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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

September 7, 2006

September 7, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, December 7, 2006

12:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 12:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Michael Jacinto, Tom Wang, Jon Purvis, John Billovits, AnMarie Rodgers, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2003.0347E (R. AHMADI: (415)-558-5966)

Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. The project area lies to the west of the City's downtown financial district and sits at the junction of several neighborhoods, including, Civic Center, Hayes Valley, Western Addition, South of Market, Inner Mission, the Castro, Duboce Triangle, Eureka Valley, and Upper Market. The proposed neighborhood plan would reclassify the existing zoning from Residential Districts (R), Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCD's), Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial (NC-3), and Heavy Commercial (C-M) to Downtown General Commercial Districts (C-3-G), Residential Transit Oriented (RTO), Neighborhood Commercial Transit Districts (NCT), Neighborhood Commercial-Transit, Moderate-Scale Mixed Use Districts (NCT-3). It would also increase height limits in certain areas and reduce height limits in other areas. The proposed zoning and height reclassifications would increase the potential for residential development in the area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 26, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to December 14, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2006.1203C (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)

219 7TH STREET Northeast side between Howard and Folsom Streets; Lot 41 in Assessors Block 3731 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 816.18, and 890.50, to convert a Residential Hotel to Other Institution, Residential Care Facility, within the SLR (Service/ Light Industrial/ Residential Mixed Use District) and the 50-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2005.0486D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2564 SUTTER STREET - north side between Broderick and Baker Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1053 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.11.2946 proposing a 35-foot rear horizontal addition and a two-story vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The existing building is proposed to be lifted approximately 20 inches to allow for a three-car garage to be inserted below the existing basement level. Two additional dwelling units are proposed for a total of three units on the subject lot.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2006)

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

PLEASE NOTE: The Planning Commission has temporarily altered the Order of Business for this hearing. COMMISSIONERS QUESTIIONS AND MATTERS and DIRECTOR'S REPORT will follow item #7 - Market and Octavia Plan Amendments, Hearing #4.

B. 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

[No Name]

- This petition should help to resolve this matter with 2650 Hyde Street. It is a Victorian House built in the 1900's.

- The owner started construction without a permit.

- Many neighbors oppose this project but did not have a chance to exercise their rights because it was done without a permit.

- Please enforce Planning Code 311 for the pre-application and submit the plans.

- I brought some supporting documents.

Edgar

- I am here in support of the neighbors of 2650 Hyde Street.

- I spoke to the Planning Department staff, Sarah who said that this project does not require the pre-application process.

- I have seen the drawings for this project and it is a big addition to that property and I am very concerned about it.

C. REGULAR CALENDAR

4. 2005.0634E (M. JACINTO: (415) 558-5988)

275 10TH STREET - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project would involve demolition of three existing light industrial buildings and construction of a 5-story, 50 foot-tall building containing 134 single-room occupancy-type very low-income dwelling units for homeless adults with onsite access to supportive services, and one unit for an onsite resident property manager. The project would contain residential support services on the ground floor as well as a leasable commercial space with its frontage on Folsom Street. The project would provide 11 off-street staff parking spaces in an at-grade garage accessible from Dore Street. The three buildings on the project site: 275 10th Street, 1350 Folsom Street and 64-72 Dore Street, constructed in 1931 and 1922 respectively, are considered historical resources under CEQA for their contextual importance to a potential historic district in the South of Market Area. Accordingly, the DEIR identified significant unavoidable impacts associated with the demolition of these buildings. The DEIR also identified significant unavoidable impacts associated with the cumulative loss of PDR land, building space, and jobs in the greater Western Soma planning area. The project site is within an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) Zoning District and 50-X Height and Bulk District. 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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved certification of the Final EIR

AYES: Alexander, W. Lee, Moore, and Olague

NAYES: Antonini

EXCUSED: S. Lee and Sugaya

MOTION: 17345

5. 2005.1014D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

3811 18TH STREET- south side between Church and Sanchez Streets; Lot 085 in Assessor's Block 3585 - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.22.0779, proposing to alter and add to the existing two-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Anthony Richards, Project Sponsor

- We bought the house five years ago and our family is growing. We have two children and need the extra space.

- We have three objectives in mind for this project: increase livable space, add a garage because of difficulties of street parking, and improve our front entrance.

- Our plan has been generously well received by our neighbors with the exception of the Discretionary Review requestor.

