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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
Public Hearings 
 
May 17, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 17, 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 1:35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Michael Smith, Kimberly Durandet, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Sarah Dennis, Craig Nikitas, Victorya Wise, Matt Snyder, Ben Fu, Mary Woods, Tammy Chan, Jon Lau, 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. 2006.0208C (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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

2. 2007.0072C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

2367 Market Street, a.k.a. 3970 17th Street - north side between Castro and Noe Streets Lot 036 of Assessor's Block 3563 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 186.1 to expand an existing nonconforming Neighborhood Commercial use (a bar on the second floor) and develop commercial space on the top floor in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

3. 2007.0384C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

1581 WEBSTER STREET (A.K.A. 1825 POST STREET) - west side between Post Street and Geary Boulevard, Assessor's Block 0701, Lot 007 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 712.21 to add approximately 2,300 square feet to an existing 7,000 square foot retail space (Kinokuniya Bookstore) within the greater Japantown mall. The subject site is within NC-3 (Moderate-Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District, Japantown SUD and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to connect the existing bookstore with vacant commercial space on the floor below via an internal staircase.

NOTE: It was determined that the proposal does not require a Conditional Use Authorization. Therefore this item does not need to be heard by the Planning Commission.

4. 2007.0034D (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

120-124 Mason Street - east side between Eddy and Ellis Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 0330 - Mandatory discretionary review of Building Permit Application No. 2006 1213 9807 to maintain operation of a medical cannabis dispensary (dba  Mason Street Dispensary ) of approximately 1,800 square feet. The property is within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 225-X Height and Bulk District. The medical cannabis dispensary is located at the rear of an existing café. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

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

PROJECT APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

SPEAKERS

Wayne, Project Applicant

  1. Although the landlord does not at this point support our project, we are requesting indefinite continuance instead of withdrawing to give us a chance to work with the landlord/owner.

ACTION: Continued indefinitely.

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

5. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of March 22, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of May 4, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved.

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

6. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

- Thanked City Attorney, Susan Cleveland-Knowles, for the discussion on an item that I brought up last week regarding Senate Bill 1818 – 2005.

- Basically, it deals with changes in density bonus law.

- Sponsor gets height density bonus when the City asks to increase affordability on developments.

- I wanted to know what the position of the City is and I understand that City Attorney is going to prepare a written response in the future.

- I received a pro-forma from a builder in regards of a large project proposed [178 units] that probably would not go forward because of cost.

- It hast a lot of details, shows a return of 13 percent, and it does not include any proposed fee for infrastructure.

- It is really helpful when we see these things and we can pencil out the land and construction cost, permits, school and inclusionary fees.

- Reflecting on the cost of units; this might be the main reason why we are a high cost city in terms of housing.

Commissioner Moore

- Acknowledged Secretary Avery for putting together the Planning Commission Action List.

- The first item is for a presentation by AIA scheduled for June 28.

- It would be very timely for our discussion on the Eastern Neighborhood in designing affordable and quality housing.

- Another item that has not been calendared and is very important is green design. We need a presentation by people who are really on top of the subject matter.

- There was a very interesting article in the New York Times, this morning.

- There is a coalition of about 16 cities world wide and five major banks, all interested in modernizing urban buildings and to cut down on urban energy and the release of heat and gas that leads to global warming.

- We are not part of the list of these 16 cities.

- I called Mayor's Office Task Force. They are preparing for the San Francisco Green Building legislation. I wanted to see if we could get an update and overview of what other cities are doing.

- I am asking for your support.

Commissioner Alexander

- Instructed Ms. Avery to calendar Green Building Item for us.

Commissioner Sugaya

- We received today a letter from the Historic Resource Preservation Fund Committee.

- I want a staff report on Economic and Work Force Development at the Mayor's Office.

- I would like to get an update on the funds.

- Where the grants went, what is left and what has been funded.

- Also, what kind of priorities is the Fund Committee under?

- The issue of this letter has to do with the continue support of the Department's survey/preservation program.

- I am still concerned over last week's Eureka Street historic resource analysis.

- The area is a potential historic district and the developer was able to get out.

- Why did the evaluation for the proposed project not include any potential impact to the district itself?

- This is my second request for a report on the San Francisco Healthy Development Measuring Tool.

Commissioner Alexander

- I would like to first get a report on that tool. After consider it, if necessary, we will schedule a hearing.

Commissioner Moore

- I attended a SPUR meeting yesterday on the Eastern Neighborhood - Transportation and Infrastructure Improvements with City Planning and I am very encouraged these items are being considered early as we requested.

- I hope all parties will pick up speed together on planning efforts.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

  1. Director's Announcements

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- Director Macris is on a three-week vacation. He will be back for the June 7 hearing.

- Staff has been communicating with Commissioner Sugaya on his request of an update on the Preservation Element.

- A draft has been completed outlining the objectives and policies.

- Next step, staff will prepare an informational document identifying who would be responsible for each of those objectives and policies.

- The Draft would be presented at the Landmarks Board in August.

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

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator, reported:

Board of Supervisors

1. Historic Property Context for 1080 Haight Street. Approved

2. Endorsed a conceptual framework for Candlestick and Hunter's Point Shipyard Redevelopment and authorized Environmental Review in Planning for this. Approved.

This is allowing the Planning Department and Redevelopment Agency to proceed with the Environmental Impact Review and start the planning work for that area.

3. Supervisor McGoldrick formally requested to put on hold amendments for Section 315 – Planning Code for Inclusionary Housing for further revision.

