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 
 

April 5, 2007

April 5, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 5, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:43 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Neil Hart, Craig Nikitas, Michael Smith, Glenn Cabreros, Viktorya Wise, Jim Miller, Erika Jackson, Paul Lord, Michael Li, Rahna Ahmadi, John Billovits, Anmarie Rodgers, 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. 2007.0204C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1145 Polk Street (aka 1201 Sutter Street) - southwest corner at Sutter Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0691 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to (1) establish a small self-service restaurant (dba  Café Ya-Bon ) of approximately 800 square feet and (2) extend the hours of operation past 2:00AM in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The subject business is currently operating as a retail coffee store, which does not allow on-site food preparation. There will be no physical expansion of the subject building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 12, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2a. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for review by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 309 of a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor) requiring exceptions to Planning Code standards for freight loading and building bulk, in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office – Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2b. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for allocation of office space by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 321 in conjunction with a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor). This project requires the allocation of approximately 67,310 square feet of office space. The site is in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office – Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3a. 2004.0072D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2632 CABRILLO STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.24.7792, proposing to demolish an existing 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 demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3b. 2004.0073D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2632 CABRILLO STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.24.7794, proposing to construct a new three-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2007.0109D (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

1944 OCEAN AVENUE - north side at the northeast corner of the intersection with Fairfield Way; Lot 020C in Assessor's Block 3281 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.12.29.0768, to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a. Alternative Relief Coop). This parcel is located within the Ocean Avenue Fast Food subdistrict within the NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial), District, and the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2005.0302U (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

1735 FRANKLIN STREET - the Brandenstein (Bransten) House, west side between California and Sacramento Streets, in Assessor's Block 0641, Lot 002 - Consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a Mills Act historical property contract for 1735 Franklin Street, the Brandenstein House, which is San Francisco Landmark No. 126 and listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. The Mills Act authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with owners of private historical property who, through the historical property contract, assure the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation and maintenance of a qualified historical property. In return, the property owner enjoys a reduction in property taxes for a given period. The subject property is within an RH- (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6a. 2006.0388D (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

365 Douglass Street - east side between 19th and 20th Streets. Block 2699, Lot 31 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolitions, under Demolition Permit Application number 2006.02.03.3728. The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story single-family dwelling. The subject property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, Two Units) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 1, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

6b. 2006.0389D (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

365 Douglass Street - east side between 19th and 20th Streets, Block 2599, Lot 031 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction, under Building Permit Application number 2006.02.033732, in conjunction with the demolition of a single family dwelling under case 2006.0388D with Demolition Permit Application number 2006.02.03.3728. The proposal is to construct a new, three-story single-family dwelling. The subject property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, Two Units) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 1, 2007)

NOTE: On 11/30/06, following public testimony, the public hearing was closed. The Commission continued this matter to 2/1/07 with instructions to the project sponsor to consider a new design and neighborhood character. The public hearing remains open.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

7. 2006.1095C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2035 Irving Street - south side between 21st and 22nd Avenues, Lot 11B in Assessor's Block 1776 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.44 to legalize a 995 square-foot small, self-service restaurant, located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 105-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to April 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

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

Patricia Vaughey

- Merchants have voted to make Chestnut Street Shopping District a special use with very unusual limitations.

  1. We started a historical art deco district because it has the largest collection of it.
  2. We are having a problem with block book notifications.

- A historical tower has been torn down and it had the block book note. It was approved without going through us.

  1. We want to work at keeping a variety of businesses on Chestnut Street for neighborhood service.

- The project on Post and Lombard Streets is too big to not have parking.

C. REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2006.0665DDDDDDDDDD (Tape IA; IB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

652 DUNCAN STREET - north side between Diamond and Newburg Streets, Lot 002J in Assessor's Block 6589 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.12.23.0995, proposing to construct a partial one-story vertical addition and a rear horizontal addition on a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take discretionary review and approve the project with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Steve Williams, Requestor's Representative

- Project does not fit the neighborhood character.

- We met with staff and the Project Sponsor and thought we had an agreement.

- Project reductions are at very minimum.

- It is in the middle of the block and incompatible.

- Addition would be a 60-percent increase over what exists.

Steven Condiotti

- Concern that it would set precedence for high buildings.

- We are very concerned with preserving our neighborhood character.

- Many people supporting the project sponsors do not live in the neighborhood - neither on the same block.

Marie and Dan Goodell

- We support changes in the neighborhood if they comply with codes and keep the character of the neighborhood.

- This project, the way it is today, is not compatible.

Andre Srinivasan

- We need to work together to maintain the character of the neighborhood.

- Asked the Commission to follow staff's recommendation to remove the third floor.

Deana Mooney, Director of Neighborhood Association

- The Association supports the Discretionary Review.

Suzy LaMarca and Jonathan Walkers

- We live in a house that had a third floor addition when we bought it.

- It is out of character and this pattern should not be followed.

Heather Beal

- Concerned about light and air, massing and precedence that would negatively impact our neighborhood.

- Follow staff's recommendation.

Violet Bohme

- We have enjoyed our home with no addition to the house needed.

- Neighborhood has been a great value to us.

Theodora Mauro

- Concerned that the project sponsor has not been truthful. There was a verbal agreement, but the plans that were submitted are different.

