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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco
Public Hearings 
 

June 28, 2007

June 28, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 28, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: S. Lee

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, AnMarie Rodgers, Ken Rich, Aaron Starr, Jonas Ionin, Susan Exline, Michelle Glueckert, Glenn Cabreros, Jim Miller, 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 2004.1245E (N. TURRELL: (415) 575-9047)
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 June 14, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 12, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

2a. 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, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 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 June 14, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 12, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Steve Atkinson

- I just to take the opportunity to respond to Commissioner Sugaya's question. The packet submitted last week is changed from the plans originally sent to the Commission several months ago.

  1. Packet submitted last week is the one we will be presenting on July 12.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

2b. 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, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 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 June 14, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 12, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 2a

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

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.

3. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 14, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of June 14, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of November 30, 2006.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of November 9, 2006.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of November 2, 2006.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 2, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as corrected.

Minutes of June 14, 2007 - 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, Olague, Antonini, W. Lee, Moore and Sugaya.

ABSENT: S. Lee

4. 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

- A particular property on 27th Avenue was brought to my attention.

- It is not really this particular project per say, but the process that it is indicative. I am not sure it came before us because it was a Cat. Ex. [Categorical Exception]

- Basically what happened was an individual project that had a Cat. Ex. was appealed at the Board of Supervisors and found that it could be potentially historical if a historical map was done of the area.

- This was an addition largely to the back of an existing residential, single-family home.

- It puts them in a position to go forward and complete a neighborhood mapping to find out if it could conceivably be historical.

- I think that this remedy is disproportionate to what is being done and I would like to see a report or briefing on what is happening; the basis and/or policies in place and our role in the determination of these kinds of procedures.

- This has been going on recently.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- Perhaps it might be appropriate for us to comment when we do the Board of Supervisors report.

- We are still trying to figure out all the implications from Tuesday's decisions.

- We might be able to provide some input on that today and some more in the future.

Commissioner Moore

- I would like to share with Commissioners and the public a very innovative way on how the Dutch engaged some unusual solutions to the unsightly presence of television satellite dishes -- making an art out of it.

- I found it remarkable how they turned something rather blightfull into something delightful.

- It came up to my attention that the expired permit for 524 Howard Street has been reinstated.

- I was curious of how that happened without these types of buildings coming back to the Commission? I would like to get an explanation.

Commissioner Alexander

- We have two of those that came forward. There is one on California Street.

- When time limits go pass what we had given, sometimes four or five years, we should see those projects in areas where planning's thinking and urban format may have changed.

- Possibly the neighborhood should be noticed. Help me understand that process and whether or not we have the purview to see those projects again.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- 524 Howard Street is a project that was approved by this Commission in 1999 for about 200,000 square feet of office building.

- In 2002, this Commission made a policy that relates to the annual limit projects. The code essentially says that failure to commence should be grounds for reapplication not revoking.

- This Commission by motion indicated that they did not want a reapplication of the permit. They wanted these projects to continue on unless/until we run out of space in an annual amount allocation.

- If you have a number of projects coming in, we would have to look at the previously approved projects whether they are moving ahead or not. Absent that, they are entitled.

- In order to un-entitle them, we would need to schedule a revocation hearing. The policy allows them to continue.

- In this particular project, in early December a determination was requested on whether the project still had Planning Commission entitlement, absent a reapplication of the permit.

- Given the Commission policy, I determined that in fact the Commission action was still valid and issued the letter.

- Subsequent to that, a member of the project sponsor's team pulled the building permit.

- I indicated some concerns because I consulted with the Transbay Terminal and Redevelopment Agency before saying that it was valid.

- We still wanted to look at the design and make sure it was appropriate and if they still met the conditions of approval.

- We were surprised to see that a building permit was issued. We suspended it.

- In discussion with the project sponsor, we indicated that they would have to come back to the department and the Commission for at least an informal review and they have to meet all current Planning Code requirements unless they could demonstrate that they did not apply.

Commissioner Alexander

- We should calendar a discussion on that issue because I see some problems coming up given all the changes in planning in the city.

- We should examine this and see if we can find a space on our calendar to see that. July 26th?

Commissioner Moore

- Could we, in the mean time, ask to look briefly at these projects without them being approved? I am very concerned that this leaves a lot of room for just tag and pull.

- I believe that a permit issued in 1999 needs to be looked at under a completely different set of circumstances.

- It is not that we know better, but to bring it back for a broader discussion between all of us participating actively in the Transbay Terminal project; new ideas for Downtown; and Market-Octavia. All of these buildings are not small buildings.

- They are significant buildings and we owe it to each other to just take a comprehensive look. In the meantime until we decide on a new policy or to reinstate the old policy, I would like to suggest that we bring these projects back.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I just want to emphasize that they are subject to current fees. The intent was to bring it back to the Commission as an informational item for review.

