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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

September 21, 2006

September 21, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 21, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague; Antonini; Lee; Moore; Sugaya

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Steve Wertheim, Craig Nikitas, Sara Vellve, Sarah Dennis, April Hesik, Shaun Mendrin, Elizabeth Watty, Rick Crawford, Aaron Starr, Edgar Oropeza, Linda D. 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. 2006.0688D (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 14th AVENUE, east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lot 015A in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.07.8544 proposing to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

2. 2006.0084D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

980 CORBETT AVENUE - west side between Portola Drive and Hopkins Avenue, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 2826 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.11.0076, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition, a three-story rear horizontal addition, and alter the front façade of a single-family dwelling, located in a 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 proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2006)

(Proposed for continuance to November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

3. 2006.0522C (M. LI: (415): 558-6396)

550-552 Golden Gate Avenue- north side between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0763 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a surface parking lot for up to 25 vehicles within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District. The project site is currently vacant.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2006)

(Proposed for continuance to September 28, 2006 October 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as corrected

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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

Department presentation to the Commission on their Discretionary Review 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").

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 13, 2006)

(Proposed for indefinite continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

5. 2006.0734C (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

3192 16TH STREET - north side between Guerrero and Valencia - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 726.48 and 790.38 for Other Entertainment in the Valencia NCD (Neighborhood Commercial) District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The existing bar use, d.b.a.  Double Dutch , formerly known as  Cama , will not change. The bar will be changing ownership and the new owner is seeking authorization for non-live music entertainment, specifically a deejay. Hours of operation will remain 5pm to 2am. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for continuance to October 12, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

B. 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.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. I have a couple of things.
  2. First is the situation with the garages.
  3. I think we had calendared a hearing on that if I'm not mistaken, or I know we had a hearing last week.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. We had a hearing last week and you requested that we take that issue to the Landmark's Board for further comment.
  2. As we finalize it, we will bring it back.
  3. My understanding is there was a Landmark's Board hearing yesterday.
  4. It will be on calendar the first week in October.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. My understanding is that projects in progress will be brought forward or follow the previous conditions.
  2. I think there is one on our calendar today that requires a conditional use or discretionary review. I'm not sure which it is.
  3. What brought this up is members of the garage installation community say they are having problems getting approval of over the counter permits. Until we get this into place, they will continue to have problems getting garages approved over the counter.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. My hope would be that we could get through this process quickly and establish guidelines so we can have many of them handled administratively.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. A couple of other things. These are questions and I don't need answers today.
  2. In terms of environmental review: A decision is made on a project, whether or not you can have a negative declaration, whether it requires an EIR – where is that determination made? At a staff level? Who makes it?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Essentially, whether what kind of environmental review a project is required is officially a decision of the Environmental Review Officer.
  2. Much of the decisions are delegated to staff.
  3. There are guidelines and rules and regulations.
  4. It's a staff decision on what kind of environmental review is needed.
  5. Ultimately we prepare an environmental review and it may be appealed -- as is the case with everything else, including a neg dec -- appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
  6. The Board of Supervisors can say you prepared the wrong document.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. I know this sounds elementary but I was assuming [or trying] to get an idea of where the line is drawn.
  2. There are judgment calls.
  3. Some are going to need an EIR. Some are very, very small. And there are some that fit the in between.
  4. I guess that was part of my question.

Director Macris

  1. There is a hierarchy of decision-making.
  2. As Larry pointed out, it's the Environmental Review Officer's determination, as it should be, because it's an independent judgment.
  3. In the case of Mr. Maltzer, who consults with me and has advice of counsel, it is his decision.
  4. If it were anything other than that, he wouldn't write his name on it.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. The other two things I have.
  2. In terms of affordable housing, I have heard from a couple of members of the public that there is a backlog in approving people.
  3. I just mention people who will qualify under the inclusionary housing limits – there is some difficulty in getting units rented or sold because there is not adequate staffing or there is a problem approving these people.
  4. Of course, these units can't be rented or sold.
  5. I wanted to mention I'm hearing these things and don't know if anything is being done on it.
  6. It is important because we go through a lot of discussion and spend much time over this entire affordable housing issue.
  7. If it turns out we are not adequately addressing or getting the process moving, it defeats the purpose.
  8. There are people waiting to qualify for this.
  9. They have to be screened.
  10. In regards to the same consideration – I don't need an answer today – I want to know in terms of affordable housing, is there anything where the city is subsidizing a unit? What qualifications do we have for people in terms of their behavioral problems? What sort of thing can disqualify someone? I would hope we are looking carefully at our applicants in terms of any possible problems that might exist. Once you give something to someone, you would expect in return the right kind of behavior. If someone committed a felony, do they continue to be housed there? What are the guidelines?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Are you talking about public housing or subsidized housing to the various affordability programs?

Commissioner Antonini

  1. Probably both. I guess particularly with public housing. They are being blended now and I think that is a good move. North Beach Place is successful. Part of the problem in the past has been that they were just communities to themselves, particularly to the public housing. Now you have a blended thing. One would assume the same rules and guidelines would apply to a place like that if a person were in one type of housing or another type. I'm curious.

