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
Public Hearings 
 

January 18, 2007

January 18, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 18, 2007

1:30 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 1:36 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Sharon Young, Jon Lau, Rick Crawford, Tim Frye, Tina Tam, Craig Nikitas, Sarah Dennis, Glen Cabreros, Michael Li, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Sara Vellve, Isolde Wilson, Ben Fu, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2006.1090C (E. JACKSON: (415) 558- 6363)

120 Lathrop Avenue - south side, between Tunnel and Wheeler Avenues, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 5090 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304 to amend a previously approved CU/PUD authorization (Case No. 1995.183C, Motion No. 13951) to demolish an existing 1,815 square foot classroom building and construct a new 4,300 square foot multi-purpose building at the rear of the lot within an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. The site is currently occupied by the Korean First Presbyterian Church. Exceptions are requested from rear yard and off-street parking as mandated by the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to February 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2003.1210C (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

5600 THIRD STREET - the block bounded by Third Street on its east, Bancroft Avenue on its south, Mendell Street on its west, and Armstrong Avenue on its north, Lots 003, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, and 011 of Assessor's Block 5421 - Informational Presentation on the design refinements for the proposed project approved under Planned Unit Development / Conditional Use Case No. 2003.1210C. The subject property is within an M-1 (Light Industrial) District and a 65-J 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. 2004.0803E (S. MICKELSEN: (415) 558-4481)

41 Tehama Street - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The project site (Assessor's Block 3736, Lots 74,75,76, 77 and 78A) is located in the Financial District on the south side of Tehama Street between First and Second Streets, adjacent to elevated freeway ramps to the south and west. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a 95-space surface parking lot and one-story storage shed and the construction of an approximately 302,200-gross-square-foot (gsf), 23-story, approximately 220-foot-tall, 198-unit residential building. The proposed development would include three subsurface parking levels with approximately 76 independently accessible parking spaces and 36 bicycle parking stalls, with primary pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle access from Tehama Street. The approximately 22,009 square-foot project site is within the C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office Special Development) zoning district and a 200-S height and bulk district. The proposed project would require certification by the Zoning Administrator for transfer of development rights (TDRs); a Conditional Use authorization (CU) to increase dwelling unit density; and a variance from dwelling unit exposure requirements. The proposed project would also require exceptions to height limits for upper-tower extensions, separation-of-tower and rear yard requirements.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2006.0882A (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

1306-1310 MCALLISTER STREET - north side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Assessor's Block 775, Lot 004A - Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a portion of the ground floor bay and construct a new garage opening. The building is a contributory-altered building to the Alamo Square Historic District under Article 10. It is located within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board heard this case at the September 6, 2006, public hearing and recommended disapproval.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 15, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2005.0156C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2130 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE (AKA 350 MASONIC AVENUE) -northeast corner of Masonic and Golden Gate Avenues; Lots 11 and 29 in Assessor's Block 1149 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 178 209.3(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to modify a previously approved Planned Unit Development (Motion No. 11162 for Case No. 1987.519C) for a private elementary and middle school (Kindergarten through Grade 8), The San Francisco Day School, to allow the demolition of an existing single-family house (on Lot 11); renovation of the existing school facilities including the removal of an 8-car surface parking lot (on Lot 29), and the construction of a new three-story over garage/basement science building addition, in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6. 2006.0056C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

317 Cortland Avenue- the north side of Cortland Avenue between Bocana and Bennington Street; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 5667 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 for the reduction of required off-street parking spaces for dwelling units, for the proposed 2-unit mixed-use building within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40 –X height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

7. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 28, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved with corrected spelling of Mrs. Platt and  how on page three

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

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 5, 2006

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

8. Commission Comments/Questions (tape IA)

  • 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

- Clarified his vote last week on the Medical Dispensary.

It should be for medical purposes [marihuana] and not consumed on site.

  1. Concerned about medications affecting or impairing judgment.
  2. We should question what control the dispensaries would implement to protect the public from possible accidents.

