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

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

June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 14, 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: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Aaron Starr, Alice John-Baptiste, Viktoriya Wise, Tim Frye, Sharon Young, Tom Wang, 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.

1a. 2006.0636DD (A. STARR: (415) 558-6322)

2901-2903 PIERCE STREET - northwest corner of Union and Pierce Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0536 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.13.6418 proposing to construct a new one-story, two-car garage with roof deck addition at the rear of the three-story, two-unit building. The existing detached garage structure would be demolished. The new garage would be located within the required rear yard, requiring a variance. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

1b. 2006.0636VDD (A. STARR: (415) 558-6322)

2901-2903 PIERCE STREET - northwest corner of Union and Pierce Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0536 - Request for Variance from Planning Code Section 134 (required rear yard) to allow demolition of the existing detached garage and to construct a new one-story horizontal addition approximately 26 feet deep and 26 feet wide at the rear of the existing two-family dwelling. The addition will accommodate a new two-car garage, roof deck and stairs leading from the roof deck to the rear yard. The new garage is located within the required rear yard. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2004.1245E (R. SCHOHN: (415) 558-5985)
300 Grant Avenue
- Assessor's Block 0287, Lots 013, 014 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 10,500 square-foot project site is located at 300 Grant Avenue (aka 272-290 Sutter Street) on the northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street in the Financial District neighborhood. The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings containing approximately 35,600-square feet of retail space and construction of an approximately 114,354 gross square foot, 12-story, 130-foot tall building containing up to 56 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail space, and 34 to 40 off-street parking spaces. The retail entrance to the proposed project would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street, while the residential lobby entrance would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Harlan Place. Access to the parking garage would be from Harlan Place off Grant Avenue. The site is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail) within an 80-130-F height and bulk district, and the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3a. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for review under Planning Code ("Code") Section 309 of the construction of a new, 12-story mixed-use building containing approximately 56 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage, requiring the authorization of exceptions to Code standards for height above 80 feet, building bulk, rear yard, and off-street parking, as well as the granting of Variances of Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3b. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in conjunction with the construction of a new, 12-story mixed-use building containing approximately 56 dwelling

units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 28, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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.

4. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of May 31, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: All were approved as drafted with one correction to March 22, 2007:

March 22, 2007, page 5, under Commissioner Sugaya's comments, second point - insert relatively before the word "small."

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

5. 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 Alexander

- I just want to report that the Commission in its closed session today did vote to send three names to the Mayor as candidates for the Director of Planning position.

- It should be forthcoming. Beyond that, the Commission voted to not disclose any other elements of that meeting.

Commissioner Antonini

- I just want to ask staff in regards to the issue of Western SOMA separation from the Eastern Neighborhoods -- A couple of years ago we talked about this and why this particular neighborhood was allowed to conduct its own planning process.

- It has been so long that maybe the public would like to hear about why the planning process is being done somehow independently than other areas being done by this department.

- I am a believer that the entire city should be involved in the planning process even thought the neighborhood has an immediate stake in the outcome.

- I have a question of whether the projects in the Western SOMA are going to be handled differently than the rest of the Eastern Neighborhoods?

- Impacts should be evaluated in the same manner as the other neighborhoods.

- I thought of that in reference to a project that came up last week at 224 7th Street being very good architecturally, providing affordable housing plus parking.

- There were no questions of what impact this project might be in terms of general impacts.

- To be consistent, we have to look at all projects and at least discuss the impacts.

Commissioner Moore

- During Commissioner's Matters, Commissioners raise questions and staff has been very diligent in tracking and responding to these questions.

- I just wanted to acknowledge that it has happened.

- Since the public is also hearing these questions, I believe there should be a short presentation of the work that we are getting back.

- The public needs to also hear of what we are receiving in these short memorandums.

- I suggest that somebody take a couple of minutes and summarize the highlights of those answers.

Commissioner Olague

- I just want to follow up with Mr. Badiner on the request I had about block book notation fees.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- I have not forgotten about that request. I will check with assigned staff.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I just want to mention that I did receive answers to some questions specifically to one case on Golden Gate Avenue.

- I still disagree with staff. I will get back to staff directly.

- We received an example of a case report and I would get back to staff with two suggestions that I have.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

6. Director's Announcements

None

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

AnMarie Rodgers reported on Board of Supervisors' events:

Government Audit and Oversight

- Supervisor Alioto-Pier sponsored a public hearing on the impacts of parking on neighborhood businesses and families.

- Staff from Municipal Transportation Agency [MTA], San Francisco County Transportation Authority [SFCTA] and Planning had plans to speak. However, because of the busy agenda, it has been postponed to July.