  1. Requested that the Commission follow up after construction to ensure compliance with the approval.

Diane McCarney and Pauline

- After numerous meeting with project sponsor, neighbors hire an architect to submit design alternatives.

- The property has substantial lot depth.

- Project Sponsor committed to less than a one percent reduction in a mediation process that has gone on for half a year.

- We highly value our neighborhood character.

- At the meeting with the Zoning Administrator, it was clear that instructions were to remove the third floor addition.

Steve

- Consider neighborhood character when making your decision.

Phyllis Lyon

- There is a change in the ambiance of the neighborhood.

- Do not allow any more extensions.

Christian Meyers

- The proposed project would damage the character of the neighborhood.

- Most houses are two levels.

Betty Peskin, Diamond Heights Neighborhood Association

- Proposed project would affect many people because of the nature of the streets being narrow and in a tight turn.

Leon, Diamond Heights Neighborhood Association

- It is important to keep the character of the neighborhood.

- This project could be a magnet for trophy type homes.

Mike Miller

- The proposed project would have a great impact on the neighborhood making it out of proportion.

Kristin Hansen, Project Sponsor

- We have tried to combine the challenges of our need for extra space with not adversely impacting our neighbors.

- Our home currently has two bedrooms, one bath and no dining area.

- The design for the third floor addition was done taking into consideration similar additions done to one third of the houses on the block.

- The proposed project would help us accommodate extra space for home-office and extra rooms for a growing family.

Chad Hamilton, Architect

- Three out of nine houses on the block have third floor additions larger than the project proposed.

- My clients agreed to make changes suggested by staff.

- This project does not affect neighborhood character.

Brett Gladstone

- It is important to mention that my clients started the process of an addition by contacting the Department and the neighborhood.

- Staff previously recommended approval of this project.

- It does not impact privacy, sunlight or air.

- This project could set a good precedence.

- Three changes requested by the Zoning Administrator during mediation were done.

Reverend Boyd

- Supports the project. It would enhance the neighborhood.

- It fits neighborhood character and architectural design.

- Families with children are only 15% of the population in San Francisco.

- This project is legal and complies with the codes.

Eric Hansen

- We understand sensibility to the neighborhood of any proposed project and we tried to find possible ways.

- We started with a modest proposal and have modified it many times based on feedback from neighbors and the department.

Ron Miguel

- This is a viable solution to housing issues in the city.

- People finding an affordable home with the chance of an addition.

- The addition is architecturally acceptable, conforming to the Residential Design Guideline standards and codes.

Hene Kelly

- The project is going to keep the character of the neighborhood.

- It is a wise decision to buy single dwelling unit and convert legally to a family home.

Susan Kramer

- I see my friends and relatives that are moving out of the city because of housing.

- Buying something affordable and improving it within the law and the codes allows families to live in the city.

Aileen Hernandez

- We are loosing children in the city and housing is a big issue.

- It is very creative to buy an affordable house and add space to it in order to stay.

Spencer Yao

- Family changes all the time.

- My concern is that this would set a precedence to limit additions to accommodate families.

Rebecca Eisenberg

- My big concern is that there are no children in the neighborhood to be friends with my own children.

MOTION: To take DR and approve per staff recommendation

AYES: Moore and Olague

NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Sugaya

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as proposed.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore

9. 2006.1415D (Tapes IB; IIA) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2721 PIERCE STREET - west side between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0560 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.03.5586 proposing to remove an existing sun porch at the rear of the building and to construct a two-story rear addition with basement measuring approximately 19 feet deep by 12 feet wide. The existing building is a single-familiy residence in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 8, 2007)

SPEAKERS

John Briscue, Discretionary Review Representative

- Requested mediation five times with no response from Project Sponsor.

- Project intrudes into the middle space and impacts a landmark.

- We have three alternative plans to minimize the negative impact on a historic building.

John Clark, Architect for the Discretionary Review Requestor

- This project does not comply with mid-block guidelines.

- The proposed rear yard addition impacts light, air and open space.

- It would increase shadows in the middle of the day when historic landmarks are most likely to be experienced by the public.

- Concern about excavation damaging or impacting the building.

Lois Bea

- Consider the alternative designs to preserve the integrity of the house.

Tom Robertson

- Lived across the street and it is an extraordinary view to see the mansion.

- We all know the importance of historic structures in San Francisco and the mansion would be cast in shadows.

Katherine

- Historic structures are architecture gems and so important in the city.

Ed Bea

- Read a letter of support from a neighbor who was not able to attend because of illness.

Patricia Vaughey

- Historical structure does not just apply to the house but to the entire property.

- Project Sponsor refused to participate in the Community Board's for mediation and to have soil and structure analysis done.

- There was no sign of compromise from the project sponsor.

Christopher Hays

- This landmark is historical building number 51 in San Francisco.

- It was deemed by the Landmark Board more important that many popular historical places in the city.

- The proposed project would compromise the structure and open space.

Cynthia

- This is a very important value to the City. It should be preserved above all.

Cornelia Griffin, Project Architect

- According to the City Planning's historic preservation review, the project does not impact the setting.

- Alternative designs were made without consulting my clients and it does not meet their needs.