Commissioner Moore

  1. Apologized for leaving last week's hearing early, but I was ill.
  2. I commented last week we should consider including an in-lieu fee for developer to incorporate affordable housing within those building.
  3. Read an article that New York is implementing that process. We should dialogue with them and try to implement it here.
  4. I had a conversation yesterday with a local architect who talked to me about Renzo Piano pursuing buildings within the area of the Transbay Terminal. Director Macris if you could tell us about that?
  5. Appreciated Zoning Administrator Badiner for the effort of scheduling a meeting on an informational preparation for our regular meeting and apologized for canceling with a short notice.

Commissioner Sugaya

  1. We should have a briefing on the Transbay Terminal.
  2. I would like to get a copy of the RFP for the Transbay Project.

Director Mr. Macris

  1. We are trying to accommodate a presentation on the Transbay Terminal.
  2. It will probably happen in February.
  3. Yes, Renzo Piano was engaged on a design of a building in the area on First and Mission Streets.

9. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year.

SPEAKERS

Espanola Jackson

- You have made a very wise choice and I support your endeavors.

ACTION: Dwight Alexander as President and Christina Olague as Vice President

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

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

10. Director's Announcements Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- Article in the newspaper about solar panel permits.

- Solar panels should be reviewed for safety only. It is not under the purview of local jurisdictions.

Commissioner Alexander

- Requested the City Attorney provide a written determination on solar panels.

Commissioner Antonini

- Questioned if local jurisdictions could set regulations to deal with it.

Commissioner Sugaya

- It could be an exempt category under CEQA findings.

Commissioner Moore

  1. San Francisco is a unique city.
  2. We should work with other departments and try to regulate solar panels.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. I will respond in writing on the interpretation of that ordinance.

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

Board of Supervisor: None

Board of Appeals:

- 2327 28th Ave. Project-dwelling unit permit.

Board questioned to seek variance and for financial reason owner did not file. Permit Granted.

  1. Crestview Drive on Park Merced minor permit for repair and kind.

It is under work program. Landmark will review it and probably would come to planning.

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.

Espanola Jackson

- There are a lot of toxics in the watershed at Bayview and people are getting sick.

- It is not a good idea to build houses there.

- Health Department is not helping my neighborhood

Jeremy Paul

- You heard last week a case under conditional use for a nightclub in the Mission District.

- Owner took comments seriously and they are organizing themselves to be more effective.

- Apologized for inappropriate comments by a neighboring business owner about the Mission District made at last week's hearing.

E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

None

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

12. 2006.0831C (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

473A HAIGHT STREET - south side between Webster and Fillmore Streets; Lot 038 in Assessor's Block 0859 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 711.26 and 303 of the Planning Code to legalize an existing automatic teller machine (ATM) walk-up facility, installed without providing a 3-foot setback from the front property line. The ATM, which was installed without permit, is an accessory use to an existing retail store (d.b.a. Designer Brands #4). The property is located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2006)

NOTE: On November 9, 2006, following public testimony the Commission closed public hearing and entertained a motion of intent to approve. The motion failed by a vote of +3 –2 with Moore & Olague against and Alexander absent. Item was continued to 1/18/07 so absent commissioner can participate in final action.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Alexander, Moore, and Olague

MOTION: 17358

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

13. 2006.0074T (tape IA; IB) (J. LAU: (415) 558-6383)

Informational hearing on Planning Code Amendments to Industrial Districts in Bayview Hunters Point - Informational Item. The Department is preparing a set of zoning modifications for certain M-1 and M-2 designated areas in the Bayview Hunters Point district. The Department is proposing this zoning update to implement various objectives from the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, which seeks to retain space for jobs and light industrial activities and to reduce land use conflicts between housing and industry in the Bayview. In general, the Code amendments would continue to permit a wide range of light and contemporary industrial activities, while restricting the size of retail and office development in the area. The zoning revisions will also standardize and codify existing land use policies and controls that currently discourage or prohibit residential development in these industrial zones.

Preliminary Recommendation: Hold hearing on informational item. No action is proposed at this time.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 9, 2006)

SPEAKERS

John Wilson

-Owner of 400 Paul Avenue building and sponsor for 200 Paul Avenue for telecommunication service.