Land Use Committee None (Canceled)

Board of Supervisors

  1. An urgency Ordinance that would place an interim-zoning moratorium on the installation of microcell equipment for 45 days was not heard. It is calendared to be continued until July 31.

-Last April this Commission recommended to the Board that they consider amending sections 311 and 312 to add microcells to the list of permit applications subject to neighborhood notifications.

-Supervisor Peskin has indicated that he intends to move forward with this notice idea.

2- A Resolution authorizing this department to apply for Work Force Housing Reward Grant - Adopted

-The Department had applied for this grant last year and received over $740,000. That money funded Mission Streetscapes and public ramp improvement effort.

-The authorization considered this week would cover a second grant from the same fund.

-This year we have applied for another $870,000. If it is successful, the Department's intent is to use it for further work on the Mission Streetscapes plan.

-This money would articulate specifically a demonstration project on Cesar Chavez to design and build specific pedestrian, traffic calming and intersection improvements.

-Grant awardees would be announced around the end of June or early July.

3- The third resolution urged the Department to fully analyze water supply alternatives in the Tuolumne River Environmental Impact Report [EIR].

-This resolution urges the department to look at alternatives that would not resolve in increased diversions of freshwater from Tuolumne River.

-It urges the Planning Commission to undertake and implement water conservation and water recycling programs.

-For our part, the Department is working to address these issues in the program EIR.

  1. Market-Octavia Neighborhood Plan Final Environmental Impact Report - It was interrupted due to outside circumstances. Continued to next Tuesday at 3p.m.

  1. Medical Cannabis Dispensaries [MCD]. Currently, there is a consideration to extend the deadline for completing the registration and permitting process from July 1, 2007 to January 1, 2008.

-It was schedule to be heard by the City Operations Committee this week but due to scheduling and noticing requirements as well as the 4th of July holiday this ordinance cannot be scheduled before this Commission until July 12th.

-It couldn't be heard at the Board of Supervisor until July 26th.

-There is a gap from the deadline to when the Board of Supervisor can actually consider the extension.

-Supervisor Alioto-Pier had discussed introducing a resolution to urge departments charged with MCD regulations to postponed enforcement until the Board has had the opportunity to consider extending the deadline.

-As I mentioned last week, it should be noted that this proposed extension would not apply to MCD operators who have not begun the application process as of July 1, 2007.

-It is still imperative that MCD's file for necessary permit with the various city agencies including the  D permits with the Planning Department by the June 30 deadline.

  1. Introductions of new legislation:

-Supervisor Maxwell introduced an extension to the Planning Department Review of the Visitacion Valley Fee Amendment.

-Supervisor Daly requested a hearing on the environmental impacts of the Lennar Development at the Hunter's Point Shipyard.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals

  1. 1 Belgrave Avenue. Discretionary Review requested by the two adjacent neighbors. Commission's decision upheld (+4 –0)
  2. 3816 21st Street. This has not come to the Commission yet. This case required a variance for the rear yard that would require 311 notices. [The ZA decision was] upheld.

-Often, we try to arrange to hold hearings for variances on the same day the Commission considers the discretionary review.

-Section 311 says that when the Planning Department determines that a project is co-compliant, notices should be sent.

-The Attorney representing the next door neighbor says that you cannot do that until holding and approving the variance and then send the 311 notices.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES (Tape IA)

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

Georgia Schuttish

- I was here two weeks ago and Mr. Badiner and Mr. Crawford wrote a memorandum in response to what I said.

- It does not really answer what I came here to talk about except for the last paragraph where you tell about the roof.

- I spoke about the alteration that is really a demolition.

- I showed the renderings I took to the Board of Appeals after you denied the Discretionary Review.

- I found out that the roof was changed because two neighbors had a problem with the view and it was changed to be flat.

- I went to the files and found out about all these emails between the staff, neighbors and project sponsors.

- Neighbors signed a petition -- not the ones who filed for discretionary review -- and it seems they got what they asked for -- preserve their view.

- My concern is that why after everything is done somebody comes and complains because of view and it gets changed? Change it back.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

SPEAKERS

Johanna, 1530 Hayes Street

- I am challenging the approval of this conditional use.

- I would like to have it come off the consent calendar.

8. 2007.0337C Tape IA) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

405 BAKER STREET - west side between Grove and Hayes Streets; Lot 007, in Assessor's Block 1199 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 209.3(c) to allow a Residential Care Facility for more than 7 persons in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project consists of establishing a residential care facility (dba Transitional Residential Mental Health Program) for approximately 15 adults in a building that was previously used as a residential care facility for 12 children (dba Burt Children's Center), but which is currently vacant. No expansion in the building envelope is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS

Johanna

- I live with my husband and our house is facing the building in question.

