitality.

Commissioner Antonini:

Just one other thing kind of adding on to the request by Commissioner Moore – the City of San Francisco has property throughout the Bay Area in addition to the golf course which I believe is actually in Pacifica, but within San Mateo County; the airport in Burlingame; the jail in San Bruno; holdings throughout northern California with the water system. My question would be more in relationship to things that might be constructed in these areas such as housing and other things where San Francisco has jurisdiction over the land because it owns the land or would for example Alameda County have jurisdiction over anything that was approved, or would we both have to approve if something was built there? There is a lot of land there, we have housing needs, we have needs for a lot of things and it's a question. Recently there was a property near Pleasanton that I believe was sold to a private developer or the city of Pleasanton from San Francisco and it was Water Department land. They since then have put housing on there and some commercial and stuff, and I'm just wondering what would have happened if the city had kept that land and done the same thing themselves? Just a question for the future.

Commissioner Olague:

I'm starting to see a few emails that relate to the library – an issue with the library. Where do we come in?

Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas:

Are you talking about the reconstruction of the historic libraries like the Ortega, the Marina, North beach?

Commissioner Olague:

Yeah. I just don't know the status. Where are we on that?

Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas:

I must confess I'm unclear on that too. I know we are conducting or have conducted environmental review. But in terms of review of the actual project, I'm not sure. I know Director Rahaim has been working closely with the library folks on it and he will be at this hearing in a while and maybe can answer your questions.

Commissioner Lee:

Some information about San Francisco: We are actually the second largest land owner in California. We own more land as a City & County than any other county but Los Angeles County. Secondly, we do have housing for city workers up in Hetch Hetchy for the Water Department. One of the reasons that our bond rating is so strong is we do own quite a bit of land. Regarding Pleasanton, the PUC signed an agreement a few years ago when Willie Brown was the Mayor; we sold the property to Pleasanton and they in turn sold it to a developer and they could build housing there depending to the local jurisdiction or zoning there. We had differences between Pleasanton and San Francisco regarding the density there. They wanted less, we wanted more because we would have gotten more money out of it.

Commissioner Miguel:

As far a comments that were made regarding economic vitality on Sunday Streets, I think that has held true on all of the Sunday Streets programs so far and it somewhat proves the fact that economic vitality goes along with density and lack of automobile traffic. Aside from that, I have had conversations with both sides of the Star King open space situation. I along with a number of staff personnel attended CPMC streetscape initial review last night which was very interesting. It's a work in progress.

Commissioner Lee:

The way we can find out if there is more economic development is based on the sales tax city wide vs the street(s) we shut down. If you shut down the street you are moving people who buy from different parts of town into those areas. So the question is: is it a zero sum gain or did we actually see increase of sale tax which the Controller's Office or the Treasure can find out? Of course you have high density – people are going to spend their money because they are there, but are you taking away the same taxes, sales tax, sales away from the different part of town? I have yet to hear conclusively an answer from anyone. Did we gain as a city more taxes or did taxes move from say Noe Valley into the Mission or into the Embarcadero?

Commission Secretary Avery:

Commissioners before we move on to the Director's Report, I would like to announce that the Audio Visual Department in City Hall has arranged for us to use Room 416 for our meeting on September 3rd. So we do have a hearing room that is broadcast capable for that day.

Commissioner Olague:

According to the motion that was passed that Commissioner Sugaya made, I was of the impression that the September 3rd hearing would be limited only to informational items.

Commission Secretary Avery:

My understanding was that it would only be informational if we could not find a broadcast room. For instance, if we were going to room 408 [which is not broadcast capable we would only have informational items].

Commissioner Olague:

Could you review that motion because that is how I remember it and then we could decide what we want to calendar for that date.

Commission Secretary Avery:

I'll review the tapes.