Director Macris

  1. We meet usually once a week with the Mayor's Office of Housing. I will pose that question and get you an answer.

Commissioner Lee

  1. We received from Aaron Star of Department staff an interpretation of micro cell installation.
  2. My question to staff is has the technology changed to such an extent that this interpretation doesn't need to be updated?
  3. You don't have to answer today. Maybe next week. Again, is this an interpretation of micro cell? How has the technology changed? Are we using this as policy for all micro cell installations?
  4. Second item. I had the opportunity this week to sit down with Supervisor Maxwell and a separate meeting with Warren Helmen.
  5. Even though they are separate, they tie into the issue of the vision thing for the Planning Department and the Planning Commission and the Board.
  6. I'm trying to connect the dots; planning for the future.
  7. Dean, I think I asked you to do this for the Planning Commission – give us a vision with options.
  8. If we are looking at digital arts, we should provide a bond for digital arts. If we are looking at the travel/tourist industry, do we need to do more? Or if we go to environmental technology or whatever.
  9. What occurred to me in talking with both Supervisor Maxwell and Warren is that it's like a vision thing.
  10. They want to be globalized and get tourists.
  11. Supervisor Maxwell's proposal is that they don't have the tools as a Board or city to weigh different options.
  12. I want to ask the Planning Department one day in the near future to give us some ideas.
  13. I know we have to make a lot of assumptions and no one can predict the future, but if the first report from the Mayor is true about the number of rich and poor people we have here and the studies if we move to nano technology.
  14. They have to make long-term planning to get the information to us so we can make policy decisions and provide it to the Board and the city.
  15. I don't think the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor has the expertise to do it.
  16. We have to look to the Planning Department.

Director Macris

  1. It's an interesting question because, incidentally, this very morning we had a discussion on this very subject of where I think this is going to be framed and where I think this commission is going to lead a discussion, if not debate, on the city's future direction.
  2. I want to separate the notion from forecasting something 20 years from now.
  3. That is not what we do.
  4. We do planning now and understanding our future – immediate needs maybe – in moving the city's regulations in the right direction.
  5. We are not planning ahead 20 years from now.
  6. We are planning for the city now and moving in directions to accommodate change.
  7. All great cities have to accommodate for change.
  8. The issue is how we do that.
  9. Where this will come up is in the Eastern Neighborhoods discussion.
  10. When you talk about the city and where its future exists, it's east of Van Ness Avenue.
  11. We all know that.
  12. The next step for this commission is to look at that sort of one third of the city and decide how to carefully allocate land to accommodate what we understand to be the future of the city now.
  13. That will come up after the first of the year.
  14. We will move more towards the question of the future of the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  15. The big issue about the city is embedded in that.

Commissioner Lee

  1. Finally, most of our planning is, or the design of the city, or its entrance is from the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Bay Bridge, or 101.
  2. The City has done a lot with the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge.
  3. It occurred to me that most people that come and visit us come up 101 north.
  4. We don't have a sense of what the design should look like.
  5. As a city that wants to welcome people, when you come up 101, I don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling.
  6. I'm not saying it's our fault.
  7. My question is, are we looking at that part of town as seriously as we looked at entering through the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges?
  8. Could staff give some thought to that and let us know some of the thinking.
  9. I know we will look at these parts sooner or later.
  10. Maybe you can let us know what the planning priorities are for that entranceway to San Francisco.

Director Macris

  1. We had a session the other day about how do we understand the impacts on transportation in the southeast part of the city?
  2. We have Executive Park with 3,000 units. The 49er project, which will be announced with several hundred units with a football stadium and commercial space.
  3. Just taking those projects, you are reforming the entrance to the city in a strong way as you move up 101.
  4. We are now seeing several proposals in Mission Bay for research and development that are from organizations that now feel they need private space.
  5. You will see new buildings uniquely designed.
  6. I think it's going to affect the city's architectural world in different ways. As you move further up, we are committed in the Transbay Terminal to look at that area for ways to create buildings with higher height in order to help support getting the Transbay Terminal done.
  7. If I were here long enough to be around 20 to 25 years from now, I think we will see dramatic changes even in the narrow band I mentioned.
  8. This doesn't get us into all of the Eastern Neighborhoods, but in that corridor there are going to be dramatic changes.
  9. And it's this commission's tenure that is going to set the rules for that.
  10. You've got an exciting time ahead, I think, if you are interested in city policy as you are about how to shape the city for the next 20 to 25 years like the commissions did in the  80's with downtown.

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. I know I'm not supposed to comment.
  2. Brisbane has planning for that area south of Candlestick and all that area.
  3. I haven't seen the details. It's a fairly large area and it comes against the Visitacion area.
  4. I was at the Historic Preservation and they announced a program called Partners and Preservation.
  5. They are making a million dollars available for projects in the Bay Area.
  6. The unique aspect of this is that there have been 25 candidates pre-selected.
  7. There is a voting system underway in which the public, if they go to the website, can vote for their favorite project.
  8. They are scattered.
  9. I think there are six or nine in San Francisco.
  10. There are several in Marine and several in San Mateo and several in Contra Costa, two in Richmond, Berkeley.
  11. Between now and October 31st anyone can go on line and register.
  12. You can vote once a day for you favorite project.
  13. You can vote everyday there after for that one or somebody else's project.
  14. The project that wins the most votes will be assured of funding.
  15. Then there will be a committee system that will select other projects out of the 25.
  16. They probably won't fund all 24 at that point. I think the number is going to hover between five and ten.
  17. But if you go to the website, partnersandpreservation.com, you see the candidates.
  18. They are all historic projects.
  19. It's a unique program.
  20. The first time that American Express and the American Trust has done something like this.
  21. It will benefit the entire area.

