San Francisco Planning Department : March 11, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, March 11, 2010
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Miguel

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Sara Vellve, Sharon Young, Glenn Cabreros, Mary Woods, AnMarie Rodgers, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2008.0992CESV (S. Hayward: (415) 558-6372)

200 DOLORES STREET - on the southwest corner of Dolores and 15^th Streets; Lot 063 in Assessor’s Block 3557 in an RTO (Residential, Transit-Oriented) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 151.1, 157, and 303 for a proposal to construct thirteen dwelling units with thirteen off-street parking spaces, and to replace three parking spaces for the adjacent property (Lot 062, Assessor’s Block 3557) that would be lost as a result of the proposed project. A Variance is also requested of the Zoning Administrator to construct a new building in the required rear yard and within the required front set back. A Variance from the Planning Code's open space requirement is requested of the Zoning Administrator by the adjacent parcel as a result of the lot line adjustment associated with the proposed project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

NOTE: On January 28, 2010, following testimony the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove the Conditional Use Authorization for a parking proposal by a vote +4 -3. Commissioners Antonini, Lee and Miguel voted against the motion. The item was then continued to February 11, 2010 for final action.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 11, 2010)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 25, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Miguel

2. 2010.0050T (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments relating to Planning Code Section 315 to amend the Affordable Housing Program and related components [BOS File No. 10-0046] - Ordinance introduced by Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Chiu that would amend Planning Code Section 315 et seq. to change the name of the Residential Inclusionary Housing Affordable Program to the Affordable Housing Program and to require all project applicants to pay the Affordable Housing fee unless they are eligible for an alternative; making other amendments to the program including expanding the uses of the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund, deleting provisions relating to certain requirements of off-site units, and deleting provisions requiring a refund of fees after issuance of certificate of occupancy; amending Section 827 to delete the requirement that 50% of on – or off- site affordable housing units provided under Section 315 et seq. in the Rincon Hill Area Plan be provided as rental; amending the Administrative Code by amending Chapter 56 related to Development Agreements to create certain exemptions from its requirements for rental housing developments with on-site inclusionary units; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 25, 2010)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 25, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Miguel

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

3. 2009.0682C (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

1225 STEINER STREET (aka 1150 PIERCE STREET) - between Eddy and Turk Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0751 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 304 of the Planning Code for a Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of a new approximately 1,500 square foot laundry and maintenance structure, and trash enclosures, in the central open area of a 3-story 101-unit residential development known as the Martin Luther King Co-operative within an RM-2 (Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

NOTE: Items 3 and 4 were taken off the Consent Calendar and called & heard together

SPEAKERS: In support: Kimberly McKay – Representing the Project Sponsor,Jim Fagler – Project Architect, Carmen Johnson, Carl Williams, Harvey Mendoza, Aberham Landry, Marva Brooks; In opposition: Kil Young, Ulysis Montgomery, Sharon Jones, Brian Manson, Chong Parks; Neutral or expressed concerns without supporting or opposing: Ace Washington, Brenda Davis, Evelyn Joplin

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Miguel

MOTION: 18043

4. 2009.0681C (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

1624 – 1654 EDDY STREET (aka 1303 STEINER STREET) - at Pierce and Ellis Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor’s Block 0730 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 303 and 304 of the Planning Code for a Planned Unit Development to allow the construction of a new approximately 600 square foot laundry structure, and trash enclosures, in the central open area of a 3-story 101-unit residential development known the Marcus Garvey Square Cooperative in the RM-2 (Mixed, Moderate Density) and NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning Districts and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

NOTE: Items 3 and 4 were taken off the Consent Calendar and called & heard together

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Miguel

MOTION: 18044

5. 2009.0552C (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

1501 LINCOLN WAY - southwest corner of Lincoln Way and 16^th Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1734 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303 for T-Mobile to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of eight panel antennas on the rooftop elevator and equipment penthouses of an existing 7-story residential building located within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the City and County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2 (Preferred Location – Co-Location Site) as it is a site on which a legal wireless telecommunications facility (three panel antennas installed by Sprint Nextel) is currently located.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

NOTE: Item 5 was taken off the Consent Calendar

SPEAKERS: In support: Rick Hurch – Project Sponsor (T-Mobile) Representative; In opposition: Peter Schwalbenberg, Xiaorong Li, Esther Liss, Ken, Keisha Roberts, Kenneth Milligan, Nickolas Knightly, Margaret Hough, Catherine Rouse, W. S. Wernrichter

ACTION: Approved as modified to preserve bicycle parking in the garage

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

ABSENT: Miguel

MOTION: 18045

C. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

6. 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.