- We have talked to several of our neighbors about the use of this house and we oppose the proposal.

- I am here representing a group of neighbors and would like to read a letter opposing this project.

- The form and timing of the planning process for the use of this property was inadequate to allow the concerned residents time to assess the impact of a mental institution.

- It would have an impact on the quality of our lives, safety and character of the neighborhood.

- The potential for destruction of property, disturbance of the peace, possibly violent crime or even diminished value needs in depth thoughtful analysis.

- We would like to have interviews from psychologists/psychiatrists unaffiliated with the applicant to form an opinion about the affect of this mental institution for people living nearby.

Steve Fields, Project Sponsor

- We are the non-profit contractor working with the Department of Health to provide the services at this location.

- We have followed the procedures for conditional use with the last 10 sites where we provide services.

- We attended the neighborhood association meeting on May 15th.

- Answered questions there and offered to come back if they felt it necessary to do so.

- On May 21st we held a community meeting hosted by two neighbors. 8 individuals showed up and expressed their support.

- This is the first time we've heard of opposition.

- I understand the concerns of people for whom this might be a new experience.

- This site is uniquely structured to be a residential treatment program.

- It has been unoccupied for the last 10 years.

- We have a track record. We have conditional use permits all over the city.

- Our capacity to deliver safe and effective residential treatment programs is a public record.

- There has never been an incident involving a client and a neighbor in any of our facilities throughout the city.

- These people deserve the opportunity to live in the community.

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Alexander

MOTION: 17447

  • F.REGULAR CALENDAR

9. (Tape IA; IB) (A. JOHN-BAPTISTE: (415) 558-6547)

FY 2008 BUDGET UPDATE - Informational Item. Review of the Department's FY2008 budget, as revised and proposed in the Mayor's FY2008 budget.

SPEAKERS

Farbod Pirouzmand, Local 21 Representative

- We would like to share with you some of the concerns regarding the expenditure/reductions specifically as they relate to the change of the planner 5 positions to the Municipal Executive Association [MEA] positions.

- I have written a letter to Director Macris that I would like to share with all of you.

- The agreement in 2002 states that any growth beyond the ratio set by an audit has to be limited to new programs and substantial changes to existent programs.

- There are not enough managers for staff. The City needs to report to Local 21 and MEA of those changes.

- The city shall not have the authority, under this agreement, to assign work to another entity or positions when local 21 members usually perform that work.

- We were not consulted at all on this specific topic.

- I have asked for a meet and confer in this letter to resolve this issue. If not, we have the authority to go to immediate arbitration on this specific action.

Jim Meko, Chair of the Western Soma Citizen Planning Task Force

- Thanked the Commission and the Department for the continuing support.

- The budget request we made for this year is being carried through.

- The Western SOMA process is just going toward its third and final year.

- We are going to have the first in a series of town hall meetings on June 27.

- The community is gong to start working with the Task Force.

- By this time next year, you should be considering a final creative plan with the resulting rezoning.

No Action taken by the Commission. Informational Only

10. (Tape IB) (L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)

COMMISSIION'S RULES AND REGULATIONS - Discussion and possible action to amend the Commission's Rules and Regulations to address imposing time constraints on submittal of documents and material for review by the Commission and the public; discuss and possibly establish rules or policies that address other areas of interest of the Commission.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 26, 2007

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

ABSENT: W. Lee and Sugaya.

11a. 2006.1080C (Tape IIA) (T. Frye: (415) 575-6822)

1029 Natoma Street - between 11th Street and Lafayette Street, Block 055 in Assessor's Block 3511 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the demolition of the existing single residential unit pursuant to Sections 803.5(b) and 816.13 of the Planning Code. The subject property is within an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) Zoning District, the Western SOMA Special Use District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to demolish the single residential unit and construct a new 50-foot structure that would include four units and four off-street parking spaces.

preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Stanley Saitowitz, Project Sponsor Representative

- The house was badly damaged by fire.

- It has been un-inhabitable for years.

- The foundation is badly damaged by termite infestation and is un-repairable.

- Some of the buildings in the neighborhood are a mix with the traditional South of Market tall and commercial buildings.

- The entire surface of the building would be glass to enhance natural amenities and at the end of the day would provide heat.

- We would open up the rear yard.

  1. It would be a single use.
  2. Because of the size and room configuration, the large room could be reconfigured to allow a second room.

- Showed a map of neighbors in the area that support this project.