Commissioner Moore

  1. It's exciting to see the projects coming up in the gateway of the city.
  2. We work with Cal Trans and BART because they are the major strands and lifelines by which we come to the wonderful projects.
  3. 101, keeping the signage, including BART, the stations as progress through the city prepare you for how you arrive.
  4. When you go to Paris and other cities with their subway stations better to make the arrival sequence to the city more exciting.
  5. We need to help work on that a bit as well.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I did receive the Market/Octavia Plan on Monday. We haven't received the EIR yet.

John Billovits of Department staff responded

  1. As I understand, the Environmental Review Office and the department will release that the middle of next week. On or before Thursday – prior to the 28th.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I have only had the opportunity to review it [the Plan] or just kind of go through it quickly.
  2. I know there is a lot of information. It is very detailed.
  3. I know that I will not be able to complete as much preparation as I would like to by next Thursday when we are supposed to initiate the document.
  4. I want to prepare the public and also the staff to let you all know that I believe that I personally would like to see a lot of hearings – quite a few hearings on the aspects of the Community Benefit Plans and Market/Octavia Plans.
  5. There are changes around the heights and parking requirements.
  6. There are a lot of intense changes, I think, to the zoning in that area in this plan.
  7. I do want to have as much time to look through this -- to walk around the neighborhoods.
  8. We have had one walking tour.
  9. I think the members of the public deserve the right to really digest the information in this plan.

Director Macris

  1. The schedule is up to the commission.
  2. We made suggestions.
  3. The only thing I would urge you to do is to stay with it. Don't let it have big lapses of time.
  4. No one is asking that you act precipitously in any way.
  5. We ask you to stay with it.
  6. The reason I say that is for several reasons.
  7. We are introducing some new ideas here.
  8. In effect, you are going to be proposing and advocating.
  9. They are new ideas on a whole variety of ways to deal with parking in a neighborhood.
  10. There are ways to add protection to certain buildings in a neighborhood.
  11. The big idea here that you need to stay with is for the first time&
  12. This is unlike Rincon Hill where we had five developers with a big windfall of zoning that we could capture for good city purposes.
  13. We are now introducing a new organization for the city that is going to have to change institutionally how we do things.
  14. That is, when we prepare a plan and we put all the energy into this plan, and the public comes out.
  15. We spend thousands and millions of dollars planning.
  16. We are for the first time now connecting planning recommendations and needs and public benefits to an actual list of things to be done over time; making cost estimates and attempting to modify the city apparatus for carrying those things out in a compelling manner.
  17. This is a whole new idea for us that involve changing governmentally how we act and plan.
  18. Connecting capital programming to planning sounds easy. It is not.
  19. There is a lot of material to read.
  20. All I ask you to do is read carefully the plan portion of this. That is the heart of it. Everything else that is attached to it is just a way to carry out the plan – whether it is the General Plan Referral or the zoning revisions – all that is doing is carrying out the policies in the plan.
  21. That's the mechanics until you get to the public benefits piece. Read that carefully. Because attached to that is an impact fee that would compel new development in the area to contribute financially for the growth of the neighborhood.
  22. Those are the two pieces you should concentrate on – the before and after.
  23. Everything else, that's what planners and lawyers worry about.
  24. We are not asking for an action, only an initiation next week that would allow us to set the public hearing we hear you want.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I might draft something and share it next week. Maybe a schedule of hearings and the topics.
  2. Because all of what you are saying, that's why we need a bit of time and the public does as well.
  3. Are hard copies of the documents available, or available to the public on disk?
  4. Not everybody has access to computers and printers.
  5. I know personally because I don't.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. Folks that desire getting hard copies should contact us so we can figure out what they want and make arrangements. We are in the process of producing more hard copies, but we don't have enough now. The website has links for all of the pages for people who have access to that. There is contact information through email or telephone so people can ask us questions.

Commissioner Olague

  1. [Some] members of the public don't have computers. They rely on the library and libraries have 15-minute intervals.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. We have copies at the libraries. The main branch and in Harvey Milk and there are copies in the Planning Department if people want to come in and review them.
  2. We are open to suggestions if people have a better way for us to distribute information.

Commissioner Olague

  1. Sometimes I wonder about the MUNI question.
  2. We are putting a lot of housing on line. I'm wondering how is MUNI absorbing the increase in residents in the city?
  3. Maybe we can schedule a hearing about public transportation.

Dr. Ghosh

  1. We have a good response to your question.
  2. It's part of the larger strategy we have in addressing the city's future.

Commissioner Olague

  1. We heard the marijuana, the medical cannabis dispensary issue last week.
  2. I had questions about individuals who are patients and who live in federally subsidized housing. Do they have protections? Obviously they have medical prescriptions. What are their protections?

Commissioner Moore

  1. One quick question.
  2. I received an expansive package for us to read in a short amount of time.
  3. I asked for some recommendation on how to read it.
  4. It touches on a wide variety of things.
  5. I would ask guidance of what do we read first and second and third.
  6. I think it's a fair question to ask.
  7. There can be a lot of confusion when you cross information that's hard to link.
  8. That is a recommendation I'm making.
  9. I think it will make it easier for all of us to participate in a constructive discussion.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. I will be happy to do that.
  2. I think it's a daunting packet of material we have given you.
  3. This is only for starting the hearing.
  4. We will schedule it and we will give you a summary on how to approach the material you have gotten.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

Dr. Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner

  1. On October 3rd, we will be holding a workshop on East SOMA. East SOMA is one of a series of workshops we will conduct regarding the Eastern Neighborhoods. The location of this is the SOMA Recreation Center, 270 6th Street, from 6 to 8 p.m.
  2. Come by and say hi.
  3. We are doing everything we can to try to advertise that date.

