September 17, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, September 17, 2009
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 2:12 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Diego Sanchez, Elizabeth Watty, Erika Jackson, Steve Wertheim, 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. (C. Nikitas: (415) 558-6306)
Review of Demolition Ordinance & Policies - On April 18, 2008, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Ordinance 69-08 [BF 080210] which established Planning Code Section 317 to regulate the loss of dwelling units. Over a year after its implementation, the Ordinance will be reviewed at a public hearing. The Planning Commission will discuss the intent of the Ordinance; the efficacy of the Ordinance in general; and specific planning policies and procedures related to review for loss of dwelling units, including loss due to institutional expansion. Legislation introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi that would amend Section 317 to require replacement of sound housing will be presented and discussed, prior to action on that legislation at a hearing on or after October 15, 2009.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Only - No Action to be Taken
(Proposed for Continuance to September 24, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
2. 2009.0424C (K GUY: (415) 558-6163)
565 GREEN STREET - between Columbus and Grant Avenues, Lot 020 of Assessor's Block 0131 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add live entertainment to an existing restaurant and wine bar (dba "dell'uva") at 565 Green Street, within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, the 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the North Beach Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Proposed for Continuance to October 1, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
3. 2009.0322C (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)
617 SANSOME STREET - between Jackson and Washington Streets, Assessor's Block 0196; Lot 002 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 249.25 and 303 of the Planning Code to change the legal use of the property from retail use to office use. The subject property is within a C-2 (Community Business) District with a 65-A Height and Bulk District, the Jackson Square Special Use District, and within the Jackson Square Historic District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 6, 2009)
(Proposed for Continuance to October 15, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
4. 2008.0395E (I. NISHIMURA: (415) 575-9041)
2130 Fulton Street - University of San Francisco Center for Science and Innovation - north side, between Golden Gate, Masonic, and Parker Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 114 - Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The approximately 80,000-square-foot project site is on the Main Campus of the University of San Francisco, in the existing Harney Green and Harney Plaza area. The proposed project includes removal of Harney Green and Plaza; site excavation; and construction of a three-story with a partial fourth floor, 53-foot high building with a partial basement, which would connect on all floors to the south end of the existing Harney Science Building, and a below-grade, two-level structure, which is also a component of the proposed project. The roof of this building would serve as a new plaza and pedestrian area. Together, the new structures would have approximately 60,000 square feet of classrooms, laboratories, instrumentation rooms, and building mechanical/support spaces. The project site is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would require Conditional Use Authorization for a post-secondary institutional use in an RH-2 District, and for exceeding a building height of 40 feet in an R District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Proposed for continuance to Thursday, November 5, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, 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.
5. 2009.0680Q (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
2540 - 2550 HYDE STREET,- east side between Bay and Francisco Streets, Lot 046 in Assessor's Block 0045 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed six-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing six-unit building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration or demolition of the existing building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Carter Seddon – one of the owners
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17950
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.
6. Consideration of Adoption:
- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 3, 2009.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved – [The draft minutes were proposed to be approved as corrected to show that Commissioner Borden was not absent for the vote on item 10. Item 10 was not heard by the Commission. Prior to the hearing, there was a request for continuance that the Commission considered at the same time they considered the request for continuance of item 1. At the time the vote was taken, Commissioner Borden was absent.]
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
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:
Last week we were given a letter by Local 21 regarding CEQA Supplement Staff RFQ. While we have not heard back from the Director on his position on this matter, I have found this letter extremely thoughtful and very much supporting of my own position on this matter which is expressing great concern about conflict of interest and other issues which I think we all should be giving a lot of thought to.
On the second note, I want to talk about an article in Forbes Magazine which I will send after this meeting, a link to all of the commissioners. It deals with the number of vacancy rates in cities. There is an excellent mention of 75 metropolitan entities throughout the United States. San Francisco rates second in residential as well as in home owner vacancy rate. I find that a very alarming statistic in light of the fact that we are being continuously pushed on all levels to approve all kinds of housing with lesser offering on the lower end but with an excessive number on the upper end. I want to copy Director Rahaim and Mr. Badiner for distribution to the rest of the Department to really closely look at this article and sort out what that means. I don't have an answer of what that might mean, but it's quite alarming. Kansas City is the first and there are all kinds of reasons why that might be the case there, but that should not be the case here.
