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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
June 1, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

&

Calendar

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 1, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: President Sue Lee; Vice President Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; Shelley Bradford-Bell; Kevin Hughes; William Lee; and Christina Olague

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:38 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; Jonas Ionin; Alicia John-Baptiste; Elaine Forbes; Tina Tam; Craig Nikitas; Mary Woods; Kelly Amdur; Rick Crawford; Delvin Washington; Lois Scott; 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. 2006.0506C (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

1320 Castro Street - west side between 24th Street and Jersey Street Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 6506 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 728.42, 728.24, 728.41establish a full-service restaurant with a full bar and outdoor seating in the rear yard. The subject property is located in the 24th Street, Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

2. 2005.0816IC (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

55 STOCKTON STREET - southwest corner of intersection with O'Farrell Street, Lot 1, in Assessor's Block 327 - Request for a Conditional Use authorization to convert three dwelling units located above ground level to institutional space for the subject property, which is in the C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert three dwelling units on the top floor of the existing subject eight-story mixed use building, containing retail on the first two levels, office uses on the third through seventh levels, plus the subject three dwelling units occupying the eighth floor. The Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising, which currently occupies office space on three floors of the subject building, needs additional institutional space and plans to occupy the eighth floor of the building where the three dwelling units are currently located.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

3. 2005.0552E (M. Jacinto: (415) 558-5988)

340-350 Fremont Street - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project would involve demolition of two existing marine labor union halls and construction of a 40-story, 400-foot-tall building containing 380 residential units, with up to 380 off-street parking spaces located on five levels of below-grade parking. The project would provide about 108 bicycle stalls, two off-street loading spaces, approximately 20,400 square feet of onsite open space, and additional publicly accessible open space at an off-site location. The 350 and 340 Fremont Street buildings, constructed in 1956 and 1962 respectively, are considered historical resources under CEQA for their associations with maritime union history. The project site is located mid-block on the west side of Fremont Street between Folsom and Harrison Streets (Assessor's Block 3748; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9). The site is within the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential use district and a 400-R height and bulk district. This Draft EIR is tiered from the Final EIR for the Rincon Hill Plan (Case No. 2000.1081E; State Clearinghouse No. 1984061912).

Please note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report is closed. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar. Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. (Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

4a. 2004.0552X (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

340-350 FREMONT STREET - west side between Harrison Street and Folsom Street, Lots 006, 007, 008, and 009 of Assessor's Block 3748 - Request under Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and an exception to allow: (1) greater than one parking space for every two units (Planning Code sections 151.2 and 309.1(b)(1)(B)); (2) dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Sections 140 and 309.1(b)(1)(D)); (3) tower separation (Planning Code Section 270(e)(4)); and (4) the provision of the required usable open space off-site (Planning Code Sections 309.1(b)(1)(G) and (H) and 309.1(e)(2)). The project is to demolish the existing two buildings (340 and 350 Fremont Street) and construct a residential project that would consist of a tower reaching 400-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouse and screening). The project would feature a publicly accessible pedestrian path on its north side that would be aligned with townhouse units. The project would include approximately 330 dwelling units and approximately 330 parking spaces. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and a 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

4b. 2004.0552V (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

340-350 FREMONT STREET - west side between Harrison Street and Folsom Street, Lots 006, 007, 008, and 009 of Assessor's Block 37487 - Request for a Variance to vary the specification for front entry stoops; Planning Code Section 827(d)(5)(C) requires that along the subject portion of Fremont Street, residential entries have front stoops that have a height of at least three-feet on average. As proposed, the required townhouse units along Fremont Street would be at grade. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

5a. 2006.0358X (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

399 FREMONT STREET - northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 - Request under proposed Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and an exception to allow greater than one parking space for every two units (Planning Code sections 151.2 and 309.1(b)(1)(B), dwelling units exposure (Planning Code Sections 140 and 309.1(b)(1)(D), and to allow a portion of the parking garage above grade (Planning Code Section 827(7)(A) and 309.1(a)(a)(D)). The project is to demolish the existing three buildings (375 Fremont Street, 385 Fremont Street and 399 Fremont Street) and construct a residential project that would consist of a tower reaching 400-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouse and screening) that would be sited at the corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street; the project would also consist of a podium structure that would align Fremont Street and Harrison Street and would feature townhouse units. The project would include approximately 432 dwelling units and up to 432 parking spaces (one half of which would be independently accessible). The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

5b. 2006.0358V (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

399 FREMONT STREET - northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 - Request for a Variance to vary the specification for front entry stoops; Planning Code Section 827(d)(5)(C) requires that along the subject portion of Fremont Street, residential entries have front stoops that have a height of at least three-feet on average. As proposed, the required townhouse units would feature ramps that would lead to stoops that would be less than three-feet above grade on average. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

6. 2006.0092ET (d. sider: (415) 558-6697)

Planning Code amendments relating to Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCD's) [Board File No. 060032] On January 10, 2006, Supervisors Mirkarimi and Ma introduced legislation which would have allowed certain existing MCD's to relocate irrespective of Planning Code restrictions on the proximity of new MCD's to schools and recreation buildings. On March 28, 2006 a substitute Ordinance was introduced which instead would amend [1] grandfathering provisions for existing MCD's, [2] the definition of a  recreation building' with respect to proximity restrictions for new and existing MCD's, and [3] noticing requirements for MCD permits. The substitute Ordinance would also modify portions of the Health Code in order to make amendments to the MCD permitting process and MCD permit provisions.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

7. 2006.0409D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

1 BELGRAVE AVENUE- south side at the end of Belgrave Avenue, east of Shrader Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 2662 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.07.7059S, proposing to add an approximately 200 square foot first floor addition and an approximately 180 square foot second floor addition to the rear of an existing two-story over garage single-family dwelling in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-x Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 4, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 15July 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to July 20, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

8a. 2005.0713D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET -north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No.2005.03.11.7350 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new single-family dwelling) in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 4, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

8b. 2005.1070D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET - north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin streets; lot 006 in assessor's block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the planning commission's policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, of building Permit Application no. 2005.03.11.7348 for the new construction of a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 4, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Alexander and Olague

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

9. 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

- I want to take this opportunity since I was away last week, to thank Kevin Hughes who will not return to the commission and not seek re-appointment.