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

Dan Sider of Department staff reported on BOS events:

  1. First, Tuesday at the full Board, Supervisor Maxwell, a number of weeks ago introduced interim controls. These are controls to require your conditional use authorization for formula retail uses.
  2. The matter was reviewed by the Board on Tuesday and by a vote of 7 to 2 passed it.
  3. Supervisors Elsbernd and Ma voted against.
  4. Upon the Mayor's signature, these will be effective.
  5. Wednesday at the Land Use Committee meeting there were three items.
  6. First there was Supervisor Mirkarimi's ordinance that you reviewed a number of months ago on sidewalks, tables and chairs – café dining for certain non-conforming uses.
  7. These are existing establishments. Changes in the Planning Code that would allow them to seek a permit for sidewalks, tables and chairs.
  8. It moves forward to next week's full Board meeting.
  9. Also on Wednesday at Land Use there was a matter put forward by Supervisor McGoldrick formalizing the relationship we have with the City Attorney's Office establishing a better process to communicate with them and have their presence at the Board of Appeals.
  10. It hopes to strengthen our defense of your position and the Zoning Administrator's position at the Board of Appeals.
  11. Supervisor McGoldrick had another matter at Land Use on Wednesday – the Community Improvement in the Eastern Neighborhoods Ordinance.
  12. This is a matter that has relevance to this body and our department and planning activities.
  13. Sara Dennis will give you a few words on that matter.
  14. There was one introduction of note this week. It is a significant one.
  15. Supervisor Ma introduced a package of amendments to the Administrative Code – Chapter 31. It houses our implementation of CEQA.
  16. What Supervisor Ma seeks to do is formalize CEQA at the Board of Supervisors and establish better timeframes for appeals at the Board of Supervisors.
  17. This has been a topic that has come up at this body and at the Board.
  18. We look forward to working with Supervisor Ma's Office and you as they move forward to the Board.
  19. I would note the changes to the Administrative Code. This is a matter of significance.
  20. We will be presenting these changes to you in more detail and taking your comment on these matters.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. Who were the two supervisors who were absent during the vote on the formula retail?

Dan Sider

  1. Supervisor Pier and Supervisor Amiano

Commissioner Antonini

  1. That would mean Dufty was one of the seven.
  2. My other question. In regards to the ballot measure coming up on formula retail conditional use, it includes neighborhood commercial districts or the entire city and is a broader scope than passed by the supervisors. If the ballot measure fails, is there a moratorium in effect?

Dan Sider

  1. There are a number of matters at play.
  2. In response to your first question, the ballot measure pertains to the neighborhood commercial district.
  3. In the C-3's or industrial, no changes will be made until the ballot measures come to fruition.
  4. On the introductions from Supervisor Elsbernd last week regarding grocery stores, we are working with the City Attorney's Office to get clarity.
  5. If the measure does not pass, the ordinances will move forward.
  6. Should it pass, we find ourselves at an interesting legal question.
  7. We will follow up on that and get back to you.
  8. Should the ballot not pass, there is no other control unless the Board does take affirmative action otherwise.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. As a follow up to the introduction by Supervisor Ma, in the Administrative Code and the CEQA appeal, was there a time frame introduced or are we too early in the process?

Dan Sider

  1. There are time frames that vary due to the type of appeal.
  2. Also, time frames for hearings, for scheduling a hearing date are set forth in that ordinance.
  3. The ordinance is a comprehensive document.
  4. There are details we would like to discuss with you at a later date.

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. Mr. Sider, was there an item on the Old Mint at Land Use on Wednesday?

Dan Sider

  1. No, I don't believe there was.

Zoning Administrator Badiner reported of BOA issues:

  1. 1623 Street
  2. As the Commission does, the Board [of Appeals] also has the option of continuing things to the call of the Chair.
  3. This new Board and new members are calling all these items up for review.
  4. This case is an illegal two unit building with an unwarranted third unit.
  5. The project sponsor sought to legalize this in 2003. There is an elderly tenant on the site.
  6. No one wants to pursue this until the tenant moves on one way or another.
  7. The Board brought this up again and agreed to continue it to the call of the Chair.
  8. The Department is not seeking to pursue this. I don't think anyone is.
  9. This is a case where inaction is the best action to take.
  10. I bring it up because it is something you have not seen in the past but something you have to deal with.
  11. 2395 12th Avenue is a three unit residential property constructed in 1990.
  12. It has been alleged that it is being used as what would be called a sweatshop or illegal clothing factory. We have ample evidence of that.
  13. The applicant claims the violations are corrected.
  14. We will do another site visit.
  15. I still ask that the Board uphold this because they were in violation.
  16. We have to make it clear they can't go back to that kind of action.
  17. There are other actions about compliance with federal laws on wages, et cetera.
  18. A case on 26th Street where someone came to the Planning and Building departments to remove an illegal unit.
  19. We commonly approve that and the tenant objects to it.
  20. This is the kind of thing that can be legalized with a variance. It's a garage eliminated and turned into an illegal unit.
  21. The permit holder changed their mind about trying to remove the unit and will file for a parking variance, which will go before me to see whether or not we can maintain the unit.
  22. We will get to the issues of affordability.
  23. The last item is 1399 43rd Avenue. A micro cell antenna.
  24. Micro cell antennas are typically antennas that have low power. 24 watts as opposed to a panel antenna that has between 300 to 1,000 watts.
  25. They are allowed as accessory uses.
  26. You will see a similar one this afternoon.
  27. The Board found there was no evidence of the proposed use to exceed an acceptable level of radiation and be in conflict of the guidelines set forth by the city or FCC.
  28. They voted 4 to 1 to uphold the application.
  29. They have not been an issue in the past and they are becoming an issue.