Commissioner Antonini:
I just wanted to mention that I was not present this morning for the morning hearing and the reason was that I was in Superior Court because I was on a jury. Apparently, as we've been told, no matter what your job is and even if you're in service to the city in another capacity, you still have to serve on a jury and that takes precedent. My apologies, but fortunately the trial was only a half day and will resume in the future so I'm here this afternoon.
The other comment I have is I've been approached by members of the public about the Housing Element that we're beginning to work on. I think some people sort of assumed it was further along. I have talked to City Attorney and other members of staff who are doing that and I just wanted to mention a couple of things and also ask some things of staff. I understand the scoping hearing, which I believe is happening on Wednesday, September 30th is in fact okay to do. It does not have to be done before the Planning Commission in session and it's only the environmental impact part of it – so that answers a question that was posed. Also I have requested to staff, and I believe that they are going to provide a matrix for us comparing the Housing Elements of 1990 (I forget the exact dates), which we are now using and the 2004, which we are using in part, and then of course the new proposed one that is still in a draft form. Also, I understand there will be plenty of time for public testimony. I think I've been told we have a draft form of the new Housing Element. I'm not sure. I'm going to have to go through my materials and I would ask staff that if we don't have that, we could get that. Also, I think in the past when we did this, commissioners were asked to review the draft, provide written comments, and those were included in the next draft. And those were things that we could use to help us formulate the final product. I hope we are going to follow that same format again. I will dig up the copy and devote some time to responding to parts of the Housing Elements that I may have comments on. I also hope we're provided with a timeline in the next few weeks regarding this process so when the public asks we can say okay, by fall; by some date we are going to probably be through the environmental part and then we are going to move into the drafts and they'll be hearings & We are obliged to finish it by a certain date I believe to be in conformity with State law. There also was a question last week about part of the 2004 Housing Element, I understand in talking with City Attorney, and she may want to speak to it, but there were some writs that were issued and parts of the 2004 can be used but certain parts can not. So those are the parts that have to be discarded when we consider certain items.
Director Rahaim:
If I may, just to respond to a couple of those questions commissioner: We are working on the matrix that you mentioned that compares the Elements. You did receive a draft some time ago, maybe three months ago, around the time Sarah went on maternity leave, and there was a timeline as well. We can pull that out again and send you a new copy of the timeline. In general, I believe we are trying to get the EIR done by the end of the year. Technically the draft under State law was to be done by – or the Element was to be done by July 1st. We are all aware that the State is aware of our timeline. They know that we are later than technically we should be, but because of the need for the EIR they fully understand why. But our goal is to get draft EIR done by the end of the year and hopefully certified by you in the spring.
Commissioner Olague:
I want to make a request early and get a little ahead of the game. When it comes to the budget, sometimes I feel a little bit rushed when I have to make certain decisions and it's a huge, huge, huge thing. So I would like to be a little bit more informed as the Department starts creating the budget so I get a sense of how it's evolving and where it's going. I think last time we had it in February and it was approved and we had a couple of hearings. I would like to actually be more informed at an earlier date. So I'm making that request. I don't know if any other commissioners are – it looks like Commissioner Sugaya – and I don't know if any other commissioners are as interested as I am, but there are a lot of things that are coming up and I feel like I just need to be – I think we're hyper-vigilant as it is, but I just think this year I want to make sure I'm catching everything so to speak, just given where we are financially in the State and country. It looks like we're on the up-swing, but I just want to make sure it's all good so to speak.
Commissioner Borden:
I have three different questions. I have not seen the Forbes article but there was a little blog in SF Gate kind of criticizing us for the glut of luxury housing that's built in the city. I just would love it – I don't know if staff or somebody could take on a study – I'd love to think; see what middle class incentives in places like New York city have that encourage housing at the middle income level. This is an again and again issue that we keep coming across. We don't have a solution because we don't own land. We don't develop and everybody brings us projects at certain price points and we don't have the leverage at this time to get them at different price points. I don't know if there are examples. New York City would probably be the best, on the island of Manhattan in particular. Unfortunately not a lot of other cities really compare in the same way because they have a lot of older housing stock and usually a lot more land than we have. Maybe there is some [discrete] other cities that we can look at that are land locked and have the same sort of issues that we have. It would be great to have that information because maybe there are outside of the box incentives that we haven't thought of that we ought to be thinking of.