Land Use Committee was canceled

Board of Appeals

  1. 943 Church Street – There will be a brief report on this case at Commission on May 31.

2. Other items were related to variances that are not relevant 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.

SPEAKERS

Jeremy Paul

- Thanked Commissioner Moore for bringing up the issue of green buildings and where we stand in relation with the world.

- San Francisco is hosting the LEED for homes pilot projects under construction now with cooperation from Planning Department.

- It should be completed by this summer and we will be sure to make it available to all Commissioners.

  1. CONSENT CALENDAR

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

Item 9 was taken off Consent and heard as a Regular Calendar item

9. 2006.1474C (Tape IA; IB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

755 Ocean Avenue and 31 Howth Street - bounded by Howth Street, Geneva Avenue, Ocean Avenue, and Highway 280, Lots 023 and 12A in Assessor's Block 6948 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(h) to increase school enrollment and allow Lick-Wilmerding High School to convert the residential property at 31 Howth Street to part of the school facility, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Howard

- The conditions are acceptable and Lick will pay the figure the Commission would impose.

- Due to special circumstances, fee should not be applied, or if it is going to be applied, it should be as minimal as possible.

Al Adam

  1. Lick High School has been contributing to the public for 112 years.
  2. Their public work has been a major part of the community.
  3. 42 percent of our families participate on flexible tuition. 40 percent of our students come from parochial and public school, 14 percent are students of color.
  4. It is a mix of students that you would not find in any other independent school.
  5. We use our budget to do it this way.
  6. If you find it necessary that we contribute to housing funds, we are requesting that they be applied as minimally as possible.

Pamela Mei

  1. This school has been a tremendous neighbor.
  2. I am a parent of children attending this school.

Barry Wong

  1. The project is incredible for students.
  2. The current parking problem in the area is compounded by construction at City College.
  3. Lick is one of the greenest schools in the city.

Tom

  1. Many students of San Francisco Unified School District [SFUSD] are served by Lick.
  2. Flexible tuition also makes possible the attendance of many students.
  3. Former Commissioner Toby Levine sent a letter to this Commission in support of this project and I have a copy of it.

Mike

  1. I contribute to all school fees.
  2. I am amazed with Planning suggesting school fees to add to the project.

Amy

  1. If this is a city that wants to retain families, having good schools is a big component.
  2. It is a great school and does many public benefits.
  3. It is noted nationwide to be a green school.

Julia

- Lick is a very unique private high school that allows flexible tuition for many talented students.

  1. Minimize the assessment fee as much as possible.

[Inaudible]

- I am a graduate of Lick and would not like money to be used in any areas other than scholarships and financial aid for children's education.

Linda

  1. My daughter is a freshman at Lick School and receives flexible tuition.
  2. I am so thankful having her at this school and participating in the community.

Laurie

  1. I have two sons at Lick School.
  2. Do not impose assessment fees so they can continue helping families and the community.

Andrew Smith

- Consider going the other way. Instead of charging fees on this permit provide a refund.

ACTION: Approved without a fee.

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

NAYES: Alexander, Olague and S. Lee.

MOTION: 17427

  • F.REGULAR CALENDAR

10. 2007.0041DD (Tape IB) (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)

1369 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 9th and 10th and Streets; Lot 068 in Assessor's Block 3519 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.1025.6052, proposing to convert an existing ground floor commercial dance studio in an existing three-story two-family dwelling over commercial space. The project is in a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application with conditions.

NOTE: On May 10, 2007, the Planning Commission considered one of the Discretionary Review (DR) requests filed against this project. Based on the conditions of agreement read into the record at the hearing, the Commission passed a motion of intent to take DR and approve the project imposing the agreed on conditions. The item is continued to May 17, 2007 to allow a public hearing and consideration of the second DR filed on the project. The vote was (+7 –0) for this action.

SPEAKERS

Jakkee Bryson, 2nd Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. I was alarmed to find out that another bar was going to be established in my neighborhood.
  2. We have a classic case of placing the cart before the horse.
  3. When I was married, my husband and I were going to start a mini theater.
  4. Before we purchased, we took a tour and found out that the building had historic significance.
  5. We did not go forward because I got divorced.
  6. This is a very sleepy hollow [quiet] neighborhood.
  7. The lack of parking is a big issue in this area.

- 1350 Folsom Street is under construction and might be ready around this time next year.

- That project would have 134 single room units for formerly homeless people with no parking for the residents.

  1. Business activities around the area are over by 7p.m.

- I am sorry that this project sponsor did not conduct an environmental impact report before planning this project.

- There would be so much noise with people around the business -- workers and smokers.

  1. The operational hours for this would be from 12-noon to 2a.m.
  2. There is going to be a lot of disturbances with this project.

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. The owner knows this neighborhood and the zoning.
  2. It is a proper use for this district.
  3. The current location cannot continue to be used.
  4. This item was continued to accommodate the requestor's need.

- A lot of members of the neighborhood, wheelchair users, came to support this project at the last meeting and waited for about 8 hours.

- Changes were made through negotiation with Mr. Ochoa. And Mr. Miko addressed very important issues on night usage.