-I am satisfied and will keep working with Department staff to come back with a more fully quality proposal for these buildings.

Egon Terplan

-Zoning controls are entirely appropriate. It would encourage variety of industrial usage.

-Supports PDR and encouraged the Commission to do so as well.

Mark Klaiman

-Owner of a pet store - small PDR business in the Bayview.

-Thanked Department staff for the community outreach.

-Encouraged the Commission to support the proposed changes.

Bob Legallet

-Supports industrial zoning.

-Industrial usage is currently very small and has a low impact on the neighborhood.

Michael Janis

-The San Francisco Wholesale Produce Market employs over 500 individuals and continues to grow.

-Appreciated Staff for the outreach and encouraged the Commission to continue focusing on this issue.

Francisco Da Costa

-80% of this land is prone to liquefaction. This is a toxic box.

-Invited the Commission to visit the area and look at it in a very holistic manner paying attention to the industrial history.

Peter Cohen

-The Back Street Business Advisory Board supports what the Department is proposing.

-It would create stability, and a fundamental importance of industrial land use control.

-The proposed revisions to the Bayview Plan is a positive and proactive step toward recognizing the importance of retaining light industrial business as part of the economy.

Espanola Jackson

-Bayview is an enterprise zone.

-Concerned about toxic waste.

-Hopes that expansions and renovations do not misplace the residents of the area.

ACTION: Informational only. No action

14. 2006.0676C (tape IB; IIA) (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

2198 Market Street - at north side at Sanchez Street, Assessor's Block 3542 Lot 039 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 228.5(b) for demolition of a gasoline service station and removal of underground storage tanks in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Plans for the future use of the land are not known at this time.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Jonathan Roberson, Project Sponsor

-This is a lease issue. It has expired and the owner does not want to extend it.

-We have to remove everything that belongs to Shell and we need a permit to do it.

-We are monitoring tanks in the ground – keeping them clean and empty.

-Requested approval as soon as possible. This process started in April 2006

Peter Cohen

-Site has been vacant for some time. I understand the intention of the owner is to build housing.

-Requested that the Commission makes sure the site is kept in good condition.

ACTION: Approved as amended: to require that a landscape plan be submitted and approved prior to issuance of demolition permit; and any use of property for vehicle parking shall require the approval of the Planning Department.

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

MOTION: 17359

15a. 2006.0451ACV (tape IIA) (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

250 BRANNAN STREET - between Delancey and 2nd Streets; Assessor's Block 3774, Lot 025 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to convert an historic warehouse into 37 dwelling units and a public parking garage, per Section 303, 818.14 and 818.30 of the Planning Code. The property is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk limit. A Certificate of Appropriateness was issued for the proposed project by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board at their December 6, 2006 hearing. The Zoning Administrator will hear a related rear yard modification, open space and exposure variance request.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 11, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jerold, Project Sponsor

-With the private agreement, there is no known opposition to this project.

-Presentation was held at Rincon Point South Beach and they support the project. Presented a copy of the e-mail confirming a letter was sent.

Chuck, Architect

-Built in 1906. In 2000 it changed from industrial use to business services.

-Changes to the exterior would be minimum

-Façade on Brannan Street would be cleaned and repaired.

-Challenge will be the removal of the penthouse and replace it with two smaller units.

-Urged approval of the request.

Sue Hestor

-Questioned if this project would have on-site inclusionary housing.

ACTION: Approved as amended to reflect approximately 37 units and to make sure the Certificate of Appropriateness conditions are met

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

MOTION: 17360

15b. 2006.0451ACV (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

250 BRANNAN STREET - between Delancey and 2nd Streets; Assessor's Block 3774, Lot 025 - Request for Rear Yard Modification, pursuant to Code Sections 134(e) and 307(g), for an exception to the rear yard requirement for the proposed dwelling units because the existing building has full lot coverage. The project also seeks variances from the open space and exposure requirements, pursuant to Code Sections 135, 140 and 305. The proposed project is the subject of a Conditional Use hearing as described above. The property is located within an SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk limit.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 11, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 15a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance with a condition that a fee of approximately $25,000 is required for open space.