The second thing is I got a notice in the mail regarding a CU on our calendar for next week. I got a notice because I live in the neighborhood. Does that mean I will have to be recused when the item comes up even though I'm not financially conflict?
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I am purely speculating that if you are within 300 feet and I would say if you are closer than 500 feet to the property it is presumed that you have a conflict. I would suggest you - perhaps the staff member, who ever CU it is, can tell you how far away you are – and you can consult with the City Attorney But my understanding is if you are within 500 feet, you need to recuse yourself.
Commissioner Borden:
And the third thing is, it just made me think, I have seen the census people all over at a lot of different neighborhood organizations and community organizations and wondered if we had at all been talking to them because they are obviously in a unique position with the data that they are gathering and it would be awesome if we are talking in the context of the Housing Element – being able to aggregate and use some of that data early on during the census collecting regarding who is living in our housing and how long they are in our housing. I just wanted to know if we would have conversations with them at all and how we could help them or make sure that we get them into the key areas that they should be in.
Commissioner Sugaya:
I think recusal is based on ownership isn't it? If you're a renter &
Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland-Knowles:
Each Commissioner should consult with the City Attorney's Office on each particular matter. But there are differences in the laws related to whether you own or rent.
Commissioner Sugaya:
That wasn't my comment. Director Rahaim handed out information on the Eastern Neighborhoods CAC new appointments that were made. Could I be reminded – there was an issue before us about the number of people that would be appointed from the different districts. We had a hearing on it and it went back to the Board of Supervisors. Could somebody get back to me with the original numbers that were going to be appointed?
Director Rahaim:
These are the original numbers that were in the plan – eight (8) from the Board and five (5) from the Mayor.
Commissioner Sugaya:
But there was a request to increase numbers
Director Rahaim:
Yes, there was a request I believe from Supervisor Campos to add a member from the Mission because of the way the divisions were laid out. That did not go through. That is still pending.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Thank you.
Commissioner Antonini:
I have not seen the Forbes article but I would ask staff if we are looking into that whole issue to also look into something that is somewhat unique to San Francisco and that is a lot of units are electively kept off the market because we have some unique tenancy laws that some other cities don't. I know a lot of people would rather not get in to the rental market and don't occupy it at the present time. Own them out right and just – that probably is a factor in some of these statistics. It's worth trying to figure that out, which might be difficult.
Commissioner Lee:
In some ways I'm glad we have a high vacancy rate because rents have dropped. And again Forbes is looking at baseline of this year. As we know from this morning, the ABAG projection for the Bay Area we will have an increase of one million people. So I think we should be in line to develop more housing. I think that is important right now. We do know, which wasn't brought up today, that we have more at the lower end than the upper end, but the middle class and I think that's where we should be focusing on regarding our Housing Element.
Commissioner Miguel:
I had, in this last week, a couple of interesting discussions: One with some executives from Safeway regarding their property out at the beach, out at La Playa. They are dealing with the possibility of housing out there. I met with Supervisor Mar and others regarding some Market Street issues, as well as talked to some people regarding Green Street and Andover.
Commissioner Moore:
This is a question of housekeeping, asking all of ourselves: [while holding up a copy of the Action List] I think I love the length of the list, I love the sharpness of the questions and all of this, but the list is becoming so long an unmanageable that I'd like each of us to look at their question and see if they have been partially answered or partially are not as important anymore, or grouping of questions because there are more than 30 projects here on the list and we don't have the time in the world, not the rooms, nor the manpower to attend to all of them before they get totally old and stale.
Director Rahaim:
I appreciate that commissioner. We were just talking about the request you made today and it's just frankly a huge amount of work. A lot of it has to do with simply that we don't have access to the data that you are asking for, or if the data even exists. I think what we're going to have to do is do a better job of screening your requests and getting back to you about whether the data or information is even out there. And if it is something that just simply takes a whole lot of time, letting you know that. Maybe we can set some priorities on some of your requests. The list keeps growing. We're trying to attend to a lot of it as much as we can, but there is a lot there.