- The project hearing was continued by the Commission because of a concern for the front façade and not the rear addition.

- Shadows already exist from the structure of the mansion and plants on the front yard.

- The addition is within the allowable space.

- Denying the project would be depriving what is legally right.

Beverly Cannon, Owner

- The roof and garage were altered considerably by previous owners.

- Addition could have been design to increase it twice.

- We need to repair the stairs.

David Parry

- This addition is very small.

- It would not negatively impact adjacent properties.

Monte Stott, Engineer

- The proposed addition was designed to not impact adjacent property.

- Retaining wall would be designed with drainage to minimize water damages.

- Neighborhood retaining wall is 12 inches high away from proposed project and it would not be negatively impacted.

Kenneth Wachtel, Project Sponsor Representative

- Original report by staff was to not grant discretionary review.

- The last report says that discretionary review should be granted only to do a demarcation to separate the new structure from the old one. We agreed.

- This project is in full compliance within the codes.

- Historic preservation codes do not protect beyond the property line.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved

-To add one window to the right on each floor on front façade.

-Vertical reveal

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee

10. 2004.0588E (Tapes IIA; IIB) (V. WISE: (415) 558-5955)

255 Seventh Street, Westbrook Plaza - Public Hearing on The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Eir). The project site is located at 255 Seventh Street (Assessor's Block 3731, Lots 126 and 154) mid-block between Howard and Folsom Streets in the South of Market neighborhood. The approximately 23,655-square-foot, T-shaped project site fronts the east side of Seventh Street and the west side of Moss Street. The existing site includes a one-story commercial building totaling about 2,000 square feet and a one-story building totaling about 960 square feet. The rest of the lot is occupied by a surface parking lot. The proposed project would demolish both structures and eliminate the surface parking lot. The proposed project would result in the construction of two new buildings and a subsurface parking lot with 45 off-street parking spaces. A five-story, 50-foot building with three levels of residential above a two-level health center would front Seventh Street. A four-story, 40-foot residential building would front Moss Street. The Seventh Street Building would contain an approximately 20,000-square-foot out-patient South of Market Health Center (SMHC) and 30 affordable dwelling units. The Moss Street Building would have 19 affordable dwelling units. The project site is within the SLR (Service/Light Industrial Mixed Use) and RED (Residential Enclave) zoning districts and the 50-X/40-X height and bulk districts. The project site is in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area and is subject to the Housing/Mixed Use Guidelines.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on April 9, 2007.

SPEAKERS

Barbara Gualco, Director of Mercy Housing

- Mercy Housing and South of Market Health Center are Project Sponsors for Westbrook Plaza

- We have over 30 years of providing housing. This project would allow us to provide health and housing services.

Charles Range, Director of South of Market Health Center

- We are very pleased to join Mercy Housing on this development.

- We will make comments about the merit of our project in the next hearing.

ACTION: The hearing is to receive public & commission comments only. Action by the Commission is not required.

11. 2006.0208C (S. Middlebrook: (415) 558-6372)

4716-4722 Mission street - west side, between Ruth and Leo Streets, Lots 014 and 015 in Assessor's Block 6955 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code 712.39 to demolish both the existing mixed-use building with a second floor dwelling unit and the existing commercial building in order to merge the two lots and to construct a 5-story, residential/commercial mixed-use building with 8 residential units, 8 off-street parking places, and ground floor commercial within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 65-A Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 19, 2007

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

EXCUSED: Sugaya

12a. 2005.0731CEKV (Tape IIB) (J. MILLER: at (415) 558-6344)

231 FRANKLIN STREET - southwest corner at Hayes Street, a through lot with additional frontage on Linden Street, Lots 2, 17 and 22 in Assessor's Block 816, in the Hayes Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization for a new 33-unit residential building with ground-floor retail use plus off-street parking. Conditional Use authorization is required for lot size in excess of 9,999 square feet and building bulk. This proposed project is also the subject of a requested Variance for commercial-serving off-street parking.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS

David Sullivan, Project Sponsor Representative

- This project would improve neighborhood safety.

- Family units and retail would increase lighting and foot traffic.

- It is within walking distance to public transportation.

- The central courtyard would provide open space for residents and adjacent neighbors.

- We have full support of two adjacent owners.

Richard Bensman

- The block is currently empty.

- Project has three distinct types following the existing pattern of retail and housing along Hayes and Franklin Streets.

Judy

- The proposed project would match neighborhood character.

- I am concerned about possible damages to the adjacent structures.

Ed Bedard

- Minimum requirement does not comply with the Market and Octavia Plan.

- It is over parked and retail space should have a 12-foot height minimum.

- Linden Street is not a living street. It is an alley.

- Put the mechanical area in the garage and use ground floor for livable space.

Jerry Moskowit

- This project has great retail potential.

- Retail space typically requires eight feet. This project is proposing 10.

- It is adequate and would be a good combination with new projects in the Market and Octavia Plan.

Rabbay

- The majority of ground floor on others of our projects is 10 feet.

- We would be able to attach signage and a modern ceiling to appear higher.

- Our intention is to make Linden Street friendly and active.