Commissioner Lee:

If it's informational that day, I'd like to have Elaine Forbes. I asked her to bring me some data regarding permit applications year to year. She has given me a copy of that for the last several years – how many CUs. I'm trying to track the case load we have this year vs last year, but more importantly there is a harvest study that just came out with the University of Maryland that looked at the economic downturn and the housing prices. They seem to be cyclical every six years. This is a global analysis. I'm trying to figure out when we'll be out of the doldrums here in real estate. Maybe that day we can have Elaine Forbes sort of give us a pattern over the last six year on how we have done and maybe we can say predict – maybe say build more housing and that our tax base will increase.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Requested a point of clarity: if September 3rd is a regular hearing day and nothing is disturbed, do you now want to change that day to just informational items, or training items, or & I need to know because you are asking for things that are not now on your calendars. I need to know how you want to precede.

Commissioner Olague:

I don't necessarily.

Commissioner Antonini:

I can't remember verbatim what the motion was. I can tell you that there were definitely some items moved, continued further than September 3, and they are now on the 10th I believe. But I would certainly be in favor of putting anything other than those items that are specifically calendared further ahead onto September 3rd to fill the calendar if in fact that motion was of that nature. If it wasn't, then we'll have to deal with it or change it next week when we meet August 6th.

Commissioner Olague:

Whatever the motion says is what I'm willing to go along with.

Commission Secretary Avery:

I will check the tapes regarding the motion. If the motion is for just information that is all you will have on that hearing date. If it is to retain the hearing as a regular hearing, then you will have what is calendared for that day.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

13. Director's Announcements: (This item was taken out of order and followed item 16.)

Director Rahaim:

I wanted to spend a few minutes just highlighting the Department's Action Plan that you got in your packets today. But before I do that there are two other announcements. One is I wanted to announce the next community design workshop for the Mission Streetscape Plan. This will be the fourth workshop and will take place August 12 at 6:30 in the Women's building which is 3543 18th Street. The second thing is the reason I was late today is I was one of four speakers at SPUR's monthly event. If you've been to SPUR's new building they have an exhibit on the history of planning in San Francisco. There are about five different eras they have identified and they are having a public discussion on each of those eras. Today the discussion was on the Redevelopment era which was an interesting discussion. It was chaired by Fred Blackwell who is the Director of the Redevelopment Agency. It was standing room only. I am always amazed at the attendance that SPUR gets at those events. It's really quite impressive. But if I may, I just want to spend a few minutes highlighting a few issues - or a few of our recent accomplishment on the Action Plan. As you know, you adopted this about a year ago. We are about a year into a two year plan and I'm very gratified. And I just want to give some credit to staff for all their work. This of course takes staff well beyond their normal work load. Over half the department is actually engaged in these efforts. I just want to highlight a few of our recent accomplishments. The very first item on this report card (I realize this is a report card where we are grading ourselves) is the permit tracking system. I am very pleased to tell you that we have selected a vendor; the money did remain in the budget; and we are in contract negotiations. Because of the size of the contract – it is a very substantial contract – we expect the contract negotiations to go through the end of the year actually and then the work to create the actual system will start in January. I know that Commissioner Moore has actually been interested in our 3D modeling capabilities. The very good news there is that the city is actually going to be acquiring a system so that we will be able to take advantage of a system where it won't even cost the Department anything. The Department of Technology is looking at that right now and looking to develop a system for citywide use, which is actually very exciting for us. A couple of things on the environmental review process: There have been several accomplishments, but the one I want to highlight is that we have now completed finally, after about two years, we now have a full compliment of transportation planners in the MEA division. That has been one of our difficult areas and interestingly enough it is the area where most environmental reviews need the most work, but it's where we've been the most short staffed. Finally we have a full compliment of three transportation planners in that division, which is really very helpful. Two of the items in the Action Plan have to do with applications as projects come in. One is what we call a single-intake system. Right now when project sponsors come in they first apply for environmental reviews and sometime down the road they apply for their entitlements. We are looking at combining that into a single application, and also combining that with the notion of a case manager so that there is always a single assigned point person on a project. Right now it is a little confusing for the public; it's a little confusing for the project sponsors to know who to go to at any point in time; so we are trying to streamline that process. We are making pretty good progress in doing that. It actually takes a little more time because we're going to have to look at the fees; we're going to have to look at how the applications are prepared and all that; so its going to take some time to make that happen but we're making some good progress there. Just a couple of other things to mention: obviously the DR process – you approved that in your resolution. We have already implemented those parts of that program that do not require a legislative change. We are preparing legislation that would require Board action in a few weeks. There is an interesting note here about forms. There are over 180 forms documents at the Public Information Counter. We have gone through and were able to immediately delete 60 of those, but we are still going through and trying to streamline those [remaining]; combine them; and make them more legible. It seems like a simple process but obviously it is a little more complicated than one might hope. Finally, the very last item on the Action Plan was to try to increase the General Fund support to the Department. Interestingly enough this year, in spite of the budget, we were able to do that. We actually did get, as you know, an additional $300,000 in the budget to focus on some long range planning issues. We are very pleased that we were able to do that thankfully with the Mayor's and Board support. With that, again I just wanted to highlight those; thank staff; and thank the Commission for your support on this Action Plan. We are very pleased about the progress we are making. Thank you.