- It's been a great honor for me to work with Kevin.

- If there was ever a difficult situation that needed a solution, we could count on Kevin to do it.

- It was a solution that would be approved.

- I've put together solutions but Kevin would put it together and people would approve it.

- I want to thank you for your service over the years.

- I'm going to miss you.

- I go away and I missed two sessions.

- Last week we had an interesting situation about the tall towers being in New York and Philadelphia – people see it's something that is being done.

- I don't know if others are seeing, but we are seeing a resurgence of commercial establishments in big cities after [they] moved to suburban areas.

- They are realizing a lot of the population wants to live in urban areas.

- I'm impressed with Philadelphia.

- I was there in 2000 and there has been a huge improvement.

- Two matters I think is good news:

- I wanted to announce that the Cal women's crew team won the National Championship.

- The good part about that is 10 of the girls, among the 16 teams, were from San Francisco.

- And that is the highest of any city in the world.

- These teams have as part of their teams, girls from Australia, Europe and the United States.

- It must be the training on Lake Merced.

- As you are in New York and other cities, even though we don't have as many Fortune 500 companies, ours are visible.

- There are new ones that established their presence in those areas.

- I think that speaks well of some of our companies' back there and the fact that our presence is felt throughout the world.

Commissioner Hughes

- Thank you Mike. I appreciate your kind words.

- Last week Sue Hestor requested another review of the Demolition Policy.

  1. And this last week I've been thinking about that. I was trying to recall, what is left?
  2. We did a revision and another revision. It's a growing document.

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded

  1. I was prepared to comment under Director's Report on this.
  2. We are going to have an informational hearing on June 15th on this.
  3. We are proceeding with establishing legislation. Taking your policy to the next level and making it legislation that would apply.
  4. I think we proposed concepts and refined them and are now close to having legislation.

Commissioner Bill Lee

  1. I would like to ask staff is there any way we can get a sense of a number from the other Bay Area Counties as to the number of housing units they have approved?
  2. Given the projections we have another million people in the Bay Area within the next 10 years.
  3. We don't have enough housing now.
  4. Housing has gone up higher in San Francisco. We lost 32,000 in the last few years.
  5. We are not going to build enough housing but does the Bay Area itself have plans for a massive increase in housing?
  6. I would appreciate a report.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

  1. Director's Announcements

Director Macris

  1. Let me comment on the Socio Economic Report for the Eastern Neighborhoods in draft form. This is the first iteration of this.
  2. I think it would be useful if we had a workshop on this report so we could receive public comment about it.
  3. I've checked with the Commission Secretary, It seems as if the best thing for us to do is to have a little extra session.
  4. I recommend that on June 15th, a couple of weeks from now that we convene earlier.
  5. I would like it if we could have a majority of the Commission here by 11:00 a.m. to here public comment regarding this plan.
  6. I wish we could do it as part of the regular calendar but there simply isn't enough time.
  7. It is important for us to hear public comment so we can continue to revise the draft and move forward with the Eastern Neighborhood's plan program.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I think I would like to wait on the time.
  2. I'm concerned 11:00 is too early for people who are most impacted by this type of a study.
  3. I want to make sure it is convenient for the public and 11:00 is not.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. I think the more time you allow for discussion the better.
  2. Sometimes we calendar 11 and it begins later.
  3. It might be okay.

President Sue Lee

  1. I'm concerned about the time.
  2. If we were to take an earlier time and reserve a later time.
  3. Maybe we go at 11 and do a 6 o'clock and split it?

Commissioner Bradford-Bell

  1. To build on that, we could start our hearing at noon and hold a 6 o'clock special on this.
  2. Either way, as long as it is something at 6, you get the greater mass of people that would be impacted.

Commissioner Hughes

  1. Noon and 6 works for me.

Director Macris

  1. Thank you. I think we have enough direction.
  2. We will plan on having a two-session event on June 15th on this report.
  3. Also, on May 23rd in the evening we had a workshop. There was a large crowd of 200 to 300 people.
  4. We (staff) were heartened by the outcome.
  5. We learned there is a lot of support to move forward with this plan.
  6. We are trying to remain on schedule and have this ready for action sometime in August. I wanted you to know that we made good progress in that area.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. I wanted to comment that a number of commissioners and the public wanted a report on senior units raised by three projects in the valley, but we are doing a broader report on that.
  2. That is scheduled for next week. There is a brief memorandum in your packet and that will be available tomorrow.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I wanted to ask that the senior housing report include criteria that are used to determine sites for senior housing. Like what makes it an appropriate site for housing?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. It is not in the case report.
  2. It is a voluntary thing by a project sponsor.
  3. We can discuss that but it is the choice of the project sponsor to do senior housing.

Director Macris

  1. We have talked to the Chairperson of the Arts Council group and we have settled on the date of September 7th to have a discussion on that report.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. The Eastern Neighborhood Impact Study has been sent by email but I didn't receive one yet. When is it coming?