Commissioner Moore:
Secretary Avery distributes this list each week to us as individuals by email. One just dumb suggestion: can each of just look at their own name and further perpetuate that the thing [request] stay on the calendar [list] or pull it back and say that it could be combined with another request or indicate that it is not that important anymore? I volunteer to do that with mine and hope that everybody else will do that too.
Commissioner Avery:
I absolutely, positively thank you.
Commissioner Moore:
You are welcome
Commissioner Miguel:
I think that is an excellent suggestion and also I think there is a distinct possibility that a number of request can be dealt with by a simple memo from the Department and not [have] an actual hearing. I think that should be included in our review.
D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
7. Director's Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Thank you for the hearing this morning. I think it was useful to have that joint hearing. I know that in conversations I've had in the last couple of weeks on the CPMC Master Plan, I know I've learned some interesting things about the hospital and the health care system. We are working with the CPMC staff on the hearing for October 15th. I'll be meeting with them next week to go over what they should prepare for that hearing as well.
The other thing I want to mention is the memo I distributed on the Eastern Neighborhood CAC showing the appointments that have now been in place. Staff is anticipating that we will have the first meeting of that group next month.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
Commissioners, this Monday was the Small Business Commission meeting and two of our staff were there presenting two different items. Elaine Forbes was presenting the Discretionary Review (DR) Improvement Process that you've been involved in and the Board heard that. First of all they expressed gratitude to the Planning Commission and the Planning Department for our willingness to address the concerns in discretionary review and by majority vote the endorsed the DR reform legislations. They are very much in support of that.
Secondly, Dan Sider presented the NC@20 Report. You recall he was here last week. The Small Business Commission wanted to be involved in that. We presented it to them and they expressed an interest to be involved in updates to Neighborhood Commercial Controls as we go forward. They also requested that we focus on the idea of inverse formula retail incentives; in other words, small business incentives sooner rather than later. They would like us to develop a priority list recognizing that we have funding constraints – what can do and where can we go forward? And as I said, they want to be involved in amendments to NC controls and I presume other controls that affect the Small Business Commission.
The other thing I want to tell you about commissioners is emergency demolitions. There seems to have been a spate of emergency demolitions. In reality there are just two areas, but the first were six properties at 413 and 415 Van Dyke, 1500. 1510, 1526 and 1536 Wallace Avenue I believe. These are in the Bayview area. They were industrial buildings. Apparently, the weekend of August 30th there was a big fire in the Bayview and these buildings had to come down. I do not believe they posed any planning issue in reality other than the loss of industrial space. And obviously the owners and tenants have issues and I don't want to minimize that. We did sign off on those demolition permits. They didn't require notice. There were no housing units. There were no preservation issues. More recently, 553 Laidly, which is in Glen Park, was presented to me on Friday as an emergency demolition. There appeared to be two small buildings. I notified the president of the Planning Commission and the president of the Historic Preservation Commission when it became apparent that there was a very strong possibility that they could be earthquake shacks. Tina Tam, who is our Preservation Officer did a site visit and believes that the integrity of the buildings seems to be lost. The President can comment I'm sure on his site visit. I did not take a personal site visit since Tina was there. We had wanted to pursue the idea of stripping off some of the siding to ascertain if fact whether they were earthquake shacks. DBI was very resistant to that idea and I don't mean in a negative way. These buildings have real serious issues. I don't believe anyone feels that 1) based upon the integrity being lost; and 2) the damage to the buildings, that there is any desire to keep the buildings up. However, after consultation with DBI and consultation with Ms. Tam, I think we can figure out whether they were earthquake shacks after the demolition occurred – and I don't mean that to be heartless. We would like to keep earthquake shacks up but not in this condition. We can then acknowledge that they were on the site and that is important documentation of where the earthquake shacks were and where they were moved. But we just don't believe this is particularly [ ]. I have some pictures that I could put up but they are pretty vague. They have been Xeroxed a couple of times, but you can see the interior is collapsing. I did want to let you know that. I suspect the demolition will occur in the next couple of days or may even be occurring this afternoon.