  1. This requestor did not want to meet with us about issues.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved imposing agreed upon conditions with a further modification to condition #12 - smoking room:

-It is to be ventilated with a well-maintained, adequately sized and quiet filtration system that removes smoke products from the air prior to exhausting to the atmosphere.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

11. 2006.1477D (Tape IB; IIA) (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

67 MADRONE AVENUE - east side between Taraval and Ulloa Streets; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 2919A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.06.4439, to extend the rear two levels, approximately 15 feet into the rear yard and add a partial third level onto a single-family dwelling, one story over garage structure in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve as submitted.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007)

Note: On April 12, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to May 17, 2007 by a vote of +6 -0. Commissioner Alexander was absent. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS

Kathleen Walsh, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. After last hearing, the architect proposed a revision of the third floor design.

- I filed the request, as I've stated every time I come to this Commission, on behalf of my neighbors.

  1. Mr. Panteleoni provided a copy of these plans for review.
  2. Some of my neighbors have not had the opportunity to review these plans.
  3. Appreciated the effort and creativity to modify the project.
  4. The third floor addition would stick out and be completely out of context with the homes around it.
  5. It would destroy the symmetry of this block.
  6. Thanked the Commission for listening to our concerns.

Terry Gaynor

  1. Mr. Panteleoni reviewed the plans and submitted a copy of it.
  2. [Shared photos of the area.]
  3. We set up a pole to represent the silhouette of the proposed third-floor addition.
  4. It is way above anything around us.

Lisa Walsh

- I think the project sponsor could achieve a very substantial house by adding a modified third floor.

  1. West Portal was called a village before and people want to see that preserved.

- [Shared photo of a property with a third-floor addition that blocks sunlight on adjacent property.]

John Singleton

  1. This is the fourth time we are in front of this Commission about this project.
  2. Basically, the plan is still the same.

- [Shared/submitted photos showing how this project would be too high compared to the rest of the properties.]

Paul

  1. Opposed to the project.
  2. It is not a reasonable expansion for its square footage.
  3. The roofline would be towering over the adjacent house.

- This is going to set a dangerous precedent and create a lack of balance in symmetry for this neighborhood.

Antonette

  1. I agree with my neighbor's comments.

Mrs. Sanson

  1. My concern is the precedence set with this project.
  2. Parking, density and traffic is currently difficult.

Sandra

  1. This addition would lack the charm of our neighborhood.
  2. They should be able to expand but not add the second floor.

Tony Panteleoni, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. We had a meeting with neighbors and tried to find some alternatives.
  2. I met with some of the neighbors on May 5th.

- We proposed to remove the entire roof of the project and slope it from the street towards the rear of the property.

- On the drawings, the second bottom line shows the currant house. We changed the pitch of the roof further back.

  1. The neighbors are concerned with the perceived image of the third floor.
  2. Comparing this roof with the one on 61 Madrone Street, this project is smaller.

- The intent is to paint the house with a light color to have reflected light into Mrs. Walsh's house and dining area.

Joel Yodowitz, On behalf of Project Sponsor

  1. One issue is the compatibility of the project.
  2. The presentation by Mr. Panteleoni shows that there are existing houses that are as tall.
  3. Another issue is the impact on Mrs. Walsh's house.
  4. There is already a 6-foot separation from the north side of her house and the south side of the project.
  5. View is not an issue because it is not legally protected in discretionary reviews.
  6. There is going to be minimum light impact on her house.

- We are trying to bring this project into compatibility by increasing the house to an acceptable average size - nothing extraordinary.

Jim Keith

  1. I support this project.
  2. You should support larger family homes in this area.
  3. Mr. Panteleoni has done a great job to minimize the impacts.

MOTION: To take DR and approved as modified by the project sponsor

AYES: Antonini and W. Lee

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

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Disapproved.

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

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee.

12. (Tape IIA; IIB; IIIA) (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION of a COMMISSION POLICY for the review of building permits and approvals in the Eastern Neighborhoods prior to the adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods area plans and code amendments.

SPEAKERS

Ruby Smith

- I am totally amazed about this memorandum and the impact it's going to have on developments that are in the process.

  1. Restricting housing developments would make property values higher.

Eugene Pak

  1. This procedure is not protecting people who have already started a process in Planning.
  2. Imposing fees retroactively would have a great impact on the cost of developments.
  3. Lenders are part of the process and they could pull back.

Brett Gladstone

- I am here to propose that the grandfather date applies as follows: that those properties that apply after the date of the new ordinance be effective by the new ordinance.

  1. As a legal professional, we are hired to advise on existing law.

- Developers have no idea the risks they're taking when buying in this area and how they are affected by the 2660 Harrison decision.

- That decision told them for the first that they would be subject to extensive environmental reviews and fees.

  1. It does not inform people that community impact fees would be per square foot.

- Instruct staff and economist looking into what the fees should be considering property taxes and how to recapture them.

- You are requiring as policy that 40 percent of units be two or more bedrooms. You are actually cutting down the number of units and increasing the cost of construction.

- You may be helping the situation by relieving the density limitations but also heading the opposite way by increasing the size of units.

  1. My clients are very concerned about how this process [community benefit fees] is unpredictable and affects their ability to do these developments.

Matthew Brennan

  1. Reliance is taught the first year of law school.

- It basically says that before purchasing a project to develop, punch all the numbers - price, development cost, fees [attorney, architect, engineer, city].

  1. Changing the law retroactively adversely affects all the projects in process.

Keely Ferguson

  1. I work with buyers/sellers of land sites throughout the development process.

- Part of my job is to analyze development sites and accurately disclose possibilities/cost to build.

- We follow policies and codes, especially Planning Commission Resolution #16727 when giving advise to clients on sites in the Eastern Neighborhoods.