16a. 2005.0488CEV (tape IIA; IIB) (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

25 LUSK STREET - north side between Townsend and Brannan Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 3787 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 817.16 and 890.88(c) to allow construction of up to 26 single room occupancy units and 3,500 sq.-ft. of dedicated Light PDR space. The project proposes a two-story vertical addition to and residential conversion of an existing 30'-tall, two-story-above-basement building last occupied by Business Service uses while converting the existing Business Service use in the basement into Light PDR. The two-story addition would be set back more than11 feet from the Lusk Street façade and would not exceed 50' in height as measured by the Planning Code. The property is in an SLI (Service, Light Industrial) District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Michael Yang

-Requested support for this application.

-There are letters of support from different community associations and adjacent neighbors.

-This is a car-free project. We have integrated unique features like bike parking and car share.

-The brick structure is not registered as historic but we decided to keep it in place.

-It is affordable market-rate near transit and is consistent with the Planning Code.

Tom Radulovich

-I support this project.

-It is a creative use of this building. It's respectful and provides many amenities.

-This is a fantastic project and I urge you to approve it.

Tim Colen

-Great use of a building. It would be entry-level market-rate housing.

-It is creative with the parking area for bikes increasing housing affordability.

-Please approve this project.

Andy Thornley

-Remarkable one-to-one bike parking. Location of this project permits it.

-Area is improving; it is close to CalTrain.

Sue Hestor

-Presentation needs some more information.

-What is the size of the existent and new site? What is the history and description of uses?

-Request that you follow the policy of South of Market Plan

Aaron Miguel

-Projects like this are what we need in the city [amenities, public transit oriented, affordable].

-Urged approval.

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Olague and Sugaya

MOTION: 17361

16b. 2005.0488CEV (T. Tam: (415) 558-6325)

25 LUSK STREET - north side between Townsend and Brannan Streets; Lot 22 in Assessor's Block 3787 - Request for a Variance from the Minimum Rear Yard, Parking, and Minimum Dimensions for Usable Open Space requirements set forth in Planning Code Sections 134, 151, 135(f)(1), and 135(g)(2). Whereas the Planning Code requires a minimum rear yard of 15 feet for SRO projects in the South of Market Base District, the project proposes an inner court instead. Whereas the Planning Code requires a one parking space for each 20 units with a minimum of two off-street parking spaces, the project proposes none. While the proposed project would provide more than the minimum usable open space area required under Section 135(d)(2), the proposed project would not comply with the minimum horizontal and vertical dimensions for some portions of the proposed private and common usable open space. The property is in an SLI (Service, Light Industrial) District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a

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

17. 2006.1284ET (tape IIB) (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6396)

CONDITIONAL USE FOR DEMOLITION OF DWELLING UNITS - a proposed ordinance amending the Planning Code, introduced by Supervisor Sophie Maxwell under Board File 061371, adding Section 317, prohibiting the demolition of residential units unless Conditional Use authorization is granted for the replacement building, making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code section 101.1 and the General Plan. This item is presented as informational, with action proposed to be taken at the hearing of February 8, 2007.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take action at this hearing.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 11, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jeremy Paul

-This ordinance would allow people to expand horizontally, creating stagnant architectural environments.

-It would limit only people with great amounts of money to live in very expensive homes.

-It is a bad idea unless you include some ways for good architect to be included and be accommodated it this.

ACTION: Informational only. No action. Scheduled for consideration/action on February 8, 2007.

18. 2005.1398T (tape IIB; IIIA) (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

INCLUSIONARY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AMENDMENTS - Consideration of an Ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number 061529] Modifying the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Requirements by amending Section 315 et seq. by amending Section 315 to clarify the regulations in effect for particular projects; amending Section 315.1 to modify certain definitions related to income and sale price calculation; amending Section 315.3 to conform the legislation to the requirement that the ordinance apply to all projects of 5 units or more; amending Sections 315.4 and 315.5 to establish separate requirements for buildings of 120 feet in height or greater, to clarify the requirements related to the type of on- and off-site housing required, and to establish a preference in the lottery for on- and off-site units for people who live and work in San Francisco; amending Section 315.6 to provide updated guidelines for the calculation of the in lieu fee and to allow MOH to expend funds for a study to periodically update the fee; amending Section 315.7 to change the amount of time an ownership unit shall remain affordable; amending Section 315.8 to amend certain monitoring and study obligations; and making a related change to the Jobs-Housing Linkage Program by amending Section 313.6 to make annual adjustments in the in lieu fee for that program correspond to the method used for the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program.