Secretary Avery:

Completed Forms 700 are due by April 1. If you have not done so, please take the time to complete those forms.

Commissioner Antonini:

He expressed comments about legislation that is still before the Board of Supervisors regarding garage instillations and no-fault evictions. I don’t remember receiving material that gave exact figures or proof that those actually took place. My point is that when we have issues before us – and I know that staff has a busy schedule – but when there are issues when they are trying to justify a policy, I think we need to have findings that show in fact not just illusions to a practice that may or may not happen. We also want to see how frequent these are. So wherever possible when there are policies that come before us it would be nice if we could have substantiation of these claims when we are assessing things.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Sometime in the future it might be good if we had a joint discussion with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on Transfer Development Rights (TDR) – what they are; how they apply; how the private market functions; how prices are set – that kind of thing. [Commissioner Olague agreed.]

Secondly, perhaps on the Martin Luther King/Marcus Garvey issue we could have a report back after the first phase or some periodic reporting back on the progress of the development as an informational item – it could be the Director’s Report – so we are apprised of how it’s going. That was Ms. Avery’s suggestion actually.

Right about now should be the deadline for the Academy of Art.

Lastly, there was an article in Datebook in the Chronicle that had to do with spaces in between buildings. I found it to be pretty interesting. It reminded me that those are the kinds of things that we forget when we are looking at development projects – that sort of in-fill that is related to additions and that kind of thing. We might want to start paying closer attention to that.

Commissioner Moore:

A code was passed – the first of its kind in the country – in Glen Cove, New York, Nassau County, which requires 3D visualization for any project in front of the Supervisors, the Mayor, or their Planning Commission. There were visual examples given that were actually quite good. This allowed people to look at apples to apples instead of apples to potatoes as we sometimes do. I thought it was very good. We might want to look into it to see how it advances the presentation of projects. I saw an annotated presentation and was quite impressed. This was passed in November 2009 so it is relative new. I will forward all of you a link to that website so you could all see it and we might want to discuss that sometime.

Commissioner Olague:

Did we vote to have a sit/lie hearing? When are we going to do that? Maybe we should comment on it before it is actually …

AnMarie Rodgers:

That ordinance was introduced last week and since it does not amend the Planning Code it is not referred to us for a normal 90-day referral, but there is a 30-day hold for legislation and admin conception that allows the Planning Department to provide comment during that 30-day window and get it to the Board before they act. So 30 days from last Tuesday [is the limit].

Commissioner Olague:

That is cutting it kind of close. Maybe we can calendar something on March 25. Is that enough time Ms. Rodgers?

AnMarie Rodgers:

Yes, I believe that is enough time.

Commissioner Olague:

Great, then I’d like to calendar that on March 25^th.

Also, none of us anticipated that both of those Consent Calendar items related to the Redevelopment Area in the Western Addition would have such an intense hearing, but maybe in the future we should just assume that we shouldn’t place them on the consent Calendar. I just want to make that recommendation.

Are there translators for the Northeast Waterfront Plan hearings? It’s close enough to the North Beach/Chinatown area. Maybe you might want to check in with members of that community to see. You might want to do a hearing closer to the community to brief people and inform people of that plan. You might want to check in with Supervisor Chiu’s office or people in the community because I’ve heard those comments.

Commissioner Moore:

I’d like to make one comment regarding light. And while this might be later in the year, there is an international symposium on the subject of designing with light and color in urban environments. This is a symposium in Venice Italy. I’ve been asked to sit on the panel there, but it is very timely because in this particular discussion you have the discussion about urban design and art. But then you go into the issues of public health and psychology – like the feelings of cities; the importance of designing with color and light. I’d be happy to bring comments back. This might be too late for the timeframe you are looking for some answers, but the subject is indeed of international interest.

D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT

7. Director’s Announcements

Director Rahaim:

I did want to report to you on the current progress on the Academy of Art. We have agreed that we would have a formal hearing and update on a quarterly basis to both you and the Board. But as Commissioner Sugaya pointed out, the letter that I sent on the 8^th of February had a couple of 30-day deadlines, and those 30-day deadlines were yesterday. There were two deadlines that were related to yesterday. One was the submission of materials for the Environmental Impact Report. We did receive that yesterday. Staff is reviewing those materials to make sure that it meets the requirements. But it appears on the surface that most of the required information we’ve asked for has been submitted.