  1. My clients have projects in the pipeline in these neighborhoods.
  2. Imposing new community fees retroactively seems to be unfair and unethical.
  3. Community impact fees were not mentioned in resolution 16727 and a lot of people rely on this document.

Josh Nasvik

  1. We bring deals with clients involving the development of 2 units to 400 units.

- We look at agendas, minutes and resolutions when recommending to our clients what they can build.

  1. He urged the commission not do impose retroactive fees.

James Nunemacker

  1. I agreed with all previous speakers.
  2. The biggest concern is public trust given to the Commission.
  3. It is fine to make new rules but they should be put forward and implemented fairly.

Colleen Coter

- I work with many developers and have been closely monitoring the process since the adoption of resolution 16727.

- This resolution does not make any reference to community fees and changing the rules later is unfair.

  1. The Commission was encouraged to consider costs when grandfathering projects.

Mark Brennan

- Local developers follow the rules and changing those rules in the middle of a process would [negatively] impact San Francisco.

  1. Do not to impose fees on projects that have been in the process for three or four years.

Michael

  1. It is extremely important to make rules clear.
  2. It could potentially jeopardize small projects.
  3. Clarify the difference between community impacts and public benefits.

Lauren Ladd

  1. It is incredible to be here today facing a prospect of owner's [becoming subject to] community impact fees.

- It seems that this body should concern itself with the climate of tenuous regulatory [policies] and the uncertainty that plagues our city.

- The reasonable expectations that resolution 16727 engendered included no addition of community fees or a grandfather provision.

- Shared his experience with a client that went through the process with hearing presentations and all with no mention of community fees.

Gary Gee

- Read a letter sent in opposition to any proposal by the Planning Commission to apply new community or development fees retroactively.

Ger O'Keeffe

  1. Construction costs have increased up to 100 percent.
  2. The affordability components have gone up to huge percentages.
  3. Projects in the pipeline cannot absorb community fees.
  4. Do not impose these fees on projects in the pipeline.

Brian McGee

- It seems that every time we come to the Commission it is to talk about fees and not projects.

  1. These fees imply negative impacts on developments in the city.

- It does not make any sense since we are not using the streets and landscape continuously throughout the year, every body is.

- Urged the Commission to consider the cost of the fees and at the very least to have a grandfather clause that protects the projects in the pipeline.

Joe Cassidy

- Every week since last November, the construction industry has been under attack either at this Commission or at the Board of Supervisors.

  1. Developers are already paying fees everywhere.
  2. We need to get these projects moving.

John O'Connor

  1. Applying fees without a nexus study violates the California Fee Mitigation Act.
  2. I came to Planning and received a document and submitted a plan.

- Interest rates have increased 17 times and construction costs went up 100 percent in eight months.

  1. Grandfather projects that have been submitted before today.

Louis Rarano

  1. The development impact fee proposed is unfair to all small builders.
  2. It usually takes at least 2 to 3 years to get a project approved.
  3. The costs for construction and material are rising all the time.
  4. This proposal would increase costs anywhere from $10 to $20 a square foot.
  5. The Commission and the Planning Department should focus on density bonus.

- Keep in mind that projects in the pipeline are not moving at all because of the Eastern Neighborhood debacle.

- These developments would provide affordable hosing with no cost to the City it they are allowed to move ahead.

Richie Hart

  1. We play by the rules but they keep changing.
  2. It is important to keep fairness in this process.
  3. Talk to an attorney before making any decision.

Fergus O'Sullivan

- We all are nervous for waiting a long time to develop and then unexpectedly this community impact comes along.

- The developers here today are part of the city and they work hard to keep affordable housing in San Francisco.

  1. It is very important that we look after local and small builders.
  2. You need to take a step back and realize that these fees are unrealistic.
  3. The grandfather issue is the key issue today.

Stephen McElroy

  1. We are here to protest this anti-business and inflation ambiance.
  2. These procedures would be responsible for making housing less affordable.
  3. At the very least, grandfather in the pipeline projects.

Grace Shanahan

  1. My main concern is the subject of grandfathering.

- Read a memorandum prepared by Director Macris [page 5] about the grandfather clause to protect projects in the pipeline.

  1. We respect the rules and system and endeavor to work with them.

Kieran Buckley

  1. I completely oppose these new fees.
  2. The costs have gone up and this fee is going to cut down the supply of affordable housing.
  3. Projects in the pipeline should at least be grandfathered.

David O'Keeffe

  1. I want to focus on impact fees and the need for extra money.
  2. There are fees that impact us as well [mortgages, taxes, etc.]
  3. There has been a lot of talk about affordability component and that San Francisco is a very expensive city to live in.
  4. Builders would have to pay fees now that eventually would affect homeowners.

Angus McCarthy

  1. It is important to look at the role of what Commissioners what to do.

- You have the power to honor the system you have in place along with the Planning Department.

  1. What we are doing is to commit and build this community.
  2. You must keep our industry alive.

Mike Cassidy

  1. This is another illegal action of the Planning Department.
  2. We follow the law and this is not being done well.
  3. If the 49ers want to come and play in San Francisco they have to pay too.
  4. The difference is that they are being told now, but for us is at the last minute.

John Pollard

- It is ironic that the Contract State License Board says that we have to give a fixed price for every project we do.

  1. It we do not provide it, we would be prosecuted.

- In other industries in the State of California you would have to comply by giving cost within one percent.