Director Macris

  1. I'm sorry to hear that. We will make sure you get it before we leave today.

11. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

Both the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Appeals were on vacation last week. There were no actions.

12. (A. GHOSH: (415) 558-6282)

INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION BY THE AIA - This is the second in a series of presentations. The first presentation, "Understanding Context", presented on February 2, 2006, showed how a building can be successful without having to mimic its neighbor, using innovative design solutions. This next presentation expands this concept to larger projects, as they play an important role in successfully contributing to and framing the public realm within its neighborhood.

PRESENTERS:

John Schlessinger, AIA

  1. I want to take the opportunity to thank you, Commissioner Hughes for your insight in a variety of cases we have seen. Your deliberations will be missed.
  2. Commissioners, when we presented our presentation on the second of February, there was a number of items that you talked about after the presentation, which we took to heart.
  3. Commissioner Olague said that that was the most fun she had had in a Planning Commission hearing thus far.
  4. Hopefully, you have had fun since then.
  5. Commissioner Bell you mentioned it was important to bring this to neighborhood organizations and community groups, which we have started to do.
  6. We had a presentation at SPUR and [CAPPA?] and received solid feedback.
  7. We are in contact with Supervisor Maxwell's office and will have a presentation before her.
  8. This is an on-going process to the community and the Commissioners and staff.
  9. Commissioners, during our presentation on February 2nd on understanding context, we showed you ways of constructing it with its surroundings.
  10. We encouraged you to set aside the preconceived notions and see that all projects don't have to look alike; they don't have to mimic, but can emulate and contrast at the same time.
  11. We hope you use the words emulate and contrast as a way of discussing context when reviewing projects.
  12. In the presentation we talked about how differing architect designs, colors and materials can relate to each other as next door neighbors without being limited by a particular architectural style.
  13. In addition to the building relating to its neighbors its success can be measured by its urban design qualities.
  14. These qualities of the building help shape the public realm. It can be thought of as a city's room that is open to the sky; that connects the domains of buildings.
  15. It can be seen as the open space acting as an extension to the building's front porch.
  16. The open space with the building and its neighbors is where we gather and recreate.
  17. Streets, sidewalks, transportation lines and other paths are part of the public realm.
  18. On wider thoroughfares benches and street furniture help frame the public realm.
  19. They have a greater amount of sidewalk activity.
  20. Using a picture of a former manufacturing district he was able to show that the public realm can change using furniture and paving.
  21. First, development has been home to institutional leases. The commercial development will better define the public realm.
  22. This is because buildings along with the public realm become sign posts giving us directions by defining the character of the city by contrasting with their neighbors.
  23. Different areas of San Francisco have their own special characters, physical and cultural, to draw upon in making the design decisions in Mission Bay.
  24. At City Hall on April 10th, there was an excellent presentation by the Mayor and City Planning and the AIA focused on how improving the public realm contributes to the success of a city.
  25. Today's demonstration is showing how design excellence will contribute to the public realm.
  26. When removing freeways, new street uses and open spaces may be introduced as shown in the Octavia Boulevard.
  27. The plans here that will deliberate in the future for increasing the density with the design of larger and taller buildings can provide opportunities to improve the public realm.
  28. Today our goals are to define the terms and standards to review larger projects by showing how innovative solutions can contribute to the quality of the public realm and provide conditions with a check list.
  29. During the last 15 years, San Francisco has seen a surge in construction especially in certain kinds of larger residential and mixed use developments.
  30. They have been controversial buildings when they are first proposed.
  31. Soon after, they become a model for future projects.
  32. While the need for more housing in San Francisco has reached its greatest demand, the allowable building density has remained the same or been reduced.
  33. This increased housing development pressure on downtown, or on districts by light industry or larger underused parcels near residential districts. In these areas zoning classifications were changed to change the building density to high rise developments.
  34. Showing a project that has successful features, he acknowledged that there is less understanding as to why it is successful as a contributor to the public realm.
  35. We looked at three ways of how proposed projects can be evaluated in reviewing the successful contribution.
  36. One includes the buildings connection to the street. The way its profile meets the sky and how the building scale relates to the adjacent buildings and streets.
  37. Today we will discuss the street and the way the profile meets the sky.
  38. The next presentation we will discuss a building scale and how it relates to streets in open space and the way materials play a part in the role.
  39. Connecting to the street may be handled in many ways depending on its size, use and orientation.
  40. It can be setback to ground elevations.
  41. It can be used to allow landscaping or other transitional spaces.
  42. Or it can be used for landscaping and [hard scaping (?)] to reflect the prevailing setbacks within an already established street frontage.
  43. Also, it could be located at the boundary of the public walkway to provide an edge to the street.
  44. And it could overhang the public realm to create closure.
  45. The important feature of the connections is how a building's lower floors are articulated and how it is entered by pedestrians and autos.
  46. Some buildings have single pedestrian and vehicular entrances at the ground floor.
  47. Very often, the reason for this is a Building or Fire Code requirement to maintain separateness in use with parking at the ground floor and residential use up above.
  48. This results in a need to successfully address the remaining street frontage with landscaping or building elements.
  49. On larger buildings of different construction types there is the opportunity to overlap uses allowing ground floor parking that would otherwise create an opaque barrier with the building and the public realm.
  50. Other buildings have the opportunity to introduce entrances while having the ground floor and upper floor use the public amenities contribute to help the public realm remain vibrant.
  51. This provides a series of entrances independent of each unit and a separate collective entry.
  52. You may have a center entrance for upper level living units. Ground floor units that face the street and the garage can access off of the side street.
  53. [Showed a building that has a series of uses on the ground floor allowing a series of entrances to the units and the community usage.]
  54. The building, with the change of materials, window openings, entrances and transparency provides a vibrant addition to the ground floor.
  55. For the building profile, a city's public realm issue is imitated by its changes to the building height and profile on the skyline.
  56. You have low-rise, high-rise and the modulating height of the buildings enhancing the city's skyline.
  57. As it meets the sky, a building gives shapes to the upper reaches of the public realm.
  58. This can be done with a combination of volumes, a more consistent roof line or one with dramatic differences in roof height.
  59. Up close, we see the profile buildings from many vantage points and in a variety of speeds.
  60. We drive by them on the street and pay attention to the buildings where you have the property line wall defining the difference between the buildings and enhancing the public realm.
  61. We walk or ride by them.
  62. We view them stationary looking across or at an angle from the street or from a neighboring building.
  63. The way the edge of a building and the way its face meets the sky or the space between itself and its neighbors will determine whether it becomes a street post or a wall or a combination of both.
  64. The examples answer the questions on how projects large and small can coexist by having options of buildings and how they meet the sky.
  65. We look forward to our next presentation at a time we will jointly decide on.
  66. Thank you.