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. To add a little bit to what Mr. Badiner was saying on the  call of the Chair' items:
  2. Usually the project sponsor or owner of the property is in agreement. They want to keep the unit as rental.
  3. There is usually a tenant who is elderly or disabled who wants to stay there.
  4. The question usually is asked as to whether the unit poses life safety hazards to the tenant.
  5. In the cases where there are questions, the Board asks the Building Department to do an inspection. If it appears that everything is okay – it might have a slightly lower ceiling than what the code would allow – but as long as there is no real life safety hazards the Board has taken the  call of the Chair' actions.
  6. It's a win/win in most cases.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Those are the ones where we can't figure out a way to legalize them if we seek a variance.
  2. Where there is no possible way to legalize it but yet in effect do no harm, the Board does the judicious thing and holds off for a while.

9. (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)

HAIGHT ASHBURY FREE CLINICS, INC. (HAFCI) ABREVIATED INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN (IMP) - Zoning Administrator announcement of the receipt of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics, Inc (HAFCI) Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The Planning Commission has the discretion under Planning Code Section 304.5(d), to hold or not hold a public hearing on an Abbreviated IMP. If the Commission requests a hearing, it would be scheduled for a later date.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Doerte Murray

  1. I'm a long time resident in the Haight.
  2. I live across 529 Clayton and one block away from 409 Clayton.
  3. I am aware of how the free clinic worked in the past.
  4. I got a copy of the Master Plan.
  5. Some of my concerns are that they have expansion plans with some of the programs at 558.
  6. I am concerned about what is going to happen with the buildings they are vacating.
  7. You have mentioned Prop I. The Health Department has not informed neighbors in my neighborhood when they put a new program in.
  8. Prop I indicates if you pit in a new program you have to notify the neighbors.
  9. We are not notified.
  10. I'm concerned because the report indicated that the Haight/Ashbury Youth outreach program has been closed since 2005. They are in operation in my neighborhood.
  11. We have made the Planning Department aware of misuses of conditional use permits in my neighborhood and they have not done anything about it.
  12. If there is a conditional use, I'm interested in who's taking over and what is the status of the building and an answer to why the conditional use permits were not enforced.

Marian

  1. We have a lot of problems with the free clinics.
  2. It's important for us to know what's happening in the neighborhood and what they plan to do.
  3. I feel we need to be informed. Not 30 days before it will go into place.
  4. I think it is important that they follow the same guidelines that everyone else has to.

Ted Lowenberg

  1. The point that Mr. Badiner made is correct.
  2. The purpose of the Institutional Master Plan is to make the public aware of what is on the mind of the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic, and response or prepare or do what you might do with that.
  3. My point is I think it's important in order for the public to know what's in the Master Plan and for them to give you, as planning commissioners the opportunity to comment and give input.
  4. A public hearing is warranted. Otherwise it goes into the pile of papers that exist in planning and it never sees the light of day in the neighborhood.
  5. I also got a copy of this document after I requested it 5 years ago.
  6. I think there are a lot of things in here that give me concerns – like telling the youth how to inject their drugs properly.
  7. To me that is a disconnect in healthy lifestyles and life skills building programs.
  8. I suppose there are other landmines like this in this document.
  9. The public review would bring this to light and give everybody an opportunity to scrutinize this for this type of disconnect and analyze what they will get.
  10. The area around Mission and Division is a neighborhood in Valencia that is struggling for its existence.

ACTION: Following public testimony and Commission deliberation, the Commission decided to hold a Public Hearing on the Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan while the applications before the Department are continuing through the permit process.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

10. (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

ELEMENTS OF DESIGN Informational presentation: An update on the Department's program to elevate the quality of architectural design in the City, a briefing on the promotion of sustainable ("green") building projects, and a presentation of some elements of building design.

No Action to be taken

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 28, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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.

None

E. 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.

11. 2006.0205D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1701 BEACH STREET - south side between Fillmore Street and Cervantes Boulevard, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 0443A - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.27.6759, proposing to legalize the elimination of one housekeeping unit in a two unit structure located in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

  • F.REGULAR CALENDAR

12. (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

Community Improvements and the Eastern Neighborhoods - Informational report on recent legislation introduced by Supervisor McGoldrick, which amends the Administrative Code to add Chapter 36 to provide procedures and inter-agency cooperation in the preparation and implementation of community improvements plans and programs as part of the creation of new Area Plans of the General Plan in the Eastern Neighborhoods, defined as including the proposed Market and Octavia, East South of Market, Inner Mission, Lower Potrero/Showplace Square, and Central Waterfront plan areas.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action is required.