- We would have to determine if there are further changes that are being made. Absent being revoked, it is still in place.

- There is no question that we would be happy to bring it back to you.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. That is for that particular project. But in terms of going forward, we would like to see those projects before they are reinstated.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I assume that part of that informational hearing would include all those projects that are sitting out there with 2, 3, 5 or 9-year permits.

- In the latest BUSINESS TIMES, there is a section on San Francisco structures. And they are in three categories: under construction, permitting, or still waiting for approval.

- I would like staff to look at it and give a quick updated on the status of seeking approval.

Commissioner W. Lee

- Early this week, there was a court decision regarding the Housing Element and I would like to propose a closed session with the City Attorney's Office to discuss the court's decision.

- Regarding our hearing on the three-year timetable [annual limit for projects], can staff present at that time what the implications would be if we add new requirements to those projects?

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)

5. Director's Announcements [This item followed item 6.]

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator reported:

- Commissioners, I would like to take a moment to mention that you received in your packets a memorandum from Ms. Forbes about block book notation [BBN] fees.

- We reviewed our fees last year and as part of that we changed our block book notations. Previously, the fee had been $25 for the first block and $10 for any additional block.

- On September 1, 2006, we changed the code and made it $25 for the first lot and $10 for each additional lot.

- Neighborhood Associations expressed concerns about that. The Board of Supervisors sponsored modifications to the Code that for an individual it would be $25 for the first lot and $10 for each additional lot and for Neighborhood Associations it would be $25 for the first block and $10 for any additional block.

- The next piece is 77 Oak Street. There were some discrepancies between the plans and the 3-dimensional renderings and it was requested that we review it.

- Also, the plan did not really expressed well what was going on in a way that was readable.

- We spoke to the project sponsor. We reviewed the design of the building. Project sponsor put a packet together that is more reflective in 3-dimension what was being proposed.

- It shows in better detail the window design and molding. The project sponsor decided to put in highly quality windows throughout the building.

- This is for your review and if you have any questions you may contact us.

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

AnMarie Rodgers reported:

Land Use and Economic Committee:

A. Hearing on Planning Code Amendments for PDR Districts. Supervisor Maxwell requested this informational hearing. No Action Taken.

Budget Committee:

A. The Planning Department presented the budget for 2007-2008 Fiscal Year. Passed to the full Board [of Supervisors]. The Board analyst suggested some minor changes and our Department for the most part supported them. The Department will come back to the Commission with the full update of the budget process in late July or early August.

Board of Supervisors

A. Re-appeal of the alternative review process. This Amendment to the Planning Code would delete language that expired approximately four years ago. Passed unanimously.

B. Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District Rezoning. The Department sponsored this rezoning to create a new district where currently commercial 2 controls are in place. It would also eliminate a garment manufacturing special use district. Passed unanimously.

C. 2462 27th Avenue Cat Ex [Categorical Exemption] appeal. It did not come to the Commission. There was a related Discretionary Review hearing in November 2006 and there was no appeal taken at that time.

The appellant claimed that the property was a historic resource and needed to have a full Historic Resource Evaluation Report or HRER. Members of the Board sighted the dwelling expert's arguments and upheld the appellant request. This position means that a full HRER would be required.

D. Introductions:

a. Supervisor Amiano introduced legislation that would exempt turbines in Bernal Heights from the height control limits.

Board of Appeals

None

(Tape IA; IB) (A. GHOSH: (415) 558-6282)

7. Eastern Neigbhorhoods: Design Challenges in Affordable Housing - The AIA will present its assessment of the following subject at the request of the Commission: A demonstration of practical applications of providing infill affordable housing in zoning districts that also require the allocation of PDR (Production, Distribution and Repair) use. Examples of design excellence in affordable housing will also be exhibited.

SPEAKERS

John Sleshinger, AIA in San Francisco [The American Institute Architects]

  1. There are two primary things that we looked at for the Eastern Neighborhoods: a)-PDR and housing compatibility; and b)-demands for affordable housing.
  2. In looking at PDR use, the Building Code stipulates certain types that are compatible and not compatible with housing.
  3. The ones that are compatible are those that do not necessarily create undue fumes, dust, and excessive noise.
  4. The contrary would be the ones that are not compatible related to factory or industrial operations.
  5. As far as the demands for affordable housing, we understand that on site support services are critical to the success. Open community space is also important.
  6. There is also a need for construction cost constraints as well as for efficiency and unit design.