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT:

Land Use Committee –

  • Info hearing on 1250 Missouri Street – It was permitted as a commercial/light industrial use in 2001. Complaints were filed in 2008 that the scope of permit had been exceeded by converting the units into residential use. At this hearing at the Board, Planning staff and DBI staff were present to provide information regarding their review process and what further steps will be necessary to complete the project within the approved scope of work. A representative of the Project Sponsor was present and reaffirmed their willingness to work with both Departments to resolve the outstanding violations and complete their obligations to return this property to commercial use.
  • TrinityPlazaDeveloper Agreement – The Planning Commission approved the amendments to the original agreement on March 26th of this year with a few caveats: the Commission allowed the build out of all the parking but mandated that not all of it would be available when completed. It would only become available as the corresponding buildings became available – physical barriers would be installed and removed as each building was constructed and became occupied; the commission did not approve clustering the BMR units on floors 3-5; the commission did not approve changing the breakdown of unit types from 10 1-bedroom units and 2 studio units to 10 studios and 2 1-bedroom units. At the Land Use hearing this week, the Committee agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the parking modifications as described above and the rejection of the two BMR issues.

Full Board:

  • Planning Code Fee Amendment – This ordinance would establish new fees, increase existing fees, and make various rule changes related to project revisions, fee deferral and billing. The ordinance would create an option for  installment payment of bills and would add a fee for Code Violation Abatement. It would also increase the fees for Monitoring of Conditions of approval and the Advertising Sign Maintenance annual Fee. The Budget Analyst estimated it would result in an increase of $320,000 in revenue per year. This commission recommended approval of the ordinance on June 25th of this year. This week the Full Board passed the item on first reading.

Introductions:

  • 090950 Motion Calling for a Committee of the Whole – Board President Chiu introduced a motion that calls for the Board to sit as a Committee of the whole to hear the Bicycle Plan adoption and related General Plan amendments as well as the related Planning Code amendments at their August 4th hearing.
  • 090936 Opposing State Senate Bill 792 Tidelands & Submerged Land: Candlestick Point – Supervisors Daly and Avalos introduced a resolution urging the state legislators to oppose this bill which would allow the sale of 42 acres of state parkland including parts of the Candlestick Point State park for private development. This bull sponsored by Senator Leno would also approve and exchange of public trust lands, whereby certain lands will be freed from the public trust and may be conveyed into private ownership, and certain other lands that are not now public trust lands will be made subject to the public trust.

BOARD OF APPEALS REPORT:

No items to report

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISISON REPORT:

None – The Commission did not meet

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.