SPEAKERS:

Betty Chan, Aide to Supervisor Jake McGoldrick

  1. Thank you very much for holding an informational hearing on this legislation.
  2. We are excited about it and thankful that the Commission is discussing it. We also welcome your recommendations.
  3. As you know, this was heard in Land Use yesterday.
  4. The legislation was amended to include Western SoMa as one of the plan areas.
  5. It was continued for another week.
  6. It will be heard on September 27th in Land Use.
  7. Basically the nuts and bolts of the legislation is that it requires the Planning Department to prepare a community plan and it identifies the improvements that address an area of particular needs as identified through the planning process.
  8. The implementation portion of the legislation establishes an interagency planning and implementation committee, which I will call IPIC.
  9. This IPIC is chaired by the Planning Director
  10. It will be comprised of city departments that are responsible for the implementation of an area plan.
  11. Through the process, the Planning Department will prepare annual progress reports that will include the work program and budget submitted by each department involved in the implementation.
  12. The Planning Commission will hold an annual public hearing on these annual progress reports.
  13. These progress reports serve as an update on the work program and budget for each area plan.
  14. Basically, this provides the city departments a way to work with the Planning Department and the Planning Commission and identifying what steps those departments must take to implement area plans in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  15. In doing so, the legislation works to facilitate communication across departments.
  16. We are excited because it is an opportunity to establish an interdepartmental coordination and develop a cooperative process between the city departments and also have the Planning Department play a key role.

Joe Boss

  1. In '03 I joined a group of 30 people who worked on legislation that would help the Planning Department focus on the Elements besides drawing zoning on the ground.
  2. The biggest being – how do we separate existing needs from impacts?
  3. It became apparent that one of the things that was lacking was the ability of the Planning Department to have the other departments come to the table early enough in the process so that questions could be asked and good answers could be forth coming.
  4. Prior to the change in the authority of the Chief Administrative Officer of the City, the Planning Director could go and say, I need Muni, or, I need that.
  5. There was the ability to draw them together
  6. Times have changed.
  7. I think this completes what we set out to do.
  8. The department has fully embraced the other issues that hadn't been looked at before, which are needs and impacts.
  9. I really feel that this completes the package.
  10. I know there are details to be worked out.
  11. We may have to tweak the legislation to allow the work to go forward without hand cuffing it too much.
  12. I certainly hope that you support this.

Judy Berkowitz, Coalition for San Francisco Neighbors

  1. We considered this matter at our monthly meeting on Tuesday.
  2. We wanted to request that you do three things.
  3. One [and two are], we object to this matter being placed on the agenda as an information item. Place it as an action item.
  4. The third thing was to request to the Board of Supervisors to write this legislation in the Planning Code and move it from the Administrative Code.
  5. We object to your authority being curtailed.
  6. Over the years it has diminished little by little.
  7. You could be shut out because it is in the Administrative Code.
  8. If it were the Planning Code, that would not be so.
  9. We urge you to take advantage of the Planning Department; and there are no planners on the Board of Supervisors.
  10. Please, put this in the Planning Code where it should have been in the first place.
  11. We do not have anything to say about the content.
  12. Please, object to this matter as an informational item and hear it as an action item and request it be re-written in the Planning Code.

ACTION: Informational Only. No action.

EXCUSED: Sugaya

13. 2006.0668C (A. Hesik: (415) 558-6602)

222 Columbus Avenue - northeast side between Pacific Avenue and Broadway, Lots 26-31 in Assessor's Block 0162 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a financial service (d.b.a.  First Republic Bank ) of approximately 118 square feet. The financial service would consist of two automated teller machines located in the interior of the building within vacant existing ground-floor commercial space. The proposed use is not formula retail as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, Washington-Broadway Special Use District No. 1, and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 10, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 28, 2006.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

14a. 2005.1090CV (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14th AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008 and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 303 to allow the establishment of a child-care facility providing less than 24-hour care for up to 25 children by licensed personnel and meeting the open-space and other requirements of the State of California and other authorities. The proposal includes the conversion of the ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool would use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The site is within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

SPEAKERS:

Tom White - School Principal

  1. It's my privilege to look to the future in the City addressing the needs of the parents in the community.
  2. Due to the fact that both parents have to work, we want to offer services to the families in the area with preschool.
  3. We are looking to use one our buildings that currently is used as a construction supply and workshop and is being rented out by one of the people in the Perish.
  4. We are looking to use that facility to convert to a preschool.
  5. We sent out surveys to all of the families in the neighborhood asking for input. We had neighborhood meetings.
  6. We followed up with the survey and got a tremendous round of support from the neighbors that had been surveyed.
  7. It's my hope we can move forward with the project.
  8. We have postponed this three times to resolve a dispute with a neighbor, which we resolved.
  9. We will continue to work with the neighbors.
  10. We want to address the needs of the entire community and serve them in an educational sense.

No name

  1. I am the neighbor at 1358 14th Avenue.
  2. I am very opposed to this.
  3. Not with preschools in general, but a preschool next door to me.
  4. The parking right now on our block is terrible.
  5. I have my driveway impacted every day.
  6. All neighbors I talked to are opposed to this.

Rick Riley

  1. I have a construction company in San Francisco and use that facility with agreement from Saint Anne's for vehicle storage.
  2. I am not in opposition to a daycare.
  3. It's great for Saint Anne's.
  4. I am concerned about the parking.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

14b. 2005.1090CV (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14th AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008 and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Variances from Planning Code Sections 135 (usable open space) to allow the elimination of required usable open space for the single-family dwelling at 1362 14th Avenue and 159(a) & (b) (required off-street parking not on the same lot as the structure) to allow the required off-street parking (for the single-family dwelling and proposed preschool) to be provided on a separate lot approximately 30 feet to the south. The proposal is to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool would use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The proposal would maintain the existing dwelling unit and the building footprints would remain the same. The proposal would be subject of a concurrent hearing before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Authorization to allow the establishment of a preschool in a residential district. The properties are located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.