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Olague

Motion: 17405

12b. 2005.0731CEKV (J. MILLER: at (415) 558-6344)

231 FRANKLIN STREET - southwest corner at Hayes Street, a through lot to Linden Street, Lots 2, 17 and 22 in Assessor's Block 816, in the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. Off-Street Parking Variance Sought - The proposal is to construct a new residential building with approximately 33 dwelling units over approximately 6,200 square feet of ground-floor commercial use. Thirty-three underground parking spaces would be provided plus one standard space and two ANA-compliant spaces on the ground floor for a total of 36 spaces to be provided.

The request for the variance will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 12a

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator granted the variance.

13a. 2006.1414C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay and Washington Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 228.2, 228.3 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert the property's use from a gas station (Shell) within an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District, and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The gas station ceased operation in approximately October of 2004. The subject case will address land use violations on the property. A companion case (Case 2006.0741C) will seek to establish an off-street parking facility (temporary).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 8, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 24, 2007

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

13b. 2006.0741C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay and Washington Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 209.7 and 303 of the Planning Code to establish an off-street parking facility (temporary) within an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The surface parking lot will provide approximately 33 parking spaces. A companion case (Case 2006.1414C) will seek to authorize the conversion of a defunct gas station (Shell). The subject case will address land use violations on the property.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 8, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 24, 2007

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

13c. 2004.0890CV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Sections 253.2 and 303 of the Planning Code to allow the construction of a building which exceeds 40 feet in height, to construct a mixed-use building of 80 feet in height with approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, up to 35 dwelling units and 35 below-grade off-street parking spaces within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combine, High Density) Use District, an 80-D Height and Bulk District, and the Van Ness Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 24, 2007

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

13d. 2004.0890CV (S.VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Variances from the rear yard and exposure requirements, pursuant to Sections 135, 243(c)(6), and 307(g) of the Planning Code to allow a modified required rear yard for the project and an exception to the exposure requirement for 14 units. The Zoning Administrator will consider the request following the Planning Commission's consideration of the Conditional Use authorization.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 24, 2007

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

Items 14, 15 and 16 were taken out of order and followed items 17 - 19

14. 2006.1087C (Tape IVB) (E. Jackson: (415) 558-6363)

853-855 Goettingen Street - northeast side, between Olmstead and Mansell, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 6154 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121 and 303 to allow creation of a lot less than 25 feet in width, for a lot split of a 50 foot wide lot into two lots of 21 feet and 29 feet wide within an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation. A new single-family dwelling is proposed on the newly created lot at 853 Goettingen Street. The existing single-family dwelling at 855 Goettingen Street will be expanded at the rear and side.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Mathew, Project Sponsor Representative

- Project would divide this oversize lot into two.

- Existing housing would be improved and expanded.

- Utilizing open space to construct deeper into the property.

- We have made several alterations of this project with the Department and neighbors' input.

- Project is in compliance with the code and it would benefit first time homeowners.

- The design maintains neighborhood character.

Bryant Phuong

- The proposed project would be too big and out of proportion.

- Most houses on the block are two levels.

- The street goes down on a slope and no studies of soil, shadow or view impact have been done.

Janette Caballatan

- Meetings with Project Sponsor were concentrated on their rights and not our needs.

- Sunlight would be obstructed because the project is too big.

- Send staff to the neighborhood and make a better recommendation.

Huiting Li

- Project is too big and out of proportion for this neighborhood.

- It would block sunlight and view of the Bay Bridge.

- Reduce the scale and remove the third floor.

Norma Lopez

- Proposed project would convert from a three-bedroom property to an eight-bedroom property.

- View and sunlight would be obstructed.

- It would create parking congestion and would add to the existing lack of street parking.

ACTION: Approved as amended

Project will step down with the topography and differentiate designs of the new construction.

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

NAYES: Olague and S. Lee

15. 2006.1275TZ (Tape IVB; VA) (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

PACIFIC AVENUE PROPOSED REZONING- The proposed Ordinance would amend Planning Code and Zoning Maps for the City and County of San Francisco to create a new Neighborhood Commercial District on Pacific Avenue east of Polk Street to the east side of the intersection of Pacific Avenue and Jones Street. The remainder of the parcels east of Jones to Taylor Street would be rezoned to RM-1 (Small Scale Mixed Use Residential). This proposed rezoning would also eliminate the existing Planning Code Section 236 provisions for a Garment Manufacturing Special Use District in the neighborhood. The proposed Ordinance has been crafted to permit the continued use of the commercial portions of Pacific Avenue in a neighborhood commercial zoning district that has been tailored to meet the small scale operational needs and sentiments of local residential property owners and businesses. The tailored controls for the Pacific Avenue NCD preserve the scale and existing character of the neighborhood by reducing allowable height limits, increased rear yard requirements and limiting appropriate commercial uses on the street. The garment manufacturing Special Use District no longer has commercial viability or locational needs in this neighborhood.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval and forward to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors for consideration.

SPEAKERS

Linda Chapman

- Supports the proposed rezoning.

- It should be for the entire Nob Hill area.

Robyn Tucker, Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association

- Urged the approval of the proposed rezoning.

- Submitted letters and petitions from 300 neighbors requesting less than a 65-foot height limit and designating Pacific Avenue as a Neighborhood Commercial District.

Michelle Murray, Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Association

- Urged adoption of the rezoning proposal.