  1. Reject impact fees.

Charles Breidinger

  1. Any time you make a business transaction, you are in partnership with the government.

- A lot of problems in the city come from the unbalance of downtown office developments versus the amount of housing available.

  1. This has a definite impact on the environment and air pollution.

- I would like to know how the figures were done to come up with an impact fee of $13 a square foot for housing and $4 a square foot for commercial.

  1. The impact fee should be the opposite - $13 for commercial and $4 for housing.

- Imposing fees would reduce the value of land in the Eastern Neighborhoods, which would have a very large economic impact.

[Unidentified]

  1. We need more affordable housing for families in the Mission District.
  2. Because of this fee, we could loose our jobs.

Seamys Canning

  1. This fee is very unfair and would increase the value of housing.
  2. Fees should be spread across the projects in the City.

Paul Troudelius

- The City Attorney's Office advised that you conduct a nexus study program to build projects in the Eastern Neighborhood.

- In the State of California you cannot apply an assessment fee or tax without showing how the money is going to be spent. It was not done.

  1. There is no question that these projects in the pipeline need to be grandfathered.

Redmond Ryons

  1. I can make this very simple in a practical manner.
  2. It is just like asking my wife for a pre-nuptial agreement.

Leo Cassidy

- It is hard to believe that this Department does not consider a grandfather clause for projects in process for three years.

  1. At the Board of Supervisors two weeks ago, the legislation was approved reducing the fee for downtown affordable housing from 15 to 12 percent.

Jim Keith

  1. There are good things that need to be done with the impact fee money.
  2. This fee needs to be paid equitably.
  3. Developments would not move forward with this new fee.
  4. The matter has been stressed to grant a grandfather clause for pipeline projects.

Julie Leadbetter

  1. I do not think you should grandfather these projects.
  2. Developers are not willing to build affordable housing.
  3. They should speak to the community and be concerned with neighborhood needs.

Nick Pagaulatos

  1. We have heard a lot about predictability and rules but we have not heard about justice.

- The Planning Department has acknowledged that all market-rate projects have had a negative impact in our community.

  1. We have been waiting for six years for this zoning plan to finally take place.
  2. You should not approve projects until we have the rezoning in place.

Kim

  1. There is a Draft Mission Neighborhood Plan on the Planning Department website.
  2. Public comments are due on May 30.

- Why are you considering these projects and why are they on the agenda if the plan is in process?

Jerry

  1. Builders bring housing to the community and tax revenues to the city.
  2. When we produce market rate housing we have made contributions to affordable housing.

- Housing rates have increased in San Francisco, while everywhere else in the country they are reducing.

Sean Keighran

  1. We have heard the arguments of legally and ethically imposing fees retroactively.

- Our organization had representatives at each of the seven Planning hearings that lead to the adoption of resolution 16727.

  1. We are very familiar with these rules and fee structure.
  2. The rules are changing and it is wrong to do it in the middle of the game.
  3. Why not sit down and work in partnership to compile a specific list to prioritized needs?

Alice Barkley

- Today's discussion points to the failure of this Department to plan for the past ten years.

  1. No piece of property or lot is bought without knowing what you can do with it.
  2. I have serious doubts of the legality of how the impact fees are being proposed.

- Your Department did not assign projects to staff for 24 months in the Eastern Neighborhoods.

ACTION: Continued to June 7, 2007.

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

The Commission had a consensus to rearrange the calendar taking items in this order: 15, 16, 14, 13 and then continue to regular order on item 18.

13. (Tape IIIB) (L. BADINER: (415) 558-6350)

MISSION BAY - This is an informational presentation on the Mission Bay Planning Process, Design for Development Controls, and recent developments.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 31, 2007

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

14. 2006.0070ET (Tape IIIB) (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

CONTROLS FOR LOSS OF DWELLING UNITS - a proposed ordinance amending the Planning Code, adding Section 317, requiring a Planning Commission hearing for any project that would eliminate existing legal dwelling and live-work units through mergers, conversions, or demolitions, and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. On November 2, 2006, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 17334, an intent to initiate a Planning Code amendment stipulating mandatory discretionary review of or Conditional Use for all residential merger, conversion, demolition and replacement building permit applications.

(Continued indefinitely on January 11, 2007, and re-advertised for this date)

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution recommending adoption of the proposed amendment.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Nancy Wuerfel, Sunset Parkside Education and Action Committee

- We are very pleased with the staff report and all the work gone into putting forward a pilot project.

- I really like the guidelines concept so everybody will know and understand that we are trying to save affordable housing.

  1. This document is very solid and we support it.

Hiroshi Fukuda, Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods

- Read a resolution requesting the item be postponed for 30 days without any action to adopt this legislation.

  1. Last Tuesday, we were presented a packet of several different items including a 20-page document. More time is needed to properly review it.

John O'Connor

- Requested staff to work with the Director of the Department of Building Inspection [DBI].

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Sugaya

MOTION: 17428

At the beginning of the hearing, the Commission considered a continuance of items 15 and 16 because the "Proposed Continuance" language should have been deleted prior to the posting and distribution of the calendar.

SPEAKERS REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUANCE:

Alice Barkley – Representing the Project Sponsor

- When an item is proposed for continuance the practice has been that the Commission could decide whether to hold the hearing or not.

- The Project Sponsor objects to the continuance of this project.

John O'Connell, Architect

- I would like the project to be presented today.

- It has been continued several times already.

Julie Leadbetter

- The public is here to comment of this project.