The other 30-day deadline is related to signs. We had asked that signs that were in violation of city sign regulations be removed in 30 days. Specifically these were signs that were on buildings that had use violations. We did allow that if there were signs on buildings that had no use violations, they could seek permits for those signs. The signs we asked to be removed by yesterday were not removed. We are preparing compliance letters which gives the Academy 15 days to comply. If the signs are not removed in the 15 days, we will issue notices of violations with fines.

I did want to report on the other progress as well. Chris Haw of the staff has been leading this effort and I just want to give her a plug here today because she has been doing a good job. I think the most significant thing that we’ve done is set up a coordinated interdepartmental task force. That includes the Fire Department, the City Attorney’s Office, the Department of Public Health, and four divisions of DBI. There are staffs from all of those agencies that are meeting. The idea is that they will inspect one to two properties a week at the Academy. We have sent the Academy a certified letter informing them of this and we will systematically, with the entire team look at all the properties of the Academy. In addition, we have visited the properties that were acquired after the EIR was submitted a year and a half ago. Those were the ones that were not addressed in the EIR at that time. We wanted to verify the uses of each of those buildings to see if there would be use violations. We are preparing that final information now and if necessary we will be preparing enforcement notifications for the ones that are in violation.

Finally, on the transportation issues, we had asked that the information on their transportation program (the buses and so on which many of you have raised) be submitted as part of this information. So we are sifting through that now to make sure that we get the information that we need. I can’t tell you at this moment if all of it is there since we just got that yesterday, but staff is reviewing it right now to make sure.

We are making some progress here and as I mentioned before, we are meeting monthly with them – a meeting that I’m chairing. The next meeting is next week and that is with staff of the Planning Department and staff of the Academy to make sure we are making progress.

On a couple of other issues: Commissioner Moore mentioned the 3D visualization – we had been talking a few months to the Department of Information Technology of the city. They have recently acquired the capability for that. We had thought we were going to have to do this on our own. We are working with them on what we can do at least in-house – whether it goes to an animated version – I don’t know that yet. We have to figure it out, but we are certainly trying to move forward with that. It has been on our work plan for quite sometime to try to do something there.

Lastly, you may have heard that on Monday at Land Use Committee yet again took up DR Reform proposal. The Committee voted to continue it indefinitely to the call of the Chair. I just wanted to let you know that I expressed some strong frustration on that because I felt that we had been doing a lot of work to address the concerns that had risen and I expressed some strong disappointment that this was being deferred indefinitely.

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Land Use Committee:

· DR Reform proposal – Since you adopted the DR Reform policy and your referral to the Board of Supervisors last year on June 18^th to adopt DR Reform legislation, the Committee has had this before them on four different occasions. Monday was the fifth time it was before them and that followed an item that was before you last week to consider 9 amendments to your policy as recommended by Supervisor Mar. You recommended approval of these and recommended three more changes that 1) would give one commissioner the ability to pull an administratively denied DR case; 2) give automatic Commission hearing for DR applicants on certain projects such as new construction on vacant lots, major alterations to rear yard cottages, etc; and 3) a requirement that the pre-application process must be followed for formula retail uses. At the fifth hearing Supervisor Mar started by introducing his proposed amendments and then stating that he would like to continue the item to the call of the Chair while acknowledging the hard work of the public, this Commission and staff. As you heard, Director Rahaim did respond. Staff also responded to requests from the Committee for additional data. That data was presented to you last Thursday. The statistics largely demonstrated a great consistency between staff recommendations and Commission action. Public comment was lengthy and diverse addressing both continued concerns about change as well frustration with existing process. In the end the Committee stated that it was not the right time for action, but would continue to monitor the DR actions by this Commission in the coming months. With that it was continued to the call of the Chair and could be called up at a later time.

Full Board of Supervisors:

· The Zoning Map Amendment for 1415 Mission Street – This would change the zoning from C-M (Heavy Commercial to C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial). This item was finally passed by the full Board this week.

· Supervisor Chiu’s Parking Requirements for Garage Installation in Existing residential Buildings in a limited area around Telegraph Hill, North Beach and Chinatown – you recommended approval with modifications at your 1/14 hearing. Those were largely accommodated in the Supervisor’s proposal except one. At the full Board the item passed on the first reading in early February. At the second reading in February, Supervisor Dufty requested a two-week continuance. At Tuesday’s hearing, Supervisor Chu made one small amendment to the legislation – limiting the ban on new curb cuts on Broadway from Embarcadero to Mason Street instead of Polk Street as this Commission recommended. With that, the amended ordinance was passed on a first read