- It would protect existing neighborhood characters.

- This ordinance would prevent large-scale buildings and high density that could attract criminal activities with the narrow streets.

Carolyn Lee

- Rezoning is needed. It would bring zoning into protecting neighborhood character.

David Stunberg, Architect and Project Sponsor of 1355 Pacific Avenue

- We have a project in process that would be affected by this ordinance.

- We have met with city officials, the department, and neighbors.

- Urged to have this rezoning applicable for projects filed after October 1, 2005.

Benjamin, 1355 Pacific Avenue

- This project would be a buffer between new height limits and existing tall structures.

- We are willing to work with the department and neighbors for an intermediate height limit.

Erick Tang

- This ordinance would affect families trying to accommodate themselves and stay within the neighborhood.

Harold Tang

- This ordinance set height and yard depth limitations.

- It would affect families, like mine, when trying to accommodate its members.

ACTION: Approved as amended

-In the "Therefore Be It Resolved clause, strike initiation and date for finalization.

-Include modification 186 and 187.

-Clerical error NCD on Pacific Avenue to RM-1

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

EXCUSED: W. Lee

Motion: 17413

16a. 2006.0584KXCV (Tape VA; VB) (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1407-1435 MARKET STREET AND 16-70 TENTH STREET - southwest corner of Tenth and Market Streets; Lot 041 (a portion of the former Lot 039) in Assessor's Block 3507 - Request for a Section 309 Determination of Compliance and Request for Exceptions. The proposed project is the construction of two buildings sharing a common base and containing approximately 719 dwelling units, approximately 19,000 square feet of commercial space, and a garage with a capacity of up to 668 parking spaces (578 residential spaces and 90 commercial spaces). The taller north tower, at the corner of Tenth and Market Streets, will be 35 stories and approximately 352 feet high with a 12-story, 123-foot-high base along Market Street. The shorter south tower, at the corner of Tenth and Jessie Streets, will be 19 stories and approximately 220 feet high. The two towers will be connected by a nine-story, 93-foot-high base running along Tenth Street. The project requires separation of towers, rear yard, comfort-level wind, parking, architectural vertical extension, ten percent upper tower extension, and bulk exceptions pursuant to Section 309(a).

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Project Sponsor

- Project would provide market-rate and affordable housing.

- The more residential oriented phase does not disrupt downtown scale.

- It is very well situated for transit and vehicular access.

- It would be an attractive area with sunscreen and detail charm.

- Designed for a friendly and welcoming environment.

Michael Theriault

- Urged approval of this project.

- It complies with the codes and provides affordable housing.

Fidencio Salazar Jr.

- Requested approval of this project.

- It would bring over 250 job opportunities and affordable housing.

Jim Chappell

- This project represents 700 housing units.

- It would be a tremendous contribution to housing, including over 80 affordable units.

Jim Salinas Sr., Carpenters Local 22

-The project provides 100% union labor. This is a responsible project sponsor who has developed other projects in the city. Supporting it shows over 250 workers that you support us.

John Crowley, Local 483

- This project is very viable.

  1. It would help with housing and employment opportunities.

Tom Radulovich, Livable City

- Market Street has being damaged with bulky buildings.

- This project should be rejected and sent back to the designing board.

Azela Murrell, Carpeter Local 22

- Project Developer and Sponsor supports workers of the city.

- It represents over 80 housing units. Housing we can afford.

- Asked the Commission to support and approve it.

John

- Building would beautify and enhance San Francisco.

- It fits well into the Market corridor.

Sue Hestor

- There are wind issues on this site.

- Information on wind shows that it would exceed the comfort area.

- This site was rejected for the federal offices because of that.

- Traffic study assumes people are going to work in the city.

- Project would intensify vehicle traffic because it is near entrances to the freeway.

Dave Beede

- It is a good project.

- Requested support for it to provide employment opportunities.

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

Motion: 17414

16b. 2006.0584KXCV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1407-1435 MARKET STREET AND 16-70 TENTH STREET - southwest corner of Tenth and Market Streets; Lot 041 (a portion of the former Lot 039) in Assessor's Block 3507 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to (1) allow additional square footage above the base FAR of 6.0 to 1 for dwelling units that will be affordable for a minimum of 20 years to households whose incomes are within 150 percent of the median income and (2) exceed the maximum dwelling unit density ratio of one dwelling unit for every 125 square feet of lot area in connection with the mixed-used project described in Item 16a.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on 16a

ACTION: Approved as amended

To meet Section 315 Requirements

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

Motion: 17415

16c. 2006.0584KXCV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1407-1435 MARKET STREET AND 16-70 TENTH STREET - southwest corner of Tenth and Market Streets; Lot 041 (a portion of the former Lot 039) in Assessor's Block 3507 - Request for an elevator penthouse height exemption and usable open space dimension, dwelling unit exposure, hazard-level wind, and loading entry variances in connection with the mixed-used project described in Item 16a. The request for exemptions/variances will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on 16a

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator Nikitas closed public hearing and took under advisement the wind hazard but approved the other variances.

6:10 P.M.

Category D and items 17 – 19 were taken out or order and heard prior to items 14 – 16.

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

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

SPEAKERS

Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco

- I want to express my appreciation the Commission and Executive Director for their commitment.