- I believe he has two issues: consistent features on the block and height affecting air/light in the courtyard.

- We have maintained the roof shape at the front. The entry would be an addition and we are keeping the character of the block.

- The addition of the porch would improve the privacy to our neighbor. Currently, there is a view at eye level to the front neighbor.

- Our plan develops a house that would meet our family needs and we believe is not going to adversely impact our neighbors.

Kuh-kun Lui, Discretionary Review Requestor [Translated]

- I am against this project because according to the prints the structure is going to improve the neighborhood but it is an obstruction. Please review the plans.

- The proposal is too high affecting light and air circulation of the neighbors.

- The proposed new windows cause unsafe conditions and it would be difficult for people to live peaceful.

- The height should be decreased and windows should be set back three feet.

- I do not speak English and this is very difficult for me because I have a lot of issues.

- Gutters are too high and are obstructing the stairway and I can not go through.

- I had contacted the City to come and look at the property and nothing happened.

- Everything they did is not stable. I am totally against this project and think it is very unsafe.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved with instructions to staff to continue working with the Project Sponsor on the roof type.

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

6a. 2004.0053D (J. PURVIS; (415) 558-6354)

3930 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - north side through to Campbell Avenue, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 6205 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission Resolution No. 16700, requiring review of all residential demolition and replacement projects, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.12.05.9454, to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling. The site is within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS

Edward Young, Project Sponsor

- We have provided all the materials and Mr. Jon Purvis presented the project accurately.

- I am available for any questions.

Allen Chang and Kelly Wong

- My wife owns the house on Gottingen Street and this project would block our bay view.

- This project does not need to be 3 stories high. It would be nice to decrease the height.

- It would increase parking problems in the area.

- You were told that there is no opposition to this project. Many of our neighbors oppose it and we sent a certified letter.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved the demolition.

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

6b. 2006.0375D (J. PURVIS; (415) 558-6354)

3918 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all residential demolition and replacement projects, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.12.05.9465, to construct a three-story single-family dwelling following the subdivision of one lot into two lots, subject the granting of a lot area variance by the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 6a.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved the project.

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

6c 2006.0376D (J. PURVIS; (415) 558-6354)

3920 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission policy requiring review of all residential demolition and replacement, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.12.05.9463, to construct a three-story single-family dwelling following the subdivision of one lot into two lots, subject the granting of a lot area variance by the Zoning Administrator.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 6a.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved with project.

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

6d. 2004.0053V (J. PURVIS; (415) 558-6354)

3930 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - Request for Lot Area Variance under Planning Code Sections 121(e) and 305 to allow subdivision of an existing 3,306 square-foot lot into two lots of less than 1,750 square feet followed by construction of a single-family dwelling on each lot.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 6a.

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

4:00 P.M.

(Tape IIA; IIB; IIIA)

7. 2003.0347EMTZ (J. Billovits (415) 558-6390, A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Market and Octavia Plan Amendments - The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on or after October 26, 2006, to consider Case No. 2003.0347EMTZ, adopting a Motion to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings and consider Resolutions to adopt amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map related to the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. A series of public hearings are scheduled for October 26, 2006, Nov. 2, 2006, Nov. 9, 2006, Nov. 16, 2006, and Dec. 7, 2006. The Commission will consider and receive public comment on specific aspects of the Plan and proposed amendments at each hearing.

The series of hearings was originally scheduled to culminate in a hearing to consider adoption actions on or after Dec. 7, 2006. As the Nov. 16th hearing was cancelled, the Commission will hold hearing number four on Dec. 7, 2006 and hearing number five on December 14, 2006. The Commission will consider adoption actions on or after Dec. 14, 2006.

At the hearings, the Planning Commission will consider a rezoning and public improvements program to realize the vision articulated by the community through the Market and Octavia community planning process. For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at ttp://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org.

Draft Schedule for Planning Commission Hearing

This calendar gives notice that the Planning Commission will be hearing the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan on or after December 7, 2006. Be advised that due to the nature of the public hearings, the Commission may continue any particular hearing item and/or may not hear all items at the hearing. To confirm the final Commission Hearing schedule, on the week of the hearing please visit: http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_meeting.asp?id=15840 or call Aksel Olsen at 558-6616.