SPEAKERS:

Sue Hestor

  1. I'm concerned that these discussions happen.
  2. The process that we now have is a developer spends a lot of time messaging staff and the staff massages the design and it comes to you with a bow wrapped around it.
  3. These are plans for 340 Fremont on for next week.
  4. The questions I asked on 340 Fremont were in relationship to the community relationship to the street. Now this building doesn't show that there is a PG & E substation next to the townhouses that are tall and ugly.
  5. How do you have a discussion on how this relates to anything?
  6. I'm dealing with the real world and the real world is these packets.
  7. Sometimes you get bird in the sky perspectives.
  8. You have a lot of bird perspectives looking down.
  9. I'm caring about the street.
  10. My question is how does this circulation work for the pedestrians two parcels across the street from each other in the most residential area you have approved?
  11. How does this work?
  12. I'm having a hard time understanding these projects if you do cases on one week notice.
  13. With this kind of information all you have is everyone coming in with their architect model and no information ahead of time.
  14. Are you getting the information you need?
  15. I don't think so.

ACTION: Informational only. No action required

D. 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:

Steve Atkinson – Representing the Academy Art University

- At the last meeting there was a status on the Master Plan of the University.

- I'm pleased to advise the Commission that the plan was submitted today and we look forward to answering questions.

- Then at an appropriate time in the next few months, a meeting will be scheduled for public comment.

E. 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:

Sue Hestor

  1. My question is, who got this policy in advance of the hearing?
  2. I know I did because I asked for it.
  3. The problem we have with policies that have multiple hearings is people lose track of them.
  4. The people that are concerned about dwelling init mergers are neighborhood people and organizations and people who deal with affordable housing.
  5. I don't know anyone who got this.
  6. I want to know who got this.
  7. What input has there been since the last hearing?
  8. Are people aware of it?

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

13. (J. Ionin: (415) 558-6309)

Dwelling Unit Merger Policy - Mandatory Discretionary Review Policy for Dwelling Unit Mergers - Planning Department presentation of new guidelines, policy objectives, and implementation alternatives for Planning Commission consideration.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 4, 2006)

NOTE: On January 26, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter, by a vote +5 –0. Commissioner Hughes and W. Lee were absent. Public hearing remains open to address any new information presented.

NOTE: On May 4, 2006, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve as modified; by a vote +6 –0. Final Language on 6/1/06.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Following some deliberation by the Commission, continued to June 15, 2006

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

  • REGULAR CALENDAR

14. (A. JOHN-BAPTISTE: (415) 558-6547)

Planning Department Budget and Proposed Fee Structure - Consideration of adjustments to rates, fees, and fines, including but not limited to fee collection, allocation, and disbursements relevant to the operations of the Planning Department during FY2007 and beyond.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with changes: The Planning Department shall undertake a 2 tier monitoring program, a reporting of data from selected sources that are gathered on a regular basis; and two, every 5 years a more expansive data effort that includes an analysis of long-term policy indicators such as the urban form goals, any impact fee funds, and provides analysis of the Downtown Plan's policy objectives.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17251

15. 2005.1135L (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

Median Strip on Sloat Boulevard at 45th Avenue- Request for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution approving the designation of the Doggie Diner Sign as City Landmark No. 254 and recommending it to the Board of Supervisors. The subject sign is located on the median strip (public right-of-way) of Sloat Boulevard at 45th Avenue.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve recommending designation to the Board of Supervisors

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

MOTION: 17253

16a. 2003.0159CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2527 Mission Street - east side, between 21st and 22nd Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 3615 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j), 303, and 712.70 to allow a reduction in the off-street parking requirement for dwelling units, for new construction of a mixed use four-unit residential and commercial building, within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 65-B Height and Bulk designation, and in the Housing/Mixed Use Zone as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727. The project also includes a Variance request for the off-street parking requirement for the proposed office and retail uses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Philip – Speaking on behalf of the Project Sponsors

  1. Last time we were here we were asked more questions about the design and the quality of the work than the parking.
  2. I spoke to the parking.
  3. At the last hearing, Commissioner Olague and Lee asked that this project be made harmonious with the neighborhood.
  4. As a result, I would like to ask some of the neighbors who waited all these hours to stand up and show their support if they are in support of this project. (A number of people stood up in support.)
  5. We have quantity and quality.
  6. We have incorporated into the design the qualities the neighborhood wants. The design was a community effort and I thank Commissioner Olague for your time to meet with members of the community.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

MOTION: 17254

16b. 2003.0159CV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2527 Mission Street- east side, between 21st and 22nd Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 3615 - Request for Off-Street Parking Variance under Planning Code Section 151 to require off-street parking be provided in the minimum quantities specified per each principal use of a building over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. A total of 13 independently accessible off-street parking spaces are required as a result of the proposed office and retail uses on the first and second floors. No parking is proposed. The Zoning Administrator will consider the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

Item 17 was taken out of order and followed item 14.