Commissioner Miguel:
I appreciated the call I received from Mr. Badiner. I did meet Ms. Tam at the site. I did not go more than three feet into the building because I and everyone else was a little weary that it would not support much more than that and if you saw it you would understand why. The possible determination of it as an earthquake shack type B was made on the basis of its dimensions – or what were probably its original dimensions. In actually one building, there had been additions to the side, additions to the front that you could see from the difference in the support timbers. Going around to the back, there is an underside to the building because of the steep slope of the hill and it was barely able to open a door there and no one wanted to go underneath that building. The roof is falling in, the floor is falling in. I think a designation of it in one manor or another as to the possibility of it being an earthquake shack is totally in order. But in any case, it is not in any condition to be saved by any manor.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Mr. Badiner, when you mentioned it to me, didn't you also consulted with Charles Chase of the Historic Preservation Commission?
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
Yes, I'm sorry. Ms. Tam did because there was Historic Preservation Commission meeting yesterday and that's where the original desire was can we strip off some of the façade to ascertain whether its an earthquake shack. But ultimately all Mr. Chase wanted to do was to do the documentation. When DBI said that we don't even want you to put a crowbar to it, we determined that we could figure out whether it was an earthquake shack because it will expose the same thing we were trying to expose through the demolition. And Ms. Tam will try to be there during the demolition to see that. As I understand it, and you know much better than I do, there is a very distinctive sheathing pattern, I think it's called park bench sheathing. I assume it was park benches, but I don't know that for a fact, so we will be able to tell from that item I gather.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Do you know how the demolition is going to be undertaken? It's privately owned, right?
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
That is correct
Commissioner Sugaya:
It would be good if they could salvage some of the materials rather than have it just torn up and thrown away.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I will relay that to DBI. I'm not going to make any guarantee that is going to happen.
Commissioner Sugaya:
On the Lombard Street property, when that was demolished, the developers did salvage as much as they could. I don't know if they have something in with the Planning staff or not. But anyway, there was salvage that took place there so it is quite feasible to do that.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I will ask Ms. Tam to follow up on that and see what we can do.
Commissioner Borden:
I just have a couple of questions. How did this come to our attention? Did the neighborhood call it in? Did DBI notice it?
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I don't know how it came to DBI's attention. I can only speculate on that that there were for sale signs on the face of it and it's pure speculation after that. But someone knew what they were buying – a vacant lot or soon to be a vacant lot; called DBI. The process is where there is an emergency demolition, DBI consults with the Zoning Administrator and I appreciate that. But ultimately it is a safety determination that lies with the Director of DBI. We do appreciate the fact that they involve us in the process but we do not have the final word on it.
Commissioner Borden:
I guess my question is this property was recently purchased?
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
Again, there were FOR SALE signs on it and there was a sign that said SOLD. I am presuming that it was recently purchased.
Commissioner Borden:
I just think it's very problematic that obviously it was in this condition for a while and that somehow nobody seems to know anything about it. And the person who was looking to buy or sell the property & It's just; the fact that it was probably a risk for quite some time and the person who owned it or selling it knew that it was a risk – I just wonder how this happened. Look at the state of the cottage; it's really in poor [condition]. It doesn't look like they were &
Commissioner Miguel:
We were speculating about that at the time out there and I have not talked to the Realtors who handled this. There were two signs on the building. I don't know which one actually sold it.
Commission Secretary Avery:
Okay commissioners. I've been told by the City Attorney that you are engaging in conversation that is not on your calendar.
8. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Full Board:
- 1960-1998 Market Street – There were two appeals – one on the CEQA document and the CU was appealed. The project you approved in June of this year would replace an existing gas station with mixed-use development containing 115 dwelling units, some commercial space and 69 parking spaces. The appellant of the CEQA document (Neg Dec) was the Building & Construction Trades Council. The appeal revolved around potential hazardous materials and the naturally occurring asbestos. Staff explained the rigorous but routine mitigations in place to address those issues, and the Board upheld the Neg Dec 11-0. The CU was appealed by a group of neighbors. They were concerned about the lot assembly, the rear yard, and conformance with the Market & Octavia Plan. The Board upheld the Planning Commission's CU finding that the project was necessary, desirable and compatible with the neighborhood by a vote of 7-4 (Daly, Avalos, Campos and Mirkarimi voted against).
Introductions:
- 091102 – Residential marijuana Growing Operations – Supervisor Carmen Chu requested a hearing on recent discoveries of non-permitted growing operations by the police.