15a. 2006.0824D (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

2634 BUSH STREET – north side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 1049 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.07.8505, proposing to construct a one-story horizontal addition and egress stairs at the rear of the existing structure. The one-story addition would be 8-feet deep by 14-feet wide and a new roof deck would be located above the addition. New stairs would be added to the west side of the proposed addition. The existing flat roof over the second floor would be changed to a pitched roof to accommodate additional attic space. The new roof would match the existing. The proposed addition and new stairs are located within the required rear yard, requiring a Rear Yard Variance. The existing building is a two-story, single-family 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:

Ted – DR requestor

  1. I live at 2636 Bush Street.
  2. We have lived there for 20 something years.
  3. We have major issues with the plans submitted and we brought it to the applicants' attention in August.
  4. They never bothered to change the plans and submit the plans, even though our objections were made known to them, until our lawyer sent them a letter.
  5. Then they changed the plans.
  6. I need assurance that they will do&
  7. I want to make sure I don't have a bad experience after the fact.
  8. I would insist that they give me a new roof after they are done.
  9. As far as the rear deck, we don't object to that.
  10. We object to the stairs.
  11. The way they propose it it's sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of an open yard.
  12. We prefer the stairs on the east side where there is a solid fence.

A friend of the family

  1. His wife sent me here saying he is not a good speaker.
  2. The roof problem &
  3. I have been hearing this story for seven months.
  4. The stairway - in the original drawing it was on the left hand side of the house, looking from the back.
  5. If the stairway stays on the left side they eliminate noise and privacy problems.
  6. The architect should be able to solve the problem simply.

Chase Simmons - Owner

  1. We feel this is a simple addition to the home.
  2. There is no way for us to access the backyard from the main living area.
  3. We spend most our time in the room. It's at the back of the house.
  4. We feel we have been forward and open with our neighbors and trying to address their concerns.
  5. We are hopeful that you approve the project.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as submitted.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

15b. 2006.0320V (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

2634 BUSH STREET – north side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 1049 - Request for Variance from Planning Code Section 134 (Required Rear Yard) to allow the construction of a one-story horizontal addition approximately 8-feet deep and 14-feet wide at the rear of the existing single-family house. The addition would accommodate a new roof deck located above the proposed addition and stairs leading from the roof deck to the rear yard. The proposal would be subject of a concurrent hearing before the Planning Commission for a Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.07.8505. The existing building is a two-story, single-family 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 proposed project.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 15a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.

16. 2006.0824D (S. MENDRIN: (415) 558-6625)

2918 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Broderick and Divisadero Streets, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1004 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.05.02.0489 proposing to merge two dwelling units into one single-family dwelling in a structure located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District. The project also includes the removal of a small portion of the rear ground floor, a small horizontal addition to the rear and a lateral addition to the west rear side of the building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed project.

SPEAKERS:

Nick - Architect for the project

  1. We have support in the neighborhood.
  2. The unit is not occupied and there is no intention to occupy at this point.
  3. The Richardson's have two active kids.
  4. To get to the garden you have to go around this unit and that does not lead to a very successful family home.
  5. It's returning the house to its original single-family occupancy.

Jenny Richardson - Owner

  1. We've lived there for a long time.
  2. We hope we can build what the house was -- a gracious, not huge addition. But to have a home become a nice family home for us.
  3. The way the unit is now we have not had a tenant in there for eight to nine years.
  4. We are not looking to kick anybody out.
  5. We want our family connected to our house.

MOTION: To not take Discretionary Review and approve.

AYES: Antonini, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and Lee

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: With the failure to pass a motion for Discretionary Review, the project is approved as proposed.

ITEM 17 WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND HEARD AFTER ITEM 11

17. 2006.0854D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

4531-4533 20TH Street - south side between Douglass and Eureka Streets, Lot 050 and 051 in Assessor's Block 2749 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.06.5760, proposing to merge two condominium dwelling units into one single-family home. The property is located within a 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 as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Ted Pratt – Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. My friends want to stay in San Francisco and raise their family.
  2. They have owned both the units and are requesting your approval of the merger so they can raise their children.
  3. They love this neighborhood. They have a strong bond with the neighborhood and neighbors.
  4. As their architect and friend, I feel that trying to convert their existing unit into a home suitable for a family has issues that raise questions about the viability of the project.
  5. Converting this one bedroom home into a three bedroom presents planning and safety issues.
  6. This can be achieved by connecting two stairs that sit on top of each other.
  7. We have to run a flight of stairs down.
  8. No exterior changes will be made.
  9. It will fit within the community better.
  10. I recommend and urge the commission to approve the merger of units.

Joe – Co-Project Sponsor

  1. We have an emotional attachment to our house.
  2. We feel like we had our son there. He's a year old.
  3. We don't want to leave.
  4. What we want is room to raise our family.
  5. We feel like this is the place to raise our family.
  6. We are in the process of adopting another child.
  7. We hope you approve our project. We love our neighborhood.
  8. We hope you allow us to stay and continue to enjoy the dream we have here.

Bill Gun – Co-Project Sponsor

  1. We held open houses for our neighbors to talk with us about the project.
  2. As far as we know all our neighbors approve of this.