- The public process has been served with hearings and a multitude of meetings in neighborhoods.

- This process of seven years should have a conclusion.

- It has been a long process taking into consideration the diverse community with its points of view.

- The conclusion considered tonight offers an on going process from implementation of fees, transit, and density to protect the character of the city.

- The city needs housing and perhaps we should consider super inclusionary housing.

- Some people would like more historical preservation studies.

- We have made a lot of progress and you have addressed the concern of historical preservation.

- Again, thank you for the commitment to these issues and I hope you give some dignity to the work done for the past seven years.

Lavon Taback, Resident of Hayes Valley Neighborhood

- We believe it is essential to have a citizen advisory committee to save historical structures.

- I am submitting a petition with 700 signatures to have such a committee before redeveloping 55 Laguna Street.

Tina Collins

-There has not been enough environmental review.

-It needs to be evaluated on the context of the 55 Laguna Street site.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- The report is inadequate.

- Rezoning is being implemented in other parts of the City [Eastern Neighborhood Plan was introduced recently]

- I am concerned about high buildings and high density representing a real threat in case of an emergency.

Jason Henderson, Chair of Hayes Valley Association

- Expedite the report with an overriding consideration for Hayes Street.

- Conversion from one-way to two and include a pedestrian zone as proposed in the original plan in 2002.

Marilyn Amini

- The Environmental Impact Report is inadequate.

- Many people did not receive notification.

- Cumulative impacts have not been considered.

- Muni currently does not have the capacity to transport the public.

Belinda Sifford

- Mitigation issues about relevance to history should be incorporated in the section of this plan.

Francisco Herrera, New College

- Offered a letter of comments regarding Market and Octavia Plan.

- Requested that mitigation measures be adopted as part of the plan to have (a) citizen advisory committee and (b) comprehensive analysis to meet CEQA

Cynthia Servetnick, Save UCSF Laguna Campus

- This report does not include the loss of education, open space, historic and recreational resources.

- We are requesting that mitigation measures be incorporated into the plan:

(a) A comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts; and (b) a citizen advisory committee.

Adam Miller

- Requested overriding consideration to allow Hayes Street as two-way.

Robin Levitt, Hayes Valley

- Urged to do a finding of overriding consideration for the section of Hayes Street for a two-way street.

Mike Salomon

- Urged to certify the report and approve the plan without any more delays.

- This plan should be adopted for environmental, transportation and housing reasons.

- Minimize the conditional use in this plan for projects that fully conform to it.

Gail Baugh

- Support the plan with the exception of the Hayes Street to two-way.

Arnold Townsend

- Set height limit to 55 feet for the project at 555 Fulton Street to accommodate housing needs for the neighborhood.

Sherryl Davis

- Requested that 555 Fulton Street be a mixed-income property bringing housing and employment opportunities.

Wade Woods

- Requested 555 Fulton Street be allowed a 55-foot height limit for employment opportunities.

Kevin Jefferson

- Support the report and 555 Fulton Street with a 55-foot height limit.

Bernice Chodom

- This plan is placing people out of business. Resources are inadequate for this report.

- Divide the plan and deal with density by projects.

- It would be better in order to solve bigger issues like housing and employment.

Tom Radulovich, Executive Director of Livable City

- Supports overriding significance of Hayes Street to two-way traffic.

- We do not support overriding significance of shadow at Civic Center.

- Asked that the Commission not leave this issue without a solution to do it later.

Mark Paez, Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- Adequacy of CEQA and EIR findings do not address impacts on historic resources.

- This plan would create an incentive to alter and demolish historic structures.

- The historic survey is one way to mitigate and identify response by its scrutiny.

Marc Solomon

- Divide the report to Market-Van Ness area and Hayes Valley.

- Support Hayes Street for two-way.

- Historical resources do not have coverage to protect it.

- Move forward what is good in the plan and put on hold what needs more work.

James Haas

- Support the report the way it is now.

- The Traffic Advisory Committee voted against converting Hayes to two-way.

- We need to see into improving traffic throughout the area not just that one street.

Charlie Marsteller

- The report is not ready mainly because there is no clear consensus.

- You have legal insufficiencies of historic preservation and transportation funds.

- Divide the plan and work Hayes Valley now and the Market corridor later.

Sue Hestor

- This report is not ready.

- It is necessary to include studies showing housing needed in the city.

- Public transportation has not been adjusted.

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

17. 2003.0347E (Tape IIB; IIIA) (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, and 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 March 8, 2007)

NOTE: On March 22, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to certify by a vote of +4 –1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Alexander and Sugaya were absent.

ACTION: Certified as amended:

- Adopt interim procedure to include historic resources survey into the report.

- Possibility to convert Hayes Street to two-way traffic.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore

EXCUSED: Sugaya

MOTION: 17406

18. 2003.0347E (Tape IIIA; IIIB; IVA) (R. AHMADI: 414-558-5966)

Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan - Adoption of CEQA Findings Related to EIR and Potential Project Approval Action - The project includes proposed amendments to the General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map. 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: (1) amend the General Plan, adding 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; and (2) amend the Planning Code and Zoning Map to 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). The project would also increase height limits in certain areas and reduce height limits in other areas, and establish new fees. The proposed zoning and height reclassifications would increase the potential for residential development in the area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA Findings.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 8, 2007)

NOTE: On March 22, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to adopt by a vote of +4 –1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Alexander and Sugaya were absent.