Hearing # 4 – December 7, 2006

Staff will provide a presentation to the Planning Commission and members of the public on the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan:

·  Pipeline projects – proposed development projects that are currently under review by the Planning Department and consideration of their relationship with the proposed Plan, Planning Code and Zoning controls adoption;

· Historic Preservation and Parking (continuing of required from the Nov. 2, 2006 public hearing); and

· Finalizing the Plan for Commission Adoption – Follow-Up on Questions and Matters Raised at Prior Hearings.

At this hearing, Planning Department staff will present information on the Plan and the Planning Commission will hear public comment on the subjects listed above. The Planning Commission will also consider a rezoning and public improvements program to realize the vision articulated by the community through the Market and Octavia community planning process. For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at http://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org.

Plan Area

The Plan encompasses an irregularly shaped area in northeast San Francisco. It extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Boulevard for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Plan Area boundaries extend from 11th and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west. The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central Freeway alignment to include the area up toTurk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street between 10th and 11th Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area boundaries jog along Division, Clinton, Stevenson, Fourteenth, Guerrero, and Sixteenth Streets. The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor's Blocks in entirety or in part, including the whole of Blocks 759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 809, 813 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to 3506, 3512 to 3514, 3533 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3560; and portions of 3507 (lot 40), 3510 (lots 49, 57), 3511 (lots 1, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75, 80, 82, and 93), and 3532 (lots 14, 19B, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90 and 91).

Specifically, the Commission will consider the following items and may take action on or after December 14, 2006:

·ð Case 2003.0347E – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of CEQA Findings on the Market and Octavia Plan.

·ð Case 2003.0347M - a proposed General Plan amendment that would add a new area plan, the Market and Octavia Area Plan, and make related amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Housing, Recreation and Open Space and Transportation Elements, the Civic Center Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, South of Market Area Plan and the Land Use Index;

·ð Case 2003.0347T - a proposed Planning Code text amendment that would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and establish new fees;

·ð Case 2003.0347Z - a proposed Zoning Map amendment that would revise Maps 2 and 2H, 7 and 7H, and 2SU and 7SU. The proposed Planning Code text and map (Zoning Map) amendments would a) establish three new zoning districts, b) amend the Hayes-Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs), c) update height and bulk districts, d) establish the Market and Octavia Community Improvements Impact Fee, and e) make related revisions necessary to implement the General Plan. The proposed changes are described in greater detail in Case 2003.0347T (above).

Together, these four Commission actions are intended to implement the Market and Octavia Plan.

In addition, an historic survey is currently being done of the project area; property owners considering constructing or altering a building in this area should consult with Planning Department staff to determine the historic resource status of their property. Property owners and interested parties are advised that height limits and other controls do not provide unqualified rights to development, but rather, proscribe the maximum potential building envelope that may be permitted; proposed buildings may not reach the maximum permitted building height/envelope.

Members of the public may review a copy of the proposed amendments at the San Francisco Planning Department office at 1660 Mission Street 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, at the Public Library (the Main Library 100 Larkin St., and Harvey Milk branch library, 1 Jose Sarria Ct. (near 16th & Market Sts.). An electronic copy of the proposed amendments and actions is available at http://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org.

As part of Case No. 2003.0347T, the proposed Planning Code text amendment would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and establish new fees. The proposed amendments are described more fully below:

Establishment of Three Zoning Districts in the Plan Area

The Transit-Oriented Residential Use District(RTO) will replace most of the RH and RM districts zoning north and south of the Market Street corridor, extending north to Turk Street, west to Noe and Scott Streets, and South to Sixteenth Street. The proposed RTO district will encourage moderate-density, multi-family, and residential infill. Because of the availability of transit service, proximity of retail and services within walking distance, and limitation on permitted parking the RTO permits the construction of some housing without accessory parking. Parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing within buildings in keeping with neighborhood scale. Proposed heights in Residential Transit Oriented (RTO) Districts and RH districts primarily remain 40 and 50 feet as currently classified; in some RTO areas, permitted heights will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to 40 and 50 feet.

A Neighborhood Commercial Transit District (NCT) will overlay the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and portions of the Upper Market and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts within the Market and Octavia neighborhood. In named NCT and NC-1 (T) districts, parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing above ground-floor retail uses. These districts will largely keep the existing specific use-size controls. They include current Neighborhood Commercial Districts (Hayes-Gough, portions of the Upper Market, Valencia) and several parcels currently zoned NC-1.

The Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Special Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will permit the development of a transit-oriented, high-density, mixed-use neighborhood around the intersections of Van Ness Avenue and Market Street and South Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street. This SUD will overlay existing C-3-G districts and existing C-M districts will be rezoned to C-3-G with this new VNMDR-SUD. Parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing in buildings with mixed-used podiums and some residential towers at two key intersections: Market Street and Van Ness Avenue and Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue. Proposed heights in the Van Ness and Market Downtown Residential Use District (VNMDR-SUD) will change from 120, 130, 150, 160, 200 and 320 feet to 85, 120, 200, 320 and 400 feet; towers will be permitted over a podium of 85 or 120 feet; the highest towers will be permitted in the vicinity of the Market Street/Van Ness Avenue intersections.

In the Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Commercial Use Districts (NCT), height districts will change from 50, 80 and 105 feet to primarily 55, 65 and 85 feet; these districts will be located in SoMa West and along Market Street. The NCT district will largely replace C-M and NC-3 districts. In the NCT district, parking controls will establish maximum caps (instead of existing minimum requirements) and housing density will be controlled by building envelope to encourage housing above ground-floor retail uses. These districts will largely keep the existing specific use-size controls in place in the NC-3 district. Some heights on some parcels near Brady Street will change from 105 and 60 feet to 40 feet and 85 feet on parcels surrounding a proposed public open space.

Establishment of New Fees in the Plan Area

In order to fund the community improvements identified in the Plan, the Program document proposes to establish a Development Impact Fee, requiring the growth that generates the demand for additional infrastructure and services to provide some of the revenue required to fund the improvements. The proposal establishes a development impact fee on new residential and commercial development in the Plan Area. The fee proposal is $10.00 per square foot of residential development, and $4.00 per square foot of commercial development.

To encourage the provision of necessary and desirable public infrastructure improvements and also in order to mitigate the impacts of this increased localized density, the Department has established the Van Ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure Fund. Developers may provide in-kind public improvements (such as open space or streetscape improvements) or proportional in-lieu contributions to this fund that will allow the city to develop these facilities. The Department estimates that no more than 6 potential development sites would benefit from participating in the program. The Department has set the value of the additional FAR at par with the current market value of historic TDR credits ($15 per square foot).

Preliminary Recommendation: No action requested

SPEAKERS

James Haas

- I am here to talk about short-term parking. Some of the supply of parking lots that were available for short term parking has been taken. There is a shortage of it.

- There is the potential of expanding the garage of the Performing Arts.

- Next door to the Performing Arts' garage is one of the affordable housing sites for the formerly homeless.

Richard Henderson

- I would like to talk about the projected large condominium structure on Buchannan and Market Street.

- Construction should not be an obstruction. Buildings should be enhancements for the neighborhood. Therefore, I am requesting that you reduce the density of it.

- As proposed, it would violate the standards that we agreed on. It would destroy the light and harmony established in the neighborhood.

Peter Lewis, Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association

- We are very concerned about this plan because of how is going to impact our district.

- Our goal is to make Mission Dolores a historic district.

- The increased scrutiny level mentioned before is minute in our district.

- We already have reduced parking. Every weekend there are so many cars in the area

- We need your help. One of the solutions is to give us one-to-one parking on the southern part of .Market Street.

Joe Curtin

- My concern in particular is the one-to-one parking. It should be allowed in the new constructions in the Mission Dolores Neighborhood.

- Parking along the Dolores and Valencia corridors is intolerable.

Tom Radulovich

- As a resident of the Mission Dolores area I would say that the character of our district is being threatened by The Planning Department's controls.

- You would notice by walking in the neighborhood that the Victorian houses have very narrow garage doors on 17th and Dolores Streets. This is ruining our district.

- New constructions should be incorporated into the character of the neighborhood.

- There should be more planning on traffic.

Kate White

- This plan is visionary, sensible and calls for clustery developments on the transit corridors.

- It includes important protection for historic preservation.

- She urged the support of this plan.

Alan Martinez, Landmark Preservation Advisory Board

- You have received two letters from the Landmark Board about the issues on preservation in the Market/Octavia Plan.

- The basic goal for us is that the planning works to make sure that the policies of the plan do not impact historic resources.

- One of the issues not mentioned is determining the boundaries of the scrutiny areas.

Tim Colen

- This was a wonderful presentation and captured why we like the plan and want to go forward.

- We are interested in historic preservation and are encouraged with the guidelines and interim controls.

- We strongly support the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association on the issues of parking.

- Do not delay any further your support of this plan.