Tenant (did not state name)

  1. I wanted to vote my support for their application and confirm that it was clear from the beginning that I would be staying for a short time.
  2. I have another place I'm moving into.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander

18. 2006.1017D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

296 CRESTA VISTA DRIVE – South side between Lulu Alley and Emil Lane - Assessor's Block 3005B, Lot 001. A Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006 0602 3052 to construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot in an RH-1(D) (Residential House, One Family, Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

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

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

19. 2006.0924D (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
1801-1813 FULTON STREET -
at the southwest corner of Fulton Street and Masonic Avenue, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1187, – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.21.7213 proposing to install one micro cell panel antenna in a faux vent on the roof of the subject building, and accompanying equipment cabinets. The proposed faux vent will be 6' tall and setback 10' from the north and east facades of the building. The existing building is a three-story, mixed-use building in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

David - Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. The problem with cell phones is they are lower power and need a higher unit area.
  2. They are trying to put them all over including residential area.
  3. The cell phone industry went to DC and got Federal regulations put in place.
  4. It makes it harder for local jurisdictions to disapprove these antennas.
  5. This is quite unusual; the usual zoning is given to the local zoning issues.
  6. The courts are often in favor of the local jurisdiction.
  7. The big issue is that this is a residential building in a NC district. There are three stories and bottom is commercial.
  8. This is a preferred site.
  9. It should go to hearing and should have gone to the public.
  10. It is not an accessory use.
  11. It's a cell phone antenna.
  12. They have gone around that to avoid going through the process of informing neighbors and giving us the opportunity for input.
  13. The letters of determination are circumventing the process.
  14. I wish the Planning Commission could hear it and the residents can get involved.

Paul - T-Mobile Representative

  1. I think you have got the photo simulation that shows this is a small faux vent that will go on the top of the building.
  2. The DR requestor is trying to challenge what was set forth in Mr. Badiner's Accessory Use letter.
  3. They have been built since 1988.
  4. Discretionary Review is not required.
  5. The bottom line is that the facilities are important for the people and emergency responses.
  6. As the Tele-Commission stated, in times of emergency we need the wireless facilities.
  7. This item is not properly before you.
  8. The issues of use are not before you, only if you wish to take discretionary review of whether the issues have been met and the design is adequate.
  9. We feel it's not necessary.

Peter - Speaking on behalf of the landlord

  1. The landlord feels this is a good project.
  2. In the applicant's application, he stated this would decrease the land value in the area, actually this wouldn't.
  3. It would increase.
  4. It will be shown as income generating.
  5. The property value would go up.
  6. We have done everything we need to do and hope it goes forward without further review.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as submitted.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and Lee

20. 2006.0688d (a. starr: (415) 558-6362)

3300 clay street - at the southeast corner of Clay Street and Presidio Avenue, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0997, - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.27.5519proposing to remove the ground floor storage area of a six-unit residential building, excavate a portion of the ground floor, and install a 6-car garage with a 10' wide garage door on Presidio Avenue. The existing building is a four-story, six-unit building in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed Use, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

DR Requestor

  1. My mother lives at 300 Clay Street.
  2. She is concern about the health impacts.
  3. It's two blocks from the second biggest exit of the Presidio with 500 cars an hour not including two bus lines.
  4. Was this heavy traffic considered by the staff?
  5. Cars' going in and out of garages is a danger.
  6. We think the owner will put in 10 spaces not six.
  7. They have a pattern of exceeding their permits.
  8. They have room for 10 spaces.
  9. The report is a record of repeated permit abuse.
  10. We think that is what they are going to do at this location.
  11. We would like to have the garage entrance changed to Clay Street. It would be safer.
  12. The sponsors have refused to talk with us.
  13. Please, put it on continuance, if not Discretionary Review, until the sponsors talk to us and the traffic concerns are considered.
  14. They are going to exceed their six parking stall limit.

[No name given]

  1. I have lived at 3300 Clay Street since November of 1991.
  2. It's a wonderful location.
  3. I have many windows over that corner. Over the intersection.
  4. It is a dangerous intersection.
  5. I would like an impact study of the doors of the proposed garages on the Presidio side.

David Turinheim

  1. I wanted to speak on this because I'm concerned about having six additional parking spaces.
  2. We need to encourage people to use the bus, bikes or walk instead of constantly adding new parking spaces.
  3. I say leave the building as it is.

Ted - Project Sponsor

  1. I live at 3300 Clay Street
  2. The plan is a six-car garage. No more.
  3. The traffic is not going to be altered.
  4. We will, actually, take six cars off the streets. This will actually help the traffic condition.

Scott Jacks

  1. I think if you review the information or plans, there is not intention to put in 10 cars.
  2. I think if you review the information it will be obvious what the right decision is.

ACTION: Following the public hearing and Commission deliberation, this item was continued to October 5, 2006 with the understanding that staff will apply the criteria that has been developed for garage doors in existing buildings. The public hearing remains open.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and Lee

21. 2005.1143D (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

124 SCHWERIN STREET - northwest side of Schwerin Street, between Visitacion and Sunnydale Avenue, lot 005 in Assessor's Block 6301 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.05.16.2521 proposing to construct a two story horizontal addition to the front of the existing single-family house. The property is within an RH-1 (House, One-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the project with modifications.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to October 5, 2006.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander and Lee

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:

David

  1. I appreciate that you are going to look into the issue of the accessory use and revisit the guidelines. It's long over due.
  2. The people have long asked for that.
  3. They will be happy to bring this before you.

Adjournment: 6: 17 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as amended

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

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 category Government, 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 10:00:23 PM