- We would request that you not make a decision today.

- Our conversation with the Project Sponsor just started and we would like to continue it.

Kim, Discretionary Review Requestor

- Supports the idea to hear public comment today.

- We initially requested continuance to June. It would have helped to facilitate comments.

After the public was allowed to comment on the consideration of continuance, it was decided to hold the public hearing without taking action today.

15. 2005.0351E (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (V. WISE: (415) 558-5955)

700 VALENCIA STREET - Lot 001 of Assessor's Block 3588, bounded by Valencia, 19th, Lapidge and 18th Streets - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would include demolition of an existing building and construction of a five-story, 50-foot-tall mixed-use building totaling approximately 22,662 square feet. The building would include nine dwelling units, nine parking spaces and one commercial unit. Vehicular access to the garage would be via 18th Street. Access to the commercial unit would be at the corner of Valencia and 18th Street and along Valencia Street. The project site in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and is within a 50-X height and bulk district. The project site is in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area and is subject to the Housing/Mixed Use Guidelines.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Julie Leadbetter, Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition - Appellant

- In addition to socio-economic, there are also cumulative impacts to the physical environment.

  1. We submitted documents to the Planning Department and this Commission.
  2. The California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] referred to these elements as necessary to an adequate discussion of accumulative impacts:
    • List of projects producing related impacts including projects outside the control of the agency.
    • Summary of the expected environmental impacts to be produced by those projects.
    • Reasonable analysis of the cumulative impact from those related projects.

- This Commission has the duty to use its best efforts to find out and disclose all they reasonably can about other projects in the area.

- The department speaks only about three projects but there are seven to eight projects in the pipeline in this area.

- Land use, esthetics, cultural resources, transportation, circulation and air quality would be impacted with all these projects.

- We need to have some more discussion on the PDR changes from auto/commercial to residential because it would have cumulative impacts.

  1. The height would create a significant impact on the existing neighborhood character.

- The senior building between 17th and 18th Streets and The Women's Building have height bonus in exchange of social-economy resources for the neighborhood.

- The proposed project would substantially degrade the existing visual character of a significant historical resource. [The Women's Building]

- The City designated The Women's Center as a landmark. The proposed project would block the mural.

- The visual connection between Mission Street and The Women's Building is a scenic public setting.

Rachel Washburn

  1. We have heard a lot about fairness and justice today.
  2. Asked if it is fair that a building be taller above all other properties in the neighborhood?
  3. Is it fair that my air quality be impacted with dust and contamination?
  4. Supports the request for the discretionary review in order to better evaluate the impact.

- The negative declaration submitted by the project sponsor plans to mitigate dust at the construction site by sprinkling the site twice daily.

  1. I would recommend that mitigation be looked at carefully. Perhaps, misting machines could be installed.
  2. Consider building a three-story development to prevent obstructing the view of The Women's Building mural.

Alice Barkley, Representing the Project Sponsor

- Given the time and since the project is to be continued to June 7, we would like to wait and present it then.

ACTION: After public hearing, continued to June 7, 2007

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

16. 2007.0297D (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

700 Valencia Street - southwest corner of Valencia Street and 18th Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.04.14.0087 proposing to construct a new 50-foot tall structure where a small car sales structure currently sits. The new structure would contain nine dwelling units, nine off-street parking spaces and approximately 1,700 square feet of ground floor retail. The property is within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Kim Malcheski, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Ms. Leadbetter submitted letters from tenants, landlords and local book-dealers concerned about the potential increase in commercial rents.
  2. The north Mission has become a significant tourist destination from all over the world.

- They walk around this area to see the mural, landmarks, beautiful Victorians, and Mission Dolores Church.

- There is already a property on 15th and Valencia that is five stories and it is too big. It is the only big building in the north of Mission.

  1. The proposed project violates at least 3 [elements] of Proposition M.

- Section 101.1 says that you have to evaluate every permit on all criteria not only the environmental impact review. It should keep the neighborhood character.

- Look at the photos submitted by the project sponsor and the properties in the neighborhood. All of them are either two or three-story developments.

[Unidentified], The Women's Building

- Read a letter opposing this project from the Executive Director of The Women's Building.

Kirsten Brydum, student of New College

- Read a letter from the New College Board of Trustees expressing concerns about this project.

Julie Leadbetter

- I live at the adjacent property and it is a 3-story development. The proposed project is too big.

- I am glad this project has been continued.

- I hope that this Commission will encourage the developer to come back with some more reasonable reform and commitment even if it is only an architectural reform.

Alice Barkley, Representing the Project Sponsor

- We would like to defer any comments to the June 7 hearing.

ACTION: After Public Hearing, Continued to June 7, 2007

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

17a. 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: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing continued to June 7, 2007

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

17b. 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: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove project. (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing continued to June 7, 2007

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

18a. 2005.1059DV (Tape IIIB) (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2986 - 22ND STREET - north side, between Folsom Street and Treat Avenue; Lot 018B in Assessor's Block 3613 - Requested Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.14.7539 proposing vertical and horizontal additions to an existing single-family dwelling in a RH-3 (Residential, Three-Family House) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. The proposal would also add two dwelling units and an underground parking garage.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project with Modifications.

SPEAKERS

Robert Bockelman, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The project being proposed is going to build out to the side spacing that exists through out the block.

- Section 101 of the General Plan says that existing housing and neighborhood character should be preserved and protected.

- The Residential Design Guidelines reads that side spacing between adjacent buildings is to be respect in order to keep the existing pattern.