17. 2004.0973C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

7070 CALIFORNIA STREET (a.k.a. 229 - 32nd Avenue) - north side on a through lot to El Camino del Mar between 32nd Avenue and Lincoln Park; Lot 37 in Assessor's Block 1392 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.3(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to modify a previously approved Planned Unit Development under Motion No. 13678 for Case No. 1994.003C for a private elementary and middle school for girls (Kindergarten through grade 8), The Katherine Delmar Burke School, to allow the construction of a new two-story arts and sciences building, and the renovation of existing facilities, in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family Detached Dwelling) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Planned Unit Development would include an exception to rear yard requirements of the Planning Code.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 11, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Mary Griffin – Project Architect

  1. We have been working with the school on the design of their improved facilities.
  2. It is a long narrow site.
  3. The entry is on California.
  4. The proposed new building is on the far right side.
  5. The school needed an improved and enlarged library and improved science and arts classes for the older girls.
  6. Rather than put the library at the far end of the site, we put it at the heart of the campus between the lunchroom and gym.
  7. That meant that the classrooms that were displaced to renovate the library are in the new building.
  8. We located the building on a 90-foot setback and tucked in between its neighbors.
  9. We redesigned the building in discussion with the neighbors over the last year.
  10. The building we are proposing today is 30 percent smaller than originally proposed.

Harry O'Brian

  1. The conditions of approval on literally a word for word basis were negotiated over a very intense period of time together with a private agreement between the parties that is not before you.
  2. They go hand in glove and my concern is that rather than accept the compromise that the parties in good faith have worked out, there may be some of you who want to tinker with them.
  3. Because they are integrated with the agreement and because we all agree, I couldn't be happier.
  4. We now have an agreement that we can all live with.
  5. We worked with the Planning Director.
  6. Don't change the conditions of approval or the agreement falls apart.

MOTION: To approve as staff proposed

AYES: Antonini, W. Lee, and Olague

NAYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and S. Lee

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Approved as amended by Commissioner Alexander:

[He removed from the Conditions of Approval anything identified as a private agreement and not enforceable by the Planning Department. That included A3; the last sentence of C3; D1; last sentence of E1; E2; F1; H5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13; #2, 3, 4, and 6 under Parking; J9, 10,

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

MOTION: 17252

18a. 2004.0664EXCV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

201 SECOND STREET - southeast corner of Second Street and Howard Street, Lot 97 in Assessor's Block 3736 - Request for (1) Findings of Compliance with CEQA, and (2) Determinations of Compliance and Exceptions pursuant to Code Section 309, for a project that would demolish a surface parking lot and construct a 19-story, approximately 180-foot tall building with approximately 103 dwelling units, 1,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space and parking for up to 28 cars. The project also requires conditional use authorization for dwelling unit density. The project will be the subject of a concurrent variance hearing before the Zoning Administrator because approximately 17 of the 104 dwelling units would not have Code-required dwelling unit exposure. This project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, the 350-S Height and Bulk District, and within the proposed Transbay C-3 Special Use District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Jim Rubin – Representing the Project Sponsor

- I was here five years ago on the same site as the .com boom collapsed.

- There is a building that's approved at that site and we could build that building today.

- At this point we spent the last couple of years converting that to residential and that is what is before you.

- Bob and Christian made an award winning design.

- I think it is a contribution to the streetscape and the neighborhood.

Christian – Project Architect

  1. This is a 19-story condominium project with 5,000 square feet. The tower is 180 feet tall. It is not much taller than previously approved.
  2. It has 103 dwelling units and a 900 square foot retail space at the base and 28 cars in a paring system.
  3. If you have questions, I will have answers for you.
  4. The site is presently a parking lot located on Second Street and Howard Street.
  5. The residential entrance is on Second Street and the garage is in the alley.
  6. The garage exits on to Howard Street.
  7. Along Howard and on the corner you will see that we have the retail spaces.
  8. [He went on to show where the one and two bedroom units would be located and which two-bedroom units would have balconies.]
  9. The one-bedroom units are 750 square feet and the two-bedroom units are 1100 square feet.
  10. The two bedroom units have their own private balconies. The one-bedroom units share the common space on the roof.
  11. The upper stories are clad in limestone colored paneling.
  12. The project is triangle.
  13. The top is the open space so it provides a windbreak for the residents.
  14. The windows are setback on the south side.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

MOTION: 17255

18b. 2004.0664EXCV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

201 SECOND STREET - southeast corner of Second Street and Howard Street, Lot 97 in Assessor's Block 3736 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for dwelling unit density, for a project that would demolish the existing surface parking lot and construct a 19-story, approximately 180-foot tall building with approximately 103 dwelling units, 1,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space and parking for up to 28 cars. The project also requires findings of compliance with CEQA, and determinations of compliance and exceptions pursuant to Code Section 309. The project will be the subject of a concurrent variance hearing before the Zoning Administrator because approximately 17 of the 104 dwelling units would not have Code-required dwelling unit exposure. This project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, the 350-S Height and Bulk District, and within the proposed Transbay C-3 Special Use District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 18a