SPEAKERS

Peter Lewis, Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association

- Appreciates the added language stating that Mission Dolores Neighborhood Association should be incorporated into the plan

Charles Chase, San Francisco Heritage

- The resource evaluation is not available but it is stepping in the right direction.

- Urged to include the service advisory as part of a community effort to enhance the evaluation of the survey.

Alan Martinez, Landmarks Board

- Our main concern is that any findings of the historical survey that is available should be included.

- We have not seen that last motion get incorporated into the plan.

Sara Karlinsky, San Francisco Planning and Urban Association

- This plan deals with density and growth with elegancy.

Betty Levitin, Land use committee for Triangle Neighborhood Association

- The Association made three requests that we understood was going to be included in the amendments and it is not there.

- Revised height limit on Market Street when historic survey is completed.

- Design guidelines to be published as a separate document.

- We asked that any reference to market base pricing for residential parking permit be removed from the general plan amendments to explore other alternative language.

Jason Henderson, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- Requested that the Plan not be separated as was suggested by a speaker earlier.

- Urged to approve the plan and support the concept of super inclusionary housing on Van Ness Avenue.

Tom Radulovich, Livable City

- We support the density in this plan.

- Parking controls from original draft were much better than the current ones.

Jim Warshell, Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

- Include language for historic preservation survey. On future plans, work on this matter earlier.

- Supports the plan and urged its approval.

Peter Cohen, Duboce Triangle Association

- The plan is much better now. Public transportation is still a concern.

- We submitted recommendations to fund a better bus implementation program

Adam Millard

- Urged not to separate the plan. Approve for better developments and growth of the city.

Robin Levitt

- Parking is a big concern.

- New residents bringing cars would increase vehicle traffic.

- Draft proposal from 2002 was much better.

Demian Quesnel

- Market and Octavia is not a neighborhood.

- This plan includes 4 existing neighborhoods.

- Neighborhoods are not treated equally.

Anita Margrill

- Affordable housing should be available for people that really need it like community servers (policeman, teachers and fireman).

David Silverman, 555 Fulton Street Project

- Set a 50-foot height limit for the project at 555 Fulton Street.

Drake Gardner

- The project on 555 Fulton Street has become very important to the community.

- It would bring reasonable costs, accessible usage, and employment opportunities.

Cynthia Servetnick, Save 55 Laguna Street Campus

- The University of California Berkeley extension has been a designated landmark and a national register nominee.

- Include mitigation measures in the Market-Octavia plan: (a) citizen advisory commission and (b) comprehensive analysis.

- The same historic preservation the University in Berkeley is suggesting should be implemented in San Francisco.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- This plan discriminates against the poor, senior, and disabled people.

- It offers high cost housing and density populations.

Jim Keith

-Set back the height limit to 55 feet on Parcel I on Gough Street.

Tes

- This plan provides density and merger controls as well as housing for families.

- Urged approval of it.

Karen

- This is a good plan including hearings, meetings with neighborhoods and associations.

- Move it forward and bring the growth the city is expecting.

Sue Hestor

- Do a finding for not having done studies on climate for wind and shadows on public spaces.

- You should eliminate the 400-foot height limit on Market and Van Ness Avenue and start at 120 feet -- maybe increasing it going up Market Street.

- The City would be providing housing mainly for Silicon Valley and not San Franciscans.

- Drivers would have three accesses to the freeway and it would create congestion.

Christopher Peterson

- I'd rather support the 2002 original draft plan.

- Process has been reasonable and it would be better than this one.

- Avoid temptations for allowing additional parking and to maximize housing for people [not] living and serving the city.

Frank Wise

- Consider allowing more parking on Dolores and Noe Streets.

Mark Paez

- Include preliminary findings from the survey.

- We would like to see more independent review data and not just the Department Staff's.

- Consider a viable approach to approve the plan neighborhood by neighborhood.

Marc Solomon

- Western South of Market is concerned that this process has taken seven years and there are still some issues pending.

- The plan has no historical preservation survey, affordability or transportation.

- Some areas were privileged to benefit their neighborhood while other areas did not.

Tamara Cobby, Save UC Berkeley Extension Campus

- Make it clear that a 400-foot height limit on Market and Van Ness Avenue is to help affordable housing.

- 55 Laguna College Campus represents the heart and culture of the city. It needs preservation.

Marilyn Amini

- Process for this plan has been deficient.

- It will impact transit and policies of the entire city.

- Neighborhoods are not treated equally.

ACTION: Adopted as revised:

Page 41 - 42 overriding consideration providing the basis for rejecting the two-way Hayes Street mitigation measure. Mitigation measure found to be infeasible and was not adopted it.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore

MOTION: 17407

(Tape IVA; IVB)

19a. 2003.0347MTZU (J. BILLOVITS (415) 558-6390/A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA PLAN AMENDMENTS - The Planning Commission will consider adopting General Plan, Planning Code, Zoning Map amendments and approve other actions related to the Market and Octavia Plan. On March 22, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted a Motion of Intent to adopt amendments to the General Plan, Planning Code, Zoning Map and other approval actions. 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 to Turk 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).