  1. The rear building on this lot is going to take away sunshine.
  2. The construction is really big. It is a demolition and not an addition.

- If the side spacing is not respected, I would have to move my electric panel-meter and garbage because people would not have access to it.

  1. If this project would be approved, it would violate ethic rules.
  2. There is information about this project that is not accurate.
  3. It was stated that the property is a two-story building and it is a one-story with garage.

- Addition would affect view of adjacent property -it takes away the view of four windows.

Ms. Carter

  1. My backyard abuts to the backyard of the subject property.
  2. I am going to loose the sunlight.

- A shadow study should be done throughout the year to ensure that there is going to be adequate sunlight.

- Although owners have the right to build and do what they please with their own property, it should not affect others.

  1. I put solar panels on my building.
  2. [Shared photos and drawings of what the project would look like when it is done.]

Melia

  1. I submitted an email yesterday.
  2. [Shared photos of surrounding area.]
  3. San Francisco is loosing a lot of single home families.
  4. The proposed project would take away sunlight.
  5. Urged the Commission to consider open space for the neighborhood.

Dan Herber

  1. The construction and excavation would affect my wife's health.
  2. The new building would take away sunlight in the kitchen and hallways.

Simon Khuan, Architect for the Project

  1. We started this process about two years ago.
  2. The subject property is very small.

- In November 27, 2005, 145 notices were mailed. The notices expired and nobody contacted us.

- Starting in January 2006, we made several attempts to work with concerns from the requestor and had no response.

  1. We met with the requestor in May last year and his only concern was his view.
  2. This rendering shows the window and shadow that is not cast on the property.
  3. We made changes to accommodate the need for garbage disposal.

Alba, Mr. Murphy's Representative

  1. Mr. Murphy is a part owner of this property.
  2. The property has been appropriately disclosed.
  3. Mr. Murphy is not actively involved in this process.

- If the discretionary review requestor has a concern about ethics, it should be taken to the Ethics Commission.

ACTION: Continued to July 26, 2007. The public hearing remains open.

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

18b. 2005.1059DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

2986 - 22ND STREET - north side, between Folsom Street and Treat Avenue; Lot 018B in Assessor's Block 3613 - Variance request to be considered by the Zoning Administrator for rear yard, for the project proposing vertical and horizontal additions to an existing single-family dwelling in a RH-3 (Residential, Three-Family House) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

SPEAKERS: Same as those indicated on item 18a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator continued to June 26, 2007

19. 2007.0214C (Tape IIIB; IVA) (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1377 FELL STREET - south side bounded by Broderick Street to the east, Oak Street to the south and Baker Street to the west; Lots 7, 8, 9, 9A and 17 in Assessor's Block 1214 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a community parking facility pursuant to Sections 209.7 and 303(c) of the Planning Code. The site contains a two-story building surrounded by a surface parking lot containing 124 parking spaces, including four motorcycle spaces, for the use of the property's owner, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The proposal is to renovate the surface parking lot to allow for after-hours and weekend community parking, in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Lisa Sunner, Project Sponsor

Divisadero Corridor Manager for the Neighborhood Market Place Initiative.

- Our goal is to create a strong neighborhood commercial corridor to make it a better place to live, work, shop and eat.

- During late 2005 and early 2006, my office facilitated three community meetings to ask the neighborhood what areas of Divisadero Street needed improvement.

- Opening the Department of Motor Vehicles [DMV] lot for public parking during nights and weekends was identified as one of the top issues.

- Participants believe that having more parking near the commercial corridor would greatly enhance the ability for customers to shop there.

- It would attract more people and help our neighborhood economically.

- We have received requests to use the DMV lot for public parking from City College.

- We have been working with DMV since 2004 to develop this idea of using the lot for public parking.

  1. We received 207 responses to our survey and over 60 percent of those responding live within six blocks of DMV.
  2. The majority of the responses were in favor of opening the lot.
  3. Only six of those responding are opposed to this idea.
  4. Many people support this project.
  5. We would provide an attendant from 6pm to 2am everyday to provide security.
  6. The DMV is committed to daily cleaning and regular maintenance of the parking lot.
  7. Also, we are exploring the possibility of situating a space for car sharing organizations.

Regina Dick-Endrizzi, Supervisor Mirkarimi's Office

  1. Supervisor Mirkarimi gives his unconditional support to the proposed project.
  2. We are really happy that they are willing to work there.
  3. Appreciated the help of the Mayor's Office of Work Force and Economic Development.
  4. Requested support on granting the conditional use for 1377 Fell Street [DMV]

Ruth Carlton

- As a merchant on Divisadero Street, parking is the number one complaint from our customers.

  1. The changes in the neighborhood have been wonderful with its nightlife area.
  2. We are very concerned about our customer's safety.

- It would also help the residents of the neighborhood and take the pressure off when looking for parking.

Mark Duncan

  1. I live across the street from the parking lot and I have a neutral part in this.
  2. Usually cars will park there illegally.
  3. This is a very good neighborhood and this parking lot is dark during the night.

- We do want to bring people to the area, but I wonder what is happening to the public transportation.

  1. This would encourage more traffic and I am not sure we want to do that.

ACTION: Approved as modified:

-Require notices that reminds and informs the patrons to leave the premises in a quiet, peaceful and orderly manner. No loitering.

-Report back to the Commission when staff is aware of and everything is worked out with City College.