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, Olague

MOTION: 17256

18c. 2004.0664EXCV (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

201 SECOND STREET - southeast corner of Second Street and Howard Street, Lot 97 in Assessor's Block 3736 - Request for a Variance from Code Section 140 (dwelling unit exposure) for a project that would demolish the existing surface parking lot and construct a 19-story, approximately 180-foot tall building with approximately 103 dwelling units, 1,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space and parking for up to 28 cars. Approximately 17 of the 104 dwelling units would not have the Code-required dwelling unit exposure. The project will be the subject of a concurrent hearing before the Planning Commission for findings of compliance with CEQA, determinations of compliance and exceptions pursuant to Code Section 309, and conditional use authorization for dwelling unit density. This project lies within a C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District, the 350-S Height and Bulk District, and within the proposed Transbay C-3 Special Use District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 18a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

19. 2006.0406D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

455 27th Street - south side between Noe and Sanchez Streets. Assessor's Block 6591 Lot 034 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.17.5751 to construct an 8-foot long addition to the rear and add a third story to the existing two-story dwelling 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 project.

SPEAKERS:

Georgia Schuttah – DR Requestor

  1. I live at 400 Duncan Street
  2. I've lived there 20 years with my husband and children.
  3. I'm not insensitive to remodeling from a 1,000 square foot house to 1,800.
  4. I'm not insensitive to people's need to remodel.
  5. My first reaction to this when I got the 311 notice was what is there now?
  6. It is a Marina style house stuck in the middle of Edwardians.
  7. The house is similar in height, massing and scale to its neighbors.
  8. What was proposed was the third floor addition and the roof deck.
  9. All along I felt the compromise was not going to work because the compromise was not that different than the original project.
  10. What this project does is add a third story that impacts on the rear.
  11. That is my concern, the mid block rear yard.

David – Owner of the Project

  1. The building is a Marina style that was brought in the neighborhood in the  60s.
  2. It is off character with the peek roofs that exist all up the street.
  3. The building itself is not shorter. It does have a garage that sinks in the ground a little.
  4. The intent was to build a family home with three bedrooms and two baths on the top floor.
  5. Another consideration was to respect the character of the interior. The front living room and dining room have walnut trim.
  6. I want to keep that as much as possible.
  7. There were two neighbors that had concerns.
  8. They created a list of items that says here are the problems and here is what we recommend you do.
  9. Georgia sent a separate letter where she had signatures from her household saying not to build at all because we would block her view.
  10. Through the 311 process, Jan and Paul asked for changes, we made them.
  11. I crated a peek roof to match the neighbors down the street.
  12. I reduced the ceiling height to six feet.
  13. I reduced the back to the bedroom size and put in a spiral staircase.
  14. I eliminated the closet to make it as small as possible and respect the mid-block open space.
  15. I reduced the roof deck 50 percent.
  16. And I created an open floor plan in the garage floor so that a separate rentable space can't be created and I agreed to use no stucco because it was more of a craftsman style and we wanted to eliminate stucco.
  17. Jan and Paul spent considerable time throughout the process.
  18. They reviewed the plans.
  19. I made 15 copies to take to the neighbors and solicited their input and hear from them.
  20. Georgia was part of them.
  21. Jan spent hours talking to the neighbors and understanding their needs and the community's needs.
  22. I request you respect that and help me build the house as it currently is proposed.
  23. Georgia is a different story. She was not willing to engage with me on the objectives because we couldn't achieve the objectives and keep her view.
  24. We are in a situation where I can't meet my objectives and her needs.

Jan Gersnode

  1. I live next door to the proposed project.
  2. I'm the Jan that he was referring to.
  3. We worked with Mr. Barton since January.
  4. We have gone through the process and had many meetings and we worked out a resolution that is acceptable to me and Paul and all of the other neighbors who signed our petitions all along in the process.
  5. We support the project as it has been submitted to you

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved with the understand that the project sponsor will continue to work with Department staff on façade design

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

NAYES: Olague

20. 2005.0337D (D. WASHINGTON: (415) 558-6443)

77 Seneca Avenue - West side of Seneca Avenue south of Alemany Blvd. Assessor's Block 6969 Lot 008B - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.10.13.6678 to maintain a second floor rear addition and partially constructed rear deck both constructed without building permits in the RH 1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as submitted.

SPEAKERS:

Tinchor Gee - DR Requestor

  1. I come today to object to my neighbor's proposal.
  2. It is illegal construction of the bedroom and rhe construction is uilt on the second floor, which looks directly into my bedroom.
  3. It is invasion of my property.
  4. It blocks the sunlight in my backyard.
  5. This illegal addition from above property affects my ability to enjoy my home.
  6. The bedroom and the deck need to come down.
  7. If it is to be rebuilt, they should re-notice and let the neighbors have their say. That makes it very fair for everybody

Minnie Lau – Translating for Mrs. Sui Fong Gee

  1. I object to my neighbor's illegal constructions of the bedroom and the deck.
  2. The deck is the second level, which looks into my bedroom.
  3. It is an invasion of my privacy.
  4. The deck is against my yard and creates a safety concern because an intruder can jump into my yard from the deck.
  5. I am requesting that the structures be taken down and if they want to rebuild then follow the proper procedures and let the neighbors have the input from the beginning.