SPEAKERS

Doug Shoemaker, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Housing

-This provision would implement a formula that would allow below market-rate owners to at least resale at the buying price.

-Last ordinance update adopted a marketing scheme to reach out to as many as possible for below market affordable housing in the city.

-Changes proposed would remain affordable at an average of 100% of median income but there would be a broader range of prices to target different income levels.

Shawn Dregan, Program Manager of Inclusionary Below Market Affordable Housing

-Two actions were taken to strengthen our marketing outreach.

-Weekly updates sent out to institutions like buyer agencies, lenders and home buyer consultants

-For individuals, they can sign-up on the e-mail alert system going to Mayor's Office of Housing through www.sfgov.org.

-Every time the list of affordable housing is updated they will receive it automatically.

Jane Twan, Mission Economic Development Agency

-Requested more clarification of legislation about the income range between 80% and 100%.

Steve Battle, Technical Advisory Committee

-We reviewed this ordinance back in December and we support it.

-In the future, consider including market-rate rentals in the inclusionary affordable housing.

ACTION: Approved with amendments introduced by staff and allowing the project sponsor the option to select their below-market-rate  type at the time they obtain their building permit

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17362

19. 2006.0983DD (tape IIIA; IIIB) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

662 - 12TH AVENUE - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 1633 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.05.09.1153 proposing a one-story-over-ground floor, 25-foot deep rear addition to a three-story-over-garage, single-family residence in an 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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006)

NOTE: On November 2, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 1/18/07 instructing the project sponsor to reduce the scale and depth of the project and its potential impacts to the rear yard area and mid-block open space. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS

Christine Ng, on behalf of Michael Ng, DR Requestor

-All properties in the block are uniform in shape and depth.

-Project Sponsor gave two options. Still, it does not solve the issue of property line, light, airflow, and the depth of the deck.

-Total depth of his project still goes 8-feet outside property line.

-We are only asking to not extend project more than 12 feet already established in the mid block.

-Some Discretionary Review requestors withdrew because of misinterpretation.

Darrel Willberg, DR Requestor

-Instructions at the last hearing have not been met. Reductions are small.

-Two simple issues that could create better neighborhood feeling.

-Continuous problem with lack of clarity and mistrust of Project Sponsor

Mario, Former Owner

-Sold the property with the impression that the family wanted the house the way it was.

-New owner did not express desire to expand the property. They said the house was the dream home for them.

Gloria and Michelle Henry

-Sunlight would be seriously impacted. It is very low already

-This project would impact the neighborhood significantly.

Barry Lee

-Read statements from seven adjacent neighbors unable to attend.

-Opposes the construction for affecting light and air, disturbs mid block open space, and it is invasive.

-Project Sponsor is not respectful and sensitive to neighbors.

David

-My concerns a health issues. Blocking sunlight could cause seasonal attitude disorders.

Alfred Liu

-The project includes a significant amount of stairs and rooms for certain purposes.

-Changes proposed would allow space of a two-bedroom apartment per person.

-Everything could be done with interior changes without going too much further out of the property line [multifunctional room].

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor Representative

-Owner has have worked really hard with neighbors and cut back the project substantially to meet neighbors' needs.

-This is a sensibly designed building. Project has been reduced about half from the initial proposal.

-Planning Codes do not tell people how to modify their interior homes.