Hearing # 9 – April 5, 2007 - Schedule for Planning Commission Consideration

  • Respond to Commissioner comments and questions.
  • Consider taking action to approve resolutions adopting amendments to the General Plan, Planning Code, Zoning Map and approving interim procedures within the project area (items a, b, c, d)

The Planning Commission has held a number of public hearings to consider Case No. 2003.0347MTZU. Hearings were held on October 26, 2006, Nov. 2, 2006, Nov. 9, 2006, Nov. 16, 2006, January 11, 2007, Feb. 8, 2007, and Feb. 15, 2007, and March 22, 2007. At the hearings, the Planning Commission considered various aspects of the Project, and on March 22, 2007, passed a Motion of intent to adopt General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments and adopt interim procedures for review of projects within the plan area 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. The Commission has considered staff presentations and public comment on specific aspects of the Plan and proposed amendments at each hearing. The Planning Commission will consider the following items and may take action on or after April 5, 2007. 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. For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at http://marketoctavia.betterneighborhoods.org. In addition to providing information about the proposed General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map amendments, staff will also provide follow-up information on issues discussed at earlier hearings.

Together, the 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. The Commission may also consider establishing interim procedures to guide the review of plans to construct new structures and alter existing structures to protect potentially eligible historic resources in the Plan Area prior to conclusion of an historic resources survey.

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. At this hearing, the Planning Commission will consider the following aspects of the Plan:

Informational Only. No Action required of the Commission.

19b. 2003.0347MTZU J. BILLOVITS (415) 558-6390/A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA PLAN AMENDMENTS - Adoption of amendments to the General Plan for the area described in item 19a above. The proposed General Plan amendment 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. On Sept. 28, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted Res. 17312, a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the General Plan

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Draft Resolution amending the General Plan.

NOTE: On March 22, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to adopt/approve by a vote of +4 –1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Alexander and Sugaya were absent.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item #18

ACTION: Approved as amended:

- To update zoning summary Table 1 per planning code revisions.

- To update zoning maps per zoning map revisions.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore

RESOLUTION: 17408

19c. 2003.0347MTZU (J. BILLOVITS (415) 558-6390/A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA PLAN AMENDMENTS - Adoption of amendments to the Planning Code for the area described in item 19a above. The proposed Planning Code amendment would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and establish new fees. On Sept. 28, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted Res. 17313, a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Planning Code.

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: Adopt a Draft Resolution amending the Planning Code.

NOTE: On March 22, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to adopt/approve by a vote of +4 –1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Alexander and Sugaya were absent.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item #18

ACTION: Approved as amended:

- Procedures have been specified for the Citizens Advisory Committee [ CAC ] and specific projects in the Community Improvements Program have been added.

- Key groups of stakeholders that should be represented by the CAC have been identified.

- Refinement of the community improvements program, including the addition of line items in Tables 1-2 [ Park Improvements and  Transit User Infrastructure ].

- Upper Market NCD: 1 to 1 parking to be allowed as a Conditional Use.

- Modification of 5 feet height bonus allowing application for whole development lot of future potential supermarket.

- Specifications that no more than 50 percent of the inclusionary requirements can be fulfilled through the in-lieu fee.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore

RESOLUTION: 17409

19d. 2003.0347MTZU (J. BILLOVITS (415) 558-6390/A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA PLAN AMENDMENTS - Adoption of amendments to the Zoning Map for the area described in item 19a above. The proposed Zoning Map amendment 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). 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. On Sept. 26, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted Res. No. 17314, a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Zoning Map. 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.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Draft Resolution amending the Zoning Map.

NOTE: On March 22, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to adopt/approve by a vote of +4 –1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Alexander and Sugaya were absent.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item #18

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Non-substantive semantic changes to bulk designation in ordinance.

-Parcel I zoned for 50 feet on Grove Street frontage instead of 40 feet.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore

RESOLUTION: 17410

19e. 2003.0347MTZU (J. BILLOVITS (415) 558-6390/A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

MARKET AND OCTAVIA PLAN AMENDMENTS - Adoption of a resolution establishing interim procedures for the area described in item 19a above Case establishing interim procedures for Planning Department use for review of projects proposed within the Market and Octavia Plan area to protect potential historic buildings and potential eligible historic district or districts until an historic resources survey (Survey) is completed and the results of the Survey are incorporated into the Market and Octavia Plan and implementing instruments.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Draft Resolution adopting interim procedures. NOTE: On March 22, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to adopt/approve by a vote of +4 –1. Commissioner Moore voted no. Commissioners Alexander and Sugaya were absent.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item #18

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Timelines for survey incorporation revised.

-Clarified language on process and timeline.

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

NAYES: Olague and Moore

RESOLUTION: 17411

F. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

20. Commission Comments/Questions NONE

  • 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.

G. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

21. Director's Announcements NONE

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

NONE

H. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

  1. 0directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

- I lend to the Commission the 2004 Wind Study - Environmental Impact Review for Market Street.

  1. They are hard to get and I would like to have them back.
  2. If you want, I could provide a copy to Staff.

Adjournment: 1:21A.M, April 6, 2007

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 14, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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