Jim Meko, West SOMA Task Force

- When we looked at this project in March, we had serious concerns about the sensitivity to the adjacent residential dwellings on Clay and Natoma Street.

- We looked at it trough the lens of the priority polices of the General Plan.

- Our concerns were to conserve existing housing, neighborhood character, and to preserve and enhance affordability, employment opportunities and protect open space.

- The project has been revised. It was reduced in height and conforms with the guidelines.

- Good job project sponsor.

Dan Kelly

- I support this project because it will fit in this neighborhood.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17449

11b. 2006.1080CV (T. Frye: (415) 575-6822)

1029 Natoma Street - between 11th Street and Lafayette Street, Block 055 in Assessor's Block 3511 - Parking variance to construct a new four-unit residential building with three off-street parking spaces, where four are required, per Planning Code Section 151. The subject property is within an SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) Zoning District, the Western SOMA Special Use District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The parking variance will be heard by the Zoning Administrator.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 11b

ACTION: Zoning Administrator Badiner granted the variance.

Item #12 and #13 were taken out of order followed item #10

12. 2001.1056E (Tape IIB) (V. WISE: (415) 575-9049))

280 Divisadero Street - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project site (Assessor's Block 1238, Lot 23) is located at 280 Divisadero Street, between Page and Haight Streets, in the Lower Haight neighborhood of the Western Addition district. The site consists of a single parcel, and is 6,875 square feet in area; it is within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project site is City Landmark No. 190, the Charles L. Hinkel House and Carriage House, and contains two structures: a four-story single-family dwelling (the  main house ) and a two-story building that originally served as a carriage house for the property (the  carriage house ). The project sponsor's proposal includes both exterior alterations and interior structural repairs to the carriage house, so that the resulting, essentially new building can be legalized as a second residential unit on the lot. Based on the proposed scope of work, the Planning Department has determined that the project would be considered  demolition of the carriage house under the standards set forth in Article 10 of the Planning Code. The project is limited to the carriage house; no physical changes to the main house are proposed. The project sponsor is seeking a Variance because the carriage house is located within the required rear yard open space of the main house.

Preliminary Recommendation: Public Hearing to Receive Comments. No Action Required.

Note: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until 5 pm on June 18, 2007.

SPEAKERS

John Barbey, 50 Liberty Street

- It was marvelous to stay in this house.

- I stayed there once when I was moving into an apartment and lost my keys.

- I am one of the people who founded the Liberty Hill Historic District in South of Market and restored two Victorian houses there.

- I wanted to speak to the demolition part. It is necessary to do a proper restoration and to remake the foundation.

- I hope you can appreciate this kind of effort because it takes about 20 years to do.

- This particular house is legendary and a big Victorian house.

- This is a structure that probably has melded into the neighborhood.

- I will send my letter with comments before the Monday closing time.

Mark Pope, 807 Franklin Street

- I was in this building many years ago.

- I am questioning whether it was just the carriage house/stable and therefore the opening should reflect that.

- I spoke briefly with Richard about that and I am still not convinced the horses were not kept there.

- I just found out about this as well and I am concern that the President of the Victorian Alliance Intentional has not been making the members aware of this project.

- A lot of people do not know about this. I agree that this would be a demolition.

No Action required of the Commission. For Public Hearing Only

13. 2007.0286C (Tape IB; IIA) (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

4041 GEARY BOULEVARD - southeast corner of 5th Avenue and Geary Boulevard; Lot 050 in Assessor's Block 1540 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 703.4 and 303 of the Planning Code to establish a Formula Retail Use in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale) Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to establish a new retail coffee store (DBA  Starbucks ), with approximately 750 square feet in floor area, in vacant commercial retail space located within a recently approved auto repair shop (DBA  Service Center for San Francisco Toyota ). This proposal relates to a Conditional Use authorization granted by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2006 under Case No. 2005.1089C to convert a retail building, which was formerly occupied by Cala Foods grocery store, to the auto repair shop. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS

Ed Laris, Project Sponsor

- I have all kinds of documents that show we have followed all regulations.

Bryant Noviski

- I am the assigned manager for Starbucks Coffee in Northern California.

- I just would like to show a plan of the proposed building at this location.

- This project is access by the Kaiser Hospital Campus. We have an entrance on the corner.

- Toyota approached us and requested help to design a waiting area for its clients. They wanted something there instead of an empty space.

- We have access directly to the street and we would provide our own service hours. Generally from 5am to 9pm.

- Deliveries for our location occur between 5pm and 9am.

- This is a very small space and Toyota has allowed us to work with them in creating a positive experience to the neighborhood.

- It would rejuvenate this area.

Lennon, Director of Civic and Community Fair for Starbucks Coffee Co.