David Wasserman

  1. I'm the attorney retained to represent the neighbors in opposition to the project and request the discretionary review.
  2. Normally it is everybody's intent to work things out informally.
  3. That is what we tried to do.
  4. When I was retained I tried to facilitate discussions and we had two good settlement meetings with the owners.
  5. At one meeting we reached a compromise that I tried to sell to my clients. And they agreed to it only to have the compromise withdrawn because we were one day late in deciding.
  6. I submit this to you because in my mind it goes to the bad faith who constructed this without a permit and coming before you wanting back door approval, which is saying they are acting in good faith, but I am saying they are not.

Cindy Lee – Representing the Owner and her Husband

  1. What we wanted to request is that you adopt the recommendations with the senior planner who visited the site and saw the impact of the revisions.
  2. The revisions were provided as a result of discussion with the neighbor and Mrs. Gee and their family.
  3. They are the ones making objections.
  4. I wanted to give you additional information other than what you have seen in our papers.
  5. I don't want to belabor the issues. It is in our papers and Mr. Washington has addressed the concerns of the families. My clients are a young immigrant family.
  6. For your information, the project they engaged in was done in haste.
  7. It was in the process of being submitted they constructed in advance because Mr. Chin had a father who was dying of cancer and wanted this place to be built with the idea that there was a deck that his father would go out on.
  8. The idea was he was expediting the process so his father could have sun.
  9. The deck was never completed and Mr. Chin's father passed away last September.
  10. I wanted to give you the background; that there is a human element and the intention was not to do something illegal.
  11. I understand it is packaged together as a deck and a second story.
  12. Even after the lawsuit was filed and I was brought on in '06, we negotiated.
  13. We were trying to reach a compromise on the size of the deck.
  14. We wanted to cut back the deck.
  15. They didn't want a deck they wanted a landing.
  16. We made a settlement proposal prior to this hearing being set that was not timely accepted.
  17. That is why we are here.
  18. We have gone through and made sure the deck is in compliance with all codes.
  19. The original plan shows stairs.
  20. The revised plan shows the stairs are inset.
  21. We submit that the Commission take Mr. Washington's recommendations and accept them and move forward with the revised plans as submitted.

ACTION: Took discretionary review and approved the staff recommendation with the further requirement that an NSR is to be posted to keep this a single-family residence

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Olague

21. 2006.0093T (L. SCOTT: (415) 558 6317)

PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF GENERAL ADVERTISING SIGN LEGALITY - Consideration of legalization criteria for general advertising signs. This criteria would be used to evaluate whether signs are code compliant as part of a sign inventory process. An ordinance (File No. 05-2021) pending before the Board of Supervisor's Land Use Committee provides a relocation procedure for general advertising signs, requires sign companies to submit inventories of signs, and provides funding through new fees charged to sign companies for the Planning Department to verify such inventories.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

SPEAKERS:

Michael Colbruno – Clear Channel Outdoor

  1. My concerns are maintenance and structural
  2. The other issue that I'm concerned is the same issue as the national standard. Billboards are extensions. They are recognized in the State Code.
  3. They have to be temporary.
  4. I would like to see that in the legislation it is kept as industry standards.
  5. 70 percent of our sales are billboards. Not to be able to keep that in San Francisco is not good.
  6. I want to clarify the language on in lieu permits.
  7. When the report says all of the following have to be provided, we agree.
  8. We may not have all of the evidence.
  9. We don't have to have each of the things listed.
  10. Next, it says leases or other documents.
  11. Traditionally with poor permit history they look at inventories done in the  40s and  60s of signs.
  12. You need to know that photographs are good evidence, not necessarily just leases.
  13. Leases are not always going to give enough information.
  14. Next, there are references to Building Code.
  15. Disagreement with the Department on this.
  16. We understand the relevance on what the Building Code was in history.
  17. What Building permits we can find should be considered in the process.
  18. I need to clarify that this commission doesn't deal with the Building Code.
  19. I want to make clear when Planning goes through their review they need to look at the Planning Code to 1921.
  20. They will have their handfuls in that. That is their expertise.
  21. On page 5 and 6, the criteria for where in lieu is not filed:
  22. I want to express my appreciation that the current records are not precise.
  23. The list in item one makes sense if one of these things will show legality.
  24. Finally when we come back next week we will talk about dates like 1965. It is alluded to on page 4.

Tamar Cooper

  1. I would like to start off with the issue of evidence should be provided and found to be adequate.
  2. All of this evidence should be collected if it is relevant.
  3. This has to be a situation where the billboard companies provide all of the information that is requested of them in order to ensure that in lieus are for signs that legally exist.
  4. Page 7 of the report says that a sign may be removed and replaced per legalization or make it structure safe.
  5. If you have to remove a sign to conform to the permit there is something wrong there.
  6. A sign that was erected in this way shouldn't have been.
  7. It shouldn't be that we are allowing folks to break the rules and rebuild the sign because they broke the rules.
  8. I should point out that I am not speaking on behalf of San Francisco Beautiful.
  9. I have an apartment that has a bull board looming over it.
  10. The issue of nonconforming leases needs to have moderation.
  11. We are asking to follow the code. Section 181 talks about nonconforming uses. It outlines what can be done.
  12. There can be moderate modifications where safety is a concern.
  13. If a sign has to be completely removed or replaced, look at section 181, our comments outline it fairly well.
  14. We ask that you consider that and look at the code and abide by the code when considering these legalization criteria.