Chris Olsen, Project Sponsor

-Met with neighbors three times and reduced the project significantly.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the project

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

NAYES: Antonini and Sugaya

ABSENT: W. Lee

20. 2006.0445D (tape IIIB) (M. LI: (415) 558-6306)

1536 Pacific Avenue - north side between Polk and Larkin Streets, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0573 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004 1202 0517, proposing the construction of a four-story, 40-foot-high building containing six dwelling units, seven parking spaces, and approximately 3,600 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed

SPEAKERS

Dennis Hyde, Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

-Family with a 4-year old child currently living in the cottage would be affected by this project.

-They would be evicted during the construction, which could potentially be permanent because of the new use of the property.

-Environmental assessment found toxins in the soil and building [lead, asbestos]

-No mediation offer of any sort from project sponsor.

Tony Kim, Representing Project Sponsor

-Proposal is a full compliant building. Height is set lower than permitted.

-Fences would be built to protect adjacent properties and to prevent trespassers.

-Numerous meeting were held with neighborhood with Spanish and Chinese translations. Requestor did not attend any of those meetings.

-Project Sponsor does not own property where the cottage is located and it would be habitable after the construction. New adjacent wall would be 10-feet high.

-We have offered housing compensations for the term of demolition.

Matt Treadway, Owner of 1524-1543 Pacific Avenue.

-Was initially against the project. Major concern was that back yard would stay open during construction.

-Project sponsor respond to that with the offer to build fences.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

21. 2006.1059D (tape IIIB; IVA) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

528-530 STANYAN STREET - east side between Fell and Hayes Streets; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1213 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.0530.2734, proposing to construct a two-level deck at the rear of the two-unit building located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Dick Millet, Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

-522 Stanyan Street is a house with architectural merit and care should be taken with ventilation, light and air protection.

-Objection is that the deck is too large. Upper deck proposal is 900 square feet and lower deck is 367 square feet -- larger than any room in the house.

-It would intrude on privacy, block sunlight and air flow.

-Project Sponsor would not talk to us before the 312 notice was received.

Richard Stone

-Our home is considered a historic structure; it is the oldest building on the block.

-The deck is too big.

-The floor level of our property is lower and the deck would eliminate sunlight and air.

-It would invade the privacy of our bedroom and bathroom on the second floor.

-It would impact negatively mid-block open space.

Jocelynn Stone

-There is no need for the big deck.

-It should not be larger than a bedroom to maximize space, add value and enhance the house.

Milton Panagotacos, Project Sponsor

-The decks could be larger and wider by law.

-We re-arranged in consideration to the adjacent neighbor.

-Sunlight was taken away when big Shell gas station was built in the neighborhood.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved by narrowing the deck by one window opening

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

22. 2006.0823D (tape IVA; IVB) (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

555 HAIGHT STREET - south side between Fillmore and Steiner Streets, Lot 062 in Assessor's Block 0860 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.03.5979 proposing to change the permitted use of the second and third floors of a three-story building, which has been operating without authorization as a tourist hotel, from four dwelling units to group housing with 12 bedrooms, located in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and deny the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Rochelle McCune, Discretionary Review Requestor

-The density would be so high.

-Living condition is not adequate to place an average of six people per room.

-Review all reports form Health Department on this property before making a decision.

-They are not doing what the neighborhood is requesting.

-Lower the height.

-In 2000 it was noticed as an illegal project.

Michael Alderete

-Oppose this project and support discretionary review.

-Residents and owner are abusive to people in the neighborhood.

-History started more than 10 years ago. Review police, health and fire department reports on this property.

-Urged denial of the project. If you do approve, request a one-year probation.

Chris Moore

-My property is directly in the back of proposed project.

-Complaints made to owner were addressed and solved quickly for a short time. Then they come back again.

-Residents throw garbage, smoke and litter from the balconies.

-Suggest putting security cameras on that property.

George Kenny

-We have tried to work with the owner of the property and tried to solve problems.

-Owner is not maintaining the property the way it should be.

Ame Erhardt

-Pattern has being always the same since 1989.

-Owner is not able to manage issues. Problems are only solved for a short term.

-Simple task like taking garbage out is not done and Health Department has to be contacted.

Glenn

-Requested disapproval of the project. It would set a precedence of group housing without permit.

Anne McTavish

-Project is located out of sight on a narrow alley.

-There are frequent calls to Police and Health Departments.