Laura Tashan

- I just found out about the projected 80-foot condominium site on Buchanan and Market Streets.

- I have a petition with 26 signatures from residents that they believe this would impact the light, air and view.

- I believe that for this type of large building two entrances for parking should be required.

Craig O'Connor

- These concerns about the 80-foot building should be considered because it would impact life quality by obstructing light and air.

- Density is another concern. There might be 10,000 new neighbors with this plan.

Richard, Eureka Valley resident

- We were shocked when we found out that Eureka Valley is included in the plan area.

- We would like our area to be cut it from the plan area. We do not really relate to Hayes Valley for the Market/Octavia plan.

Chris Peterson

- I would like to speak in particular to the parking requirements. The neighborhood is very well served by transit and has easy access to the freeway.

- The plan should continue promoting pedestrian oriented patterns and not encourage automobile dependent people.

Ruben Levitt

- I would like to address the parking issue.

- In the area there are buildings that have garages and it seems that no cars are parked there. Garages are used for storage.

- This plan is a comprehensive one. All the elements work together and it is important to keep the integrity of it than piece it out.

- Developments in the pipeline are waiting for this plan to move forward.

Lynn Craton, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- We need to address the problem of automobile abundance. I support the parking limitations.

- I urge you to approve the plan without the completion of the historic survey.

Paul Olsen, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- There was an important word used during the presentation and that is balance.

- The community has truly come together to have a plan that is fully community based.

- We need to go forward and have this plan adopted.

- People choose to live in certain areas and we need to honor those choices. All areas in the city do not need to be the same.

- We need to give people the choice of living in an area that is pedestrian oriented.

Jason Henderson

- The summary this evening is really compromising.

- We are willing to move this process forward. What needs to happen is a better management of off-street parking spaces.

Steve Vettel

- The original idea for this plan was to have community consensus of what development should be in the area.

- The trade off was to eliminate case by case discretion.

- I recommend that you direct staff to look into the 309 compliance process rather than a CU [Conditional Use] process for development sites that are consistent with the plan.

Joe Curtin, President of Castro Area Planning and Action

- We have been active with this process since the beginning.

- We support incorporating the conditional use requirements in the plan.

- It would help to ensure that new developments are going to help the neighborhood.

- We support eliminating the minimum parking requirements and instituting maximum parking along Market Street.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- I do not live in the plan area. This is a very small city and we are not isolated. It is going to impact everybody.

- Parking is very difficult here. It is hard to digest everything that is going on.

Curt Holzinger, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- There was a discussion in our association that we want to continue the conversation on density.

- We support having no parking to increase more housing.

- Our main concern is that high density would slowly erode the historic character of that neighborhood overtime.

- As far as the process, I would like to find out how we get specific answers to suggestions we have made.

- We are trying to make a few requests of things that do not apply to our area and we would present them at the next meeting.

Ruven Hannah

- I am very concerned with the feature of the projected complex of an 80 foot site.

- The quality of our lives is going to be impacted by it obstructing light and air.

Sarah Karlinsky, SPUR

- The main thing to keep in mind about this plan is that it is oriented in one of the most important transit corridors in the city.

- If we are going to increase density in the city, this is the right area to do it.

Judith Berkowitz, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhood

- The records show that parking will be built down the road when one-to-one parking ratios are not built in with new construction.

- Those who want to eliminate cars from this plan are diluting themselves.

- This body should have blanket prohibition against parking that should be written into the plan.

- The residents of San Francisco have no idea that its officials are eliminating the minimum parking requirement which is one-to-one.

- We urge you to have a contingency plan in place.

Peter Cohen

- There is no increase in transit capacity for the increased density. This is a solid cutting edge of this plan.

- The question is how these comments would be responded to and be used to refine this plan.

- Thoughtful comments by member of the public that live in the area should be very informative to get this plan to work.

Dennis Richards, President of Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- Thanked staff for the presentation and allowing participation from the community.

- There are a lot of good things in this plan that we support.

- We know there would be additional growth and we are willing to support what we can handle.

- Market Street is a unique area and we support no parking and density limits along that street.

Tim Dunn

- I live in the project area and parking is a big issue.

- We recently bought a unit and we were able to purchase it because it has no parking.

- Housing affordability is something to consider when talking about parking.

- Since we are looking to increase density, we should be looking into it as a source of funds for affordable housing.

Ali Kia Shabahangi

- I would like to express my full support. We are one of the projects in the pipeline proposing senior affordable housing.