- 091106 – Approval of Mills Act Contract for 1818 California Street – introduced by supervisor Alioto-Pier
- 091113 – Seismic Strengthening of soft-story, wood-frame buildings – introduced by the Mayor. This would encourage voluntary building upgrades linked to a fee decrease. Similar legislation was discussed by the Commission last year. This introduction includes revisions requested by this commission as well as other updates and it will be brought back for your review.
- 091104 – Hearing requested on the Better Streets Plan – Supervisor Mar requested this hearing as an update to the interagency work on this plan.
- A number of pieces of legislation were introduced regarding the Hunter's Point shipyard – The Mayor and Supervisor Maxwell introduced a cooperative agreement for fire and medical services while the land remains under federal ownership; Supervisors Maxwell and Avalos both requested a hearing on the disbanded Hunters Point Naval Shipyard Restoration Advisory Board; Supervisor Avalos requested three additional hearings: 1) on Lennar Corporation's Financial status, 2) on the proposed early transfer of the shipyard from the Navy to the city, and 3) on an assessment of the air quality at the Shipyard
BOARD OF APPEALS:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
Architectural Review Committee (ARC):
- 1338 Filbert Street (Filbert Street Cottages) – Commissioner Martinez likes the design and feels the architect is moving in the right direction. He believes the cottages should continue to read as separate and distinct structures and that the new addition should have a sloped roof instead of a flat roof. Commissioner Chase wants to make sure the lift will close (perhaps automatically) when not in use.
- 950 Mason Street (The Fairmont Hotel) – Commissioners Chase and hasz disagreed with staff's recommendation that a 40 foot setback is required. They believe the current proposal of 20 feet is reasonable but want to see more perspectives from the street to further determine the appropriate overall mass and scale of the new addition. Commissioner Martinez disagreed and felt he couldn't support the project as proposed. He felt the volume is too big.
Full Commission:
- Review & Comment on the Survey Integration into the market/Octavia Plan Area – Commissioner Martinez felt the buildings at the corner of Market & Church Streets should be down zoned from 85 feet to 55 feet because they are historic resources. He is generally okay with 65 feet at the mid-block since they are established design guidelines and procedures. He strongly feels the Department should revisit the heights along Market Street between Dolores and Van Ness Avenue when the Augmentation Survey is done. He also feels the Market /Octavia Plan (under Streets ) should be revised to acknowledge that the median on Dolores Street is a historic resource and any change may be a significant impact; properties that overlap between M/O and Mission and Dolores come to some resolution about which historic district they belong in; all eligible historic districts should be Article 10 districts.
- 1833 Page Street (Park Branch Library) – The Library has retained a preservation architect (Page and Turnbull) to help them re-evaluate their proposed changes to the library. They re-emphasized their willingness to explore making revisions based upon the preservation architect's recommendation to their project if the revisions do not result in any delay to their construction schedule or additional cost. Commissioner Damkroger questioned staff's recommendation to postpone initiation because she doesn't believe the initiation will impact the approved project. Staff explained the requirement of the 180 day hold for any new permit reviewed by Planning should the Library be in need of a new permit during construction. Commissioners Damkroger and Hasz did not feel that was a strong enough reason to not initiate. Commissioner felt that if the Library is willing to take the recommendations of the preservation architect and consider his door replacement to wood instead of metal, he would be willing to not initiate. However, the preservation architect's recommendation will not be available until next week or so. The Commission continued the hearing until October 7, 2009.
- The Appleton & Wolfard Libraries – The Commission continued this item, without hearing it, to October 7, 2009 with the instruction that it is the first item under the Regular Calendar category.