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

EXCUSED: Alexander

MOTION: 17429

20. 2002.1302E (Tape IVA) (T. CHAN: (415) 575-9026)

2225-2255 THIRD STREET - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report. Assessor's Block 4058, Lot 10. The 50,000 square foot project site is located on Third Street, between 19th and 20th Streets. The proposed project would preserve and renovate two existing historic buildings and construct three new buildings above a new below-grade parking podium. The project would contain approximately 242,185 square feet (sq.ft.), including about 179 residential units, a 5,262 sq.ft. restaurant space, 11,434 sq.ft. of retail space, a 2,393 sq.ft. day-care, a below-grade parking garage accessed from Illinois Street with about 157 parking spaces, 50 bicycle spaces, and two off-street loading spaces. The two new structures along Third Street would be 35 feet in height at the property line, and 50 feet in height beyond 0a 20-foot setback. The new building proposed on Illinois Street would range from 55 to 65 feet in height. The project site is located in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning district and a 50-X height and bulk district. The proposed project would require a General Plan amendment and rezoning to create a temporary "Central Waterfront Plan Demonstration District." This District would enact most of the controls proposed in the December 2002 Draft Central Waterfront Plan's Mixed-Use Residential District, including increasing the existing height and bulk designation from 50-X to 65-X. The proposed project would require a conditional use authorization for a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Section 304 of the San Francisco Planning Code.

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department until the close of business on May 21, 2007

Preliminary Recommendation: Receive Comments. No action required.

SPEAKERS

Laura Roland, Carpenters Local 22

  1. We have concerns about the adequacy of this document and project.

- We believe that it under minds the adequacy process of the Eastern Neighborhood Planning process.

- We are currently finalizing the details of our formal comments to be submitted by the deadline of May 26.

Michael

  1. I think it is an excellent document and commended staff for the wonderful job done.
  2. This Environmental Impact Review is a combination of four and a half year of process.
  3. The application was submitted in December 2002 as a mitigated negative declaration.

- At the request of staff, the sponsor redesigned the project to increase its density to conform to the draft Central Waterfront Plan.

- We were prepared to publish another draft mitigated negative declaration in March 2006.

- In February 2006, the Board of Supervisors upheld the appeal for the 2660 Harrison Street project.

- We were asked to go back for the third time and we came up with this Draft Environmental Impact Report.

  1. I just wanted to emphasize the history of the procedure.
  2. [Quoted page 7 of the report.]

- Many people confuses the socio-economic affects and physical impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]

ACTION: No action required of the Commission. This was a hearing to receive public and Commission comment only.

21. 2006.0074TZ (Tape IVA) (J. Lau: (415) 558-6383)

Initiation of Planning Code Amendments Establishing PDR Zoning Districts and Initiation of Zoning Map Amendments Applying these Designations to Certain Industrial Portions of Bayview Hunters Point - The Department is proposing a set of Code amendments to establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer District) and a PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair District) in the Planning Code. These zones will permit a wide variety of non-residential uses and will retain space for current and future light industrial activities. The Department is also proposing Zoning Map amendments that would apply these PDR Districts, and a South Basin Design and Development Special Use District, to certain industrial areas in Bayview Hunters Point currently zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial). These amendments would 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.

A) Informational Item. Staff will respond to Commissioner questions from the informational hearing held on January 18, 2007 and provide clarifying information.

Preliminary Recommendation: Hold hearing on informational item.

B) 2006.0074T – Initiation of a Planning Code Text Amendment. Consideration of a resolution of intent to initiate an amendment to the Planning Code, including revisions to Sections 121.5, 121.7, 204.3-204.4, 210, 210.6, 210.7, 210.8, 210.9, 213-227, 230, and 249.32. The amendment would establish a PDR-1 Use District (Light Industrial Buffer), a PDR-2 Use District (Production, Distribution, and Repair), and a South Basin Design and Development Special Use District (South Basin SUD), and establish regulations on subdivisions, accessory uses, and the demolition of industrial structures in these districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution of intent to initiate the Planning Code amendment.

C) 2006.0074Z – Initiation of a Zoning Map Amendment. Consideration of a resolution of intent to initiate a Zoning Map amendment consisting of revisions to Sectional Maps 8, 9, 10, and 10 SU of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco. This amendment would: 1) reclassify the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Barneveld Avenue, McKinnon Avenue, Evans Avenue, and Third Street from M-2 to PDR-2; 2) reclassify the area generally bounded by Loomis Street, the I-280 Freeway, Oakdale Avenue, and the Caltrain right-of-way from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair); 3) reclassify much of the South Basin District, generally bounded by Bayshore Boulevard, Paul Avenue, Egbert Yosemite Slough, the Hunters Point Shipyard, Thomas Avenue, and Williams Avenue Avenue, from M-1 to PDR-2; 4) establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer) designation over the northern and southern edges of the South Basin District, on the east side of Third Street, roughly along Fitzgerald, Van Dyke, Underwood, and Thomas Avenues – on properties currently zoned M-1; and 5) apply the South Basin SUD (South Basin Design and Development Special Use District) to the area generally bounded by Paul Avenue, Bayshore Boulevard, Phelps Street, Williams Avenue, and Third Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution of intent to initiate the Zoning Map amendment.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Initiated

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

MOTION: 17430

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

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 10:10P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 21, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as corrected: Page 3, first bullet under Commissioner Sugaya's comments to insert the word Historic Resource Preservation Fund Committee.

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 10:00:28 PM