- I urge to approve the plan.

Leigh Stackpole

- Expressed full support for the Market/Octavia plan.

- I would like to see Hayes Street as a two\way street implemented. Also, pedestrian cross walks should be implemented on Hayes/Gough Streets and Gough/Sutter Streets.

- Safety should be a priority.

- I would really like to see the south side of Market be a priority as a green area like the North side of Market.

James Warshell

- I very much support this plan. We had numerous meetings to educate ourselves about it.

- Staff has worked very hard to reach out to the community and I can hardly believe that anyone has not had a chance to share suggestions and ideas.

Around 6:00 p.m. the Planning Commission recessed to hold a joint meeting with the Building Inspection Commission in room 250. The remainder of this calendar [as indicated by the items below] took place at the conclusion of the joint meeting. The Planning Commission's meeting resumed around 10:00 p.m.

[No name]

- There is a soil compression along Van Ness and Market.

- You should bring that issue up with the geotechnical people.

Rufino DeLeon Jr.

- I am in very much support of the plan.

- On the parking issue: residents that can not meet their transit needs would purchase a car if it is the only feasible transportation available.

- It is better to include parking choices now then trying to take care of it later.

- I would prefer to see large developments with underground garages than vehicles clogging the streets.

Sue Hestor

- You should ask your staff to do some isometric drawings of the plan.

- This plan has had very good participation from Hayes Valley. There are implications for Noe Valley. Eureka Valley did not have the same opportunity to participate.

- I would respectfully ask staff to request developers to go out and talk to people in the neighborhood.

- We need to talk about 400-foot towers on Market and Van Ness Avenue.

ACTION: Information only. No Commission action.

D. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

8. 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

- Regarding the hearing we just had on the Market/Octavia Plan:

- It was useful to hear about seismic issues.

- It is critical to make sure that any construction has good anchors – good foundations.

- There was a question on affordable housing in the area because it is going to be redeveloped.

- I do not know if redevelopment means affordable and I would like to know about that in the near future.

- In terms of the issues brought up tonight, the most important is the one between the 309 process and the conditional use process.

- It seems that there is mixed feelings as to what is appropriate.

- In the 309 process things are approved as-of-right more or less if they conform, as opposed to a CU on everything.

- A lot of the public was a little confused because no project has to necessarily have a stated amount of parking.

- Most people expressed concerns about wanting no parking at all and some would like to have less and that is something that we need to look at.

- Making the argument that there would be more cars driving around because people use their garages as storage is not really an argument that I would buy.

- The big difference on Valencia and Dolores Streets is that entertainment has increased and I do not think that residents are the ones needing the parking.

- I was looking at the density question that came back and we need to look at the land use.

- Those are my main comments in terms of what we heard today.

Commissioner Moore

- Regarding tonight's joint meeting with the Building Inspection Commission:

- I would like to reiterate the need that we continue talking on safety in terms of seismic and fire as we move into Market/Octavia.

- The issues are more profound than we have thought so far and we need to look at them.

- I encourage that the Fire Marshall indeed will be asked to attend and hope that even DBI will be able to come to some of the meetings we are having.

- In addition to that, I would like to ask Ms. Dennis to perhaps encourage those people who left earlier to watch the tapes of this evening's meeting because I think it is essential for a really successful collaboration between all of us.

E. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements

None

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

None

F. 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

Sue Hestor

- The Commission should have a policy directive to staff that no case should be calendared until the environmental document is complete.

- I have a case that is coming up in January that was put on the calendar at the end of October.

- Categorical Exemption was not done and I have no idea when it is coming out.

- It is controversial. Documents should be available to the public when it is put on the calendar.

- It [Department/staff practice] is not going to change unless the Commission tells staff to do so.

Joan Girardoi

- The FEIR [Final Environmental Impact Report] for the Harbor is coming on January 11.

- The Army Corps of Engineers has standards for levis in New Orleans and for sea walls.

- Perhaps a member of your staff could research that and there may be a link to require that our sea walls be retrofitted.

- This has been going on for seventeen years. It is not covered under the Building Code or any code of the city, but they are covered under the army corps.

- We should find a way to get it done as part of this project.

Adjournment: 10:48 p.m. [This time includes approximately four hours for a joint meeting with the Building Inspection Commission (6 to 10 p.m.). The Planning Commission meeting resumed around 10:00 p.m.]

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 26, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

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 10:00:24 PM