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:
Richard Rothman re: A proposal to put in a major supermarket chain in the 100 block of Dolores Street (his neighborhood)
Judy Berkowitz re: Requested the Commission hold public hearings on the 2009 Housing Element
- REGULAR CALENDAR
9a. 2006.0825CVS (E. Jackson: (415) 558-6363)
782-786 ANDOVER STREET - west side between Ellsworth Street and Benton Avenue, Lots 007-009 in Assessor's Block 5825 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 242(f) and 303 to allow the new construction of six dwelling units on three consecutive lots within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the South Slope of the Bernal Heights Special Use District. The project also includes a Subdivision Application for the proposal to reconfigure the three lots 90 degrees from the existing pattern.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Nancy Ganor and Carol Gavis spoke in support
ACTION: Approved as amended that the project sponsor will maintain the property beyond the retaining wall with landscaping
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
MOTION: 17951
9b. 2006.0825CVS (E. Jackson: (415) 558-6363)
782-786 ANDOVER STREET - west side between Ellsworth Street and Benton Avenue, Lots 007-009 in Assessor's Block 5825 - Request for Lot Width, Lot Area, and Parking Variances pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121(d), 121(e), and 242(e)(4) to allow the new construction of six dwelling units on three consecutive lots within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the South Slope of the Bernal Heights Special Use District. The Zoning Administrator will consider the Variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. The project also includes a Subdivision Application for the proposal to reconfigure the three lots 90 degrees from the existing pattern.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 9a
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variances subject to the standard conditions of approval and that the project sponsor will to the best of his ability try to design the front setback of the drive area as some sort of shared space that can accommodate cars, emergency response vehicles, and pedestrians as needed
10. (S. Wertheim: (415) 558-6612)
PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO, PIER 70 PREFERRED MASTER PLAN (bound by Mariposa, Illinois and 22nd Streets) - Assessor's Parcel 9900 Lots 068 & 070. Informational Presentation by the Port of San Francisco on the Pier 70 Draft Preferred Master Plan. In 2007, the Port of San Francisco initiated a community based planning process to develop a Preferred Master Plan for the Port's 65-acre Pier 70 site, which will lead to an update of the Port's Waterfront Land Use Plan policies for Pier 70. This planning effort included coordination with the Planning Department through the Central Waterfront and Eastern Neighborhoods Planning process. This informational presentation will focus on the planning process and key components of the draft Plan including the historic preservation strategy, land use, urban design, open space, transit and circulation, new development and comments received to date. The presentation will also outline how the Port and Planning department will continue to coordinate their efforts to maintain consistency between the Port and City Land Use Plans.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Only.
SPEAKERS: Kate O'Brian and Barbara Vos
ACTION: This was an informational item that did not require Commission action.
NOTE: Prior to the hearing, item 11 received a request for continuance. That request was considered and acted on at the beginning of the meeting under category A - Consideration of Items Proposed for Continuance.
11a. 2007.0921DD (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)
673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.09.20.3151 (demolition); proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-family dwelling, subdivide the lot and construct two, four-story, two-family buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009)
Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 24, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
11b. 2007.0921DD (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)
673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2007.09.20.3151; proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009)
Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 24, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
11c. 2008.1155D & 2008.1156D (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)
673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.09.20.3152 and 2007.09.20.3157 (new construction); proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-family dwelling, subdivide the lot and construct two, four-story, two-family buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify Project
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009)
Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 24, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
11d. 2008.1213D (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)
673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.09.20.3152 and 2007.09.20.3157; proposing to construct two new, four-story, two-unit buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify Project
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009)
Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 24, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
12a. 2008.0315D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)
829 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue between Argent and Dixie Allies, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 2778 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.29.9251, proposing the demolition of a single-family dwelling, located in the RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 3, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Erik George – supporting the DR, Tony Kim – representing the project sponsor, Gary Hong – supporting the project
ACTION: The Commission did not take Discretionary Review (DR) and approved the demolition
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
DRA: 0103
12b. 2009.0062D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)
829 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue, between Argent and Dixie Allies, extending through to Market Street, Lots 016 & 029 in Assessor's Block 2778 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.29.9248, proposing the construction of a new four-family dwelling, located in the RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the revised new construction with modifications.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 3, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a
ACTION: The Commission did take (DR) and approved the project per staff recommendations and that the project sponsor will continue working with staff on design
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
DRA: 0104
12c. 2009.0749D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)
829 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue, between Argent and Dixie Allies, extending through to Market Street, Lots 016 & 029 in Assessor's Block 2778 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.29.9248, proposing the construction of a new four-family dwelling, located in the RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the revised new construction with modifications.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 3, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a
ACTION: The Commission did take (DR) and approved the project per staff recommendations and that the project sponsor will continue working with staff on design
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya
DRA: 0105
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
- directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
SPEAKERS: None
Adjournment: 4:51 p.m.
Adopted: October 1, 2009