· Supervisor Maxwell had sponsored a $400,000 appropriation – This was for the little highway property exchange to fund park and open space planning for the Planning Commission fiscal year 09/10. The money would have come from a transfer of property that is city owned property and also Nor Cal Waste facility property. At the Board this week there was a discussion of this item in relation to the surplus property ordinance, which requires surplus city holding to be used for affordable housing first if possible. Some supervisors questioned the appropriateness of this funding to be spent on open space planning and not affordable housing. During the discussion at the Board … specifically excludes rights of land properties from the definition of property in the ordinance. With that, the appropriation for the open space planning passed on a +7 -3 vote

· Seismic Strengthening for soft-story, wood-frame buildings passed its first reading this week

Introductions:

· Supervisor Maxwell introduced a hearing request for the status of redevelopment of the former Naval Station at Treasure Island – This would include land use planning, infrastructure plans and the draft design for documents. That would be a hearing at the Board in future weeks.

SPEAKERS: Marilyn Amini

BOARD OF APPEALS:

There was no hearing this week.

Historic Preservation Commission:

There was no hearing this week.

E. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

SPEAKERS:

Joe Butler – Member of the Little House Committee

Re: Assessors Block 501 on the west side of Russian Hill. In April a project will be before you for demolition and new construction.

Sue Hestor

Re: 555 Washington Street document submittal by the Project Sponsor

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

9a. 2009.0412CV (G. Cabreros: (415) 558-6169)

1338 Filbert Street - north side between Larkin and Polk Streets; Lots 031, 032, 033 and 034 in Assessor's Block 0524 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 157, 204.5, 303 and 317 of the Planning Code proposing to merge ten dwelling units to four dwelling units and to allow two accessory parking spaces above the amount allowed as-of-right by the Planning Code for a total of eight parking spaces within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two- Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District,

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 8, 2010

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

ABSENT: Miguel

9b. 2009.0412CV (G. Cabreros: (415) 558-6169)

1338 FILBERT STREET - north side of the street between Larkin and Polk Streets; Lots 031, 032, 033 and 034 in Assessor's Block 0524 - Request for Rear Yard, Open Space and Noncomplying Structure Variances to alter the four existing structures and to construct a three-story horizontal addition to the four structures along the east side property line and to construct an underground parking garage in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The four existing structures are also known as the Filbert Street Cottages, City Landmark No. 232.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 8, 2010

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

ABSENT: Miguel

10a. 2009.0927DV (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

1345 MASONIC AVENUE - west side between Waller and Frederick Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 1255 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.09.29.7896, proposing to replace and expand a three-story sunroom at the rear of the four-story, single-family dwelling. The proposal will involve removing the existing sunroom and constructing a new sunroom with roof deck above (approximately 17’6” wide by 10’ deep by 34’6” above grade) in its place, so that the new extension will have equal side setbacks (3’6” to 4’) with the existing one-story deck to the rear of the addition.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve project with modifications.

SPEAKERS: In support of the DR: Jeff Webb – DR Requestor; In support of the project: Andy Morrell – Project Architect and Tom – Project Sponsor

ACTION: The Commission took DR and approved per staff proposed modifications

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

ABSENT: Miguel

DRA No.: 0140

10b. 2009.0927DV (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

1345 MASONIC AVENUE - west side between Waller and Frederick Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 1255 - Request for Variances pursuant to Sections 134 and 188 of the Planning Code to replace and expand a three-story sunroom at the rear of the four-story, single-family dwelling. The proposal will involve removing the existing sunroom and constructing a new sunroom with roof deck above (approximately 17’6” wide by 10’ deep by addition. This proposal requires Rear Yard and Noncomplying Structure Variances because a portion of the proposed sunroom will extend into the required rear yard and expand an existing building that is a legal noncomplying structure. The public hearing for the Variance (Case No. 2009.0927V) was on November 18, 2009 and was separately noticed on November 6, 2009. The public hearing on the Variances remains open. The Variance decision will be issued following the Commission’s consideration of the Discretionary Review request.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 10a

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and stated his inclination to grant the variances requiring steel wire railing for the deck and subject to the standard conditions of approval

11. 2009.1067D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2006-08 Pierce Street - east side between California Street and Perine Place; Lot 015A in Assessor’s Block 0634 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.10.04.4615S, proposing to merge four dwelling units into two dwelling units within a two-story over basement 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 the application

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 11, 2010)

SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul – Representing the Project Sponsor; Susanne Ashford – Project Sponsor

Motion: To not take DR and approve the project as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Borden and Lee

NAYES: Moore, Sugaya and Olague

ABSENT: Miguel

RESULT: The Motion Failed

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

DRA No.: 0141

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 6:09 P.M.

Adopted: April 1, 2010

Last updated: 4/5/2010 12:51:27 PM