SPEAKERS: None

F. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

SPEAKERS: None

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

15. 2008.0788CV (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

50-52 GRENARD TERRACE - located in the middle of the block bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Lombard Street, Polk Street and Greenwich Street, Lot 009, in Assessor's Block 0502 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 253, 303 and 317 to construct a building higher than 40' in height and to demolish the two-unit, two-story over garage building with four bedrooms, and to construct a two-unit, three-story over garage with penthouse building with 5 bedrooms in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapprove

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 9, 2009

NOTE: On July 9, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote of +7 -0 with final language on July 23, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17927

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

16. 2008.0996C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

1040 COLUMBUS AVENUE - east side between Francisco and Chestnut Streets, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0050 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add a bar use (Type 47 ABC Liquor License) to an existing restaurant (DBA  Cable Car Restaurant ) and to legalize entertainment uses already found at the existing restaurant such as billiard tables. 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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 25, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Marsha Garland – Representing the Project Sponsor; Mr. Swami – Project Sponsor; (-) Captain Jim Dudley – SFPD Central Station; (+) Danny Leore; (+) Om Prakash Guryng; (+) Melady Pokovich; (+) Elana Salzmur; (+) Gerald Angle; (+) Zack Christopher Scott; (+) Ivan Simpson; (+) Sally Vangundy; (+) Ramen Mandal; (+) Nanzio Alioto; (+) Couranga Chakra Borty; (-) Nathan Jones; (-)Ok Nam Ho – International Sports Club; (-) Joan Wood; (+) Clay Warner

ACTION: Following a failed motion to approve legalizing entertainment uses already found at the existing restaurant such as billiard tables and to disapprove adding a bar use – Type 47 ABC Liquor License (on a +3 -3 vote with Antonini, Borden & Lee voting against), the Commission continued this matter to August 13, 2009 to allow the absent commissioner the opportunity to participate in the final action. The public hearing remains closed.

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, and Olague

NAYES: Moore

ABSENT: Sugaya

17. 2009.0405C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

3034 24th Street - between Treat Avenue and Harrison Street; Lot 071 in Assessor's Block 3640 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a Full Service- Restaurant (dba EL Rodeo Grill) per Planning Code Section 727.42 within the 24th Street Mission Neighborhood Commercial Transit District, and a 45-X Height and Bulk District. The project is also within the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict. The proposed eating establishment is not identified as a formula retail use.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Jorge Mondragon – Project Architect; Oscar Barrajas & Manuel Laya - Project Owners; Bob Genho – Consultant for pollution control; (-) David Delp; (-) Cynthia Wigginton; (-) Adam McCarley

ACTION: Approved as amended requesting that the Health, Fire, and Building Inspection Departments inspect the site and issue a report on their findings prior to the issuance of a permit

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

MOTION: 17928

18a. 2007.0231D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2750 VALLEJO STREET - north side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets, Lot 006 in Assessor Block 0954 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2008.08.14.9201 proposing facade alterations and rear and side horizontal additions to the existing three-story, single-family residence in an RH-1(D) (Residential House, One Family, Detached) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 25, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Bob Byrum – DR Requestor; Bradley Weidmier; Greg Malin – Project Sponsor; Tuija Catalano – Representing the Project Sponsor; Jay Turnbull – Historical Consultant; Babac Doane – Project Architect; Daniel Burch

ACTION: The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

DRA: 0096

18b. 2009.0231DV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2750 VALLEJO STREET- north side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0954 - Request for a Front Setback Variance pursuant to Section 132 of the Planning Code The proposal is to construct an approximately 3-foot deep by 13-foot wide bay window within the required front setback at the floor above the garage level at the front façade of the existing single-family residence in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 18a

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas closed the public hearing and indicated his inclination to grant the variance but has taken the matter under advisement

I. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS: Bradley Weidmier and Jay Turnbull

Adjournment: 5:34 p.m.

ADOPTED: August 6, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:39 PM