- I would like to focus my comments on how we respond to and connect with the community as well as economic development.

- I am a native San Franciscan and I know how important it is to work with the community.

- This company tries to balance people, profiting and planet. We tried to do it in a way that we are respectful of the culture and the neighborhood.

- We certainly approach every neighborhood, community and customer in the same sort of way.

- We did some outreach to the Geary Boulevard Merchants Association receiving very good receptivity to this proposal.

- We employ over 1,000 people that live in San Francisco. Almost 90 percent work and live in the city.

- We have identified a community organization that we are going to partner with in this store.

- You will see our partners pouring coffee at local events and being involved in local parades.

Ron Miguel, President of Planning Association for the Richmond District.

- This particular site is going back to its original situation of being automobile related.

- Retail is dead in this section of the south side of Geary between 4th and 6th Avenues that is composed of this location and Kaiser.

- In working with Kaiser, there is the intent to make the exterior a little friendlier.

- Toyota wants us to improve its waiting area.

- We have supported independence as much as possible.

Josef Norris

- I run a small non-profit business.

- I worked very closely with over a dozen districts and store managers in doing the work that I do.

- Basically, we are in the art education program working in San Francisco, Oakland and Marin schools.

- In the last five years, I have received $90,000 in funding and grants from Starbucks.

- Funding is important and I've been running my business in close working collaboration with Starbucks.

- I just completed projects/murals on 6th and Balboa, Scott and Geary Boulevard.

- It is very important for me to know what level of responsibility a corporation takes when moving into a community.

Sharlene Wang

- I lived adjacent to the property in question.

- We are very concerned about parking in the area. Starbucks in addition to Toyota would increase the lack of parking.

- I contacted planning staff to find out about the parking lot.

- It would be mainly reserved for Toyota's Service Center.

- [Submitted written comments about this issue.]

Doug Donnellan, San Francisco Toyota

- I am here to support Starbucks for numerous reasons.

- Our conditional use permit was granted on March 2006.

- The long-term plan for this retail space was to include a coffee space.

- We searched local small businesses to possibly become the business in our service center.

- Starbucks has a lot of philosophy that are similar to ours [Toyota].

- They feel that the number one asset of their company is its employee.

- They are the first company in the country that provides health benefits to part time employees.

- Customers are very important.

- This company gives back to the community. I recommend approval of this project.

Bryant

- I am here in opposition to this project.

- There is no neighborhood like the Inner Richmond District.

- We have a lot of independent business owners in the City. That is the fabric of the community.

- They [Starbucks] have misplaced independent small coffee owners.

Jesse Fink

- I have a retail business on Clement Street and Irving Street.

- [Submitted photographs of this site.]

- Most people do not know they are coming to this neighborhood.

- I am here to talk about preserving the character of San Francisco.

- People are saying the Starbucks is going to beautify this area and I just do not see it.

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Moore and Olague.

EXCUSED: S. Lee

MOTION: 17448

14. 2007.0307D (Tape IIA; IIB) (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

2258 27TH AVENUE- east side between Rivera and Santiago Streets; Lot 021A in Assessor's Block 2323 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.12.19.0106 to renovate the front facade and construct a third story vertical addition and a rear stairway to the existing one-story over garage, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Sarah Suettao Chan, Discretionary Review Requestor

- We need to preserve the character of the area.

- Project sponsor had the option to remodel the basement or use the rear of the property.

- It is unfair for the neighbors if they do this project for renting.

- I'm opposed to the third floor addition.

Will Macolm, Pacific Design Architecture

- This project is not for renting, but is to accommodate a family of five members.

- Both floors are remaining. We would remove some portion to build stairs that would be larger than the current one.

- The ground floor front and rear façade would remain as is.

- The front façade on the second floor would remain. We are changing the window to make it larger.

- The same thing would happen to the back of the house.

- We would remove the windows and add a new front door.

- The walls of the office would remain.

- 27th Avenue slopes to the south. The adjacent property to the north would actually be taller.

  1. This project would be about 7 feet taller than the property to the North.

Herbert To, Owner

- We have lived in this property for 10 years.

- Our intent is to stay in the City and raise our children here.

- My parents-in-law visit us and we would also like to have space for them.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as modified:

-Removal of the deck and push back the rear wall to the stair plane.

-Remove skyline architectural feature.

-Continue working with staff on design - especially the large picture window, material and narrow garage width.

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

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS

None

Adjournment: 4:58 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 28, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as corrected: Page 4, the last bullet of Commissioner Moore should read: "I suggest that somebody take a couple of minutes and summarize the highlights of those answers."

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

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