-Improvements on issues would last only a short period of time.

Dolie Brown

-Major concern is safety.

-Group housing needs to be managed by someone capable.

-Urged support of the Planning Department's suggestion.

Augie Phillips

-Safety is a major concern [fire hazard, emergency exit.]

Christopher Ebert

-Property was illegal for a long time.

-Urge you to deny this project.

Salva Harting, Representing Project Sponsor

-Recently found out the illegality of this. It has a license permit for a hotel.

-Installed new fire alarm system, some electrical work was done, and new management was hired.

-Considering installment of new gates and security camera system.

-Owner is doing everything possible to bring it into compliance.

-We have considered every reasonable request that the neighborhood has asked for.

-A no approval would evict 40 people currently living at the project.

Jacquie Hansen, Manager

-Experience includes working for Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation.

-It takes time to improve and make changes.

-We are dedicated to a safe and clean neighborhood. People are contributing to it.

David Hall

-Never witnessed any prostitution or drug activities.

-This project has helped many people. It is an asset to the neighborhood.

Tim Brannan

-Resident of project and it has helped so much by providing affordable housing.

Christopher

-We need affordable housing in the city.

-The project provides spiritual and emotional support.

-We need to focus on the present and not the past.

-Owner is committed to providing quality housing.

-I urge you to grant the permit.

Emilia

-This project gives a choice to people wanting to meet new people.

-It has provided me with a good experience in group housing.

Becky

-It has given me a sense of security and gave me the opportunity to work.

-We have worked very hard to comply with all the regulations.

-Permit should be granted to help people.

Mathew

-As a resident of the project, I would have no place to go if permit is not granted.

Cris

-Everyone welcomed me when I first came to the project.

-I feel safe and it's quite at 9pm.

-I have not witnessed any criminal activities in the building.

No name

-Met many people at the project.

-It is an asset to stay off the street.

-Make sure that its function stays if you do not approved.

Jessie

-This project has given me a home, job and has fed me.

Lyn

-The owner of the project is not responsible for every illegal activity in the neighborhood.

-The project is kept clean. It offers affordable housing.

-There has never been an incident of any criminal activity in front of the project.

-Definition of family is broad and you can not set the number of people that can live in a unit.

Frank Sweiss

-I have respect for our neighbors.

-Every time a neighbor has contacted me with a complaint, I have responded to it.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

23. 2006.1085D (tape IVB) (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

244 32ND AVENUE - east Side between California and El Camino del Mar; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 1391 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.06.23.4870, proposing to alter the existing second floor roofline and add a penthouse with roof deck towards the rear of the building. The property is located within 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

Note:On October 19, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to November 16, 2006 by a vote +6 –0. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS

Nicole Hagashi, Discretionary Review Requestor

-The proposed project would block view and devalue property.

-It would invade privacy.

-Requested paneling on the east side window to protect privacy and modify roof so not higher than eight feet.

-Roofing material should be specified in the design to make sure it is in harmony with the rest of the building.

-Relocate balcony to the west side instead of the east.

Jim Hagashi

-Reduce glare from windows and roof using glazing.

-Don't allow in the addition any heating or cooling accessories as well as antennas.

Jonathan Feldman, Architect

-We did significant modifications to the design of the penthouse.

-The project is responsive to Planning Department, Commission and neighborhood input.

-Project has been delayed for six months.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved requiring a solid roof.

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

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: W. Lee

24a. 2005. 0307D (tape IVB) (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 CAPP STREET - west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2659 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project also includes the new construction of a three-unit building.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Jacue Askor, Project Sponsor

-This project would provide more sunlight to the courtyard located to the north.

-There is parking for every unit.

-Project Sponsor would provide financial support for a mural design and have it painted by Mission Neighborhood Center users.

-The sun studies included in the packet shows a 6% gain of light and air in the winter months relative to the current building.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

24b. 2005.0329DD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 Capp Street- west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, and a request of Discretionary Review, for Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2663 for the new construction of a three-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 24a.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

ABSENT: W. 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

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

None

Adjournment: 10:25 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 7, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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 10:00:27 PM