Jared Eigerman

  1. This has been going on since 2001 and 2002.
  2. We are finding resolution to this issue.
  3. We are moving forward.
  4. What you are hearing tonight is both sides are taking flesh out and both sides are unhappy.
  5. That is what a solution is about.
  6. I want to address Ms. Cooper's issue about replacing signs.
  7. What is being addressed is if a structure was unsafe. Many have been up since the  20s and  30s and have rot.
  8. In order to fix the beam you have to take the sign off for safety.
  9. You heard from the unions a month ago about safety.
  10. When they climb on signs they don't want the beams to fall and kill them.
  11. That is why that was put in. We appreciate the Zoning Administrator's time in looking at that.
  12. I now want to talk about height and signs.
  13. Building Inspectors would sign off on a sign as long as that sign didn't go above what was legal at the time.
  14. If the Planning Code allows a sign to be 8 feet and permit says 6 feet, we believe that should be allowed because it is in the parameters of the Planning Code that is past practice.

Bob Klausner

  1. There is a section that defines the terms that are found in relocation and that amends 610 in the policy decisions.
  2. There are a lot of people interpreting parts of these differently, which leads to different conclusions and will end up in lawsuits, which we are not interested in seeing happen.
  3. Terms like  legally permits,'  existing,'  conditional use permit,'  relocation permit' are among those terms that are causing problems.
  4. The criterion needs reworking.
  5. They are unfair to the property owners of the law abiding sign owners.
  6. They reward them with light penalties that are less than the gain they receive by exercising due process. This is not the 9-time penalty.
  7. They provide no incentives for not breaking the law.
  8. If you have enforcement you have to have this or you will have enforcement pilling up in the past.
  9. There are hundreds of them.
  10. That will create work for Code Enforcement, which you don't need.
  11. In addition to that, they further tip the scales to the violators in leaseholders and lessee arrangements.
  12. I have given you something that allows you to understand how you might level the field so people that follow the law are not penalized by people who don't.
  13. Violating sign owners should have a limit on the privileges they have when the infractions occur.
  14. There is no reason that the in lieu that those people are ineligible for [are allowed] relocation permits.
  15. The same thing applies for situations where they are penalized and you cure it.
  16. The person who holds the lease gets penalized for something he didn't do.
  17. If you are unwilling to apply a policy of past infractions being penalized because that is the way it worked in the past, you don't want to change in mid-streem.

Deborah Stein

  1. I would like to focus my comments about the process on how the criterion is applied.
  2. I'm hearing it could be legislative criteria.
  3. There is no detailed evaluation of the different criteria.
  4. It is important about knowing where a Board of Appeals go because the Board of Appeals has to take its charter into consideration and Administrative Law does not.
  5. The wording can be important.
  6. I am pleased that staff recognizes we need a continuance.
  7. This is important legislation.
  8. I would like to request that this commission directs staff of the procedural alternatives. How they are applied. Who the appeals go to.
  9. I feel this is not ready for primetime.

[Speaker unidentified]

  1. The in lieu favors the billboard companies.
  2. How are we going to cover some of this without overwhelming the Enforcement Department?
  3. The property owners, the ones that can't afford Mrs. Stein's fees, the older people on fixed incomes – the rights are not mentioned.
  4. If we do criteria in this legislation there should be included a letter informing the people identified of what their rights are.
  5. Because the cases I have heard of, we will lower your fees from 400 to 200 a month if you don't take it we will pull your sign down.
  6. This is to some of the poor people with less income.
  7. These are their medical bills.
  8. I think they have been ignored and their rights have been ignored.
  9. I think we can do a better job on this if it is not rushed through.
  10. I think this is being rushed through because Mr. Owen is leaving Supervisor Peskin's office in June.
  11. We have to have a stopgap for this information and whether it really is a safety issue or whether it is just an emergency.
  12. I don't think this is clear enough at this time to take it to the Board of Supervisors.

ACTION: Following testimony, continued to June 8, 2006. The public hearing remains open.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, and S. Lee

ABSENT: W. Lee and Olague

22. Discretionary Review Policy (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

Department presentation to the Commission on their D.R. Policy adopted May 20, 2004 with suggested modifications to the Pre-Application process, expanded criteria and new terminology ("Simple vs Complex" to "Abbreviated vs Standard").

SPEAKERS:

Kathleen Rawlins – Miraloma Park Improvement Club

  1. We are concerned that in steep terrains and adjoining adjacent structures without side yards some projects might have severe impacts on light and space.
  2. There are cases in which additions should not be the built or scaled back more than the criteria suggests.
  3.  The Department has not always recognized this and taken an interpretation of the design guidelines.
  4. The Department says the Board of Permit Appeals should deal with any appeals of the reclassified project types the Board of Appeals seldom reverses the Planning Commission or Department.
  5. Given the requirement, the reclassification represents a further erosion of access of the citizenry to the Planning Commission.
  6. We ask the Commission not to adopt this proposal.

ACTION: Continued to July 13, 2006. The public hearing remains open.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and W. Lee

ABSENT: Olague

H. 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:

Patricia Vaughue

  1. There is a case that will be coming in front of you concerning the cinema 21 building and the building that was built wit it at the time.
  2. There is a roof with matching tiles on the building adjacent to it and on the other side there was a building with matching tiles.
  3. Apple Computer wants to take a fifth of the tiles and leave the other four fifths there.
  4. I want you to consider character.
  5. A major corporation comes in and wants to change something that has been since 1927.
  6. I want you to look at this issue.
  7. I will try to get you pictures.
  8. There are two or three other but this is most important.

Adjournment: 8:33 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Lee, and Olague

EXCUSED: Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: None

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the Government category, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:21 PM