Rod Henmi, Michael Willis Architects

  1. I would like to speak on the ideas of excellence of design in affordable housing.
  2. The key ideas – the ones we think are critical for all affordable housing - are to make more with less; community and connectivity; sustaining the environment; and the sense of home.
  3. [Shared various designs of buildings in San Francisco and Oakland].
  4. This is just an idea for providing a series of key concepts.

David Baker, Architect for Case Study #1 and #2 - Dagget Place and Townsend Street

  1. I want to show two studies of buildings that we have on the boards now to specifically show the interaction of the new PDR legislation.
  2. It is interesting that if you have a very large site, this is about three-acres, it would be easy to meet the requirements.
  3. You could use the ground floor to have a large PDR space and put housing above. The users would have to be big and rely on limited parking space.
  4. Another idea is to have a mix-use PDR or divide the space.

Kristine Soloman, Architect for Case Study #3 on Alabama Street

  1. This project on Alabama Street represents a very large lot. And even though it is large, there are difficulties with combining PDR uses.
  2. There is a great deal of diversity in the footprints and building types in the area.
  3. The lot itself used to be a parking lot for a truck rental company with a small warehouse building.
  4. The project proposal is 3 and 4 stories of housing over PDR space.
  5. We struggled a lot to provide the amount required for PDR space. It was projected to be a .6 FAR, but it ended up being a .1 FAR.
  6. A few factors took place. The community really wanted a one-to-one parking ratio taking a significant amount of area.
  7. Also, to provide open community spaces connecting to the neighborhood takes space as well.
  8. The other complication we ran into with this project was the typical mixed-use style. The PDR uses with open flames or saw dust cannot be used there.

Bob Herman, Architect for Case Study #4 on Folsom Street

  1. This project consists of 134 units of SRO [Single Room Occupancy] and is the type of affordable housing with supportive services and community space that is of enormous need.
  2. In this case, there would be no PDR but retail space.
  3. It is not too big and that makes it even more difficult to provide the space for the support services on the ground floor.
  4. It is a 4 stories building with a 50-foot height limit and a very small amount of parking - 11 spaces for 134 units.
  5. If PDR were incorporated into this project, there would be no parking to accommodate users on the ground floor. Retailers would need to move up to the second floor loosing twenty percent of the affordable housing units.
  6. If the height limit could expand one more floor, the building construction type would change and be more expensive.

Toby Levy, Architect and Vice-President of SOMA Citizen Task Force

  1. This is a particular block on Bryant Street representing a mix of uses each in a different building.
  2. In order to have PDR, or if you want to translate it to the blue collar well paying jobs, we need to allow industries that might not be appropriate for neighborhood commercial spaces.
  3. The idea of having them [PDR] in mixed-use buildings side by side allowing larger and smaller spaces with clear identity of uses -- other uses not would not be allowed in housing complexes. That is very critical.
  4. Essentially we are talking about neighborhood commercial.
  5. There is also the competition of the ground floor to PDR uses.
  6. We have a lot of storage facilities and furniture warehouses in the South of Market that used to be fashion outlets and we have very few jobs for the amount of square footage that this takes up.
  7. It might help to retain the existing stock as well as providing more jobs at the buildings there.
  8. The other issue is housing in the South of Market being close to the freeway.
  9. According to the Health Department, if it were up to them, we would have nothing within a thousand feet of the freeway.
  10. The other reality in our neighborhoods is the loading and traffic conflicts. We cannot assume that we can have livable neighborhoods with that high level of traffic.
  11. The challenge is for greening our neighborhoods. There is not much available open space.

[No name]

  1. I have been stuck for 13 years with a 3-year project. Good luck with this.

Calvin Welsch

  1. It is a pleasure to watch the work of a talented architect, especially Mr. Herman and Mr. Baker who have done remarkable affordable housing in the city.
  2. The only thing I have to add is that we should be a little bit concerned about what we ask for because we might get it.
  3. I am not at all certain that the recommendation to kind of allow off-site PDR [Production, Distribution and Repair] is understandable, let alone practical.
  4. The real challenge is going to be figuring out a way to also weave employment and physical opportunities into PDR and affordable housing.
  5. In developing affordable housing here, we assume that people can pay some rent but we do not know much about how to develop no-cost housing.
  6. The questions of employment and transit are very important.
  7. I think that what has been highlighted is the difficulty of accommodating automobiles in the PDR and residential uses.
  8. I think that the only rational solution is to really look at what we have to do to vibrantly increase public transit and alternatives to the automobile.
  9. The questions of figuring out the linkage of the job opportunities and affordable housing are critically important because it would also address the transportation issue.
  10. We have to understand that we have a very dynamic economy and that we need to make space available for human relations in terms of creating jobs close to affordable housing.

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

Bok Pon, Chinatown Neighborhood Association

- I am very happy that the Planning Commission and many activists are forging ahead for more affordable housing.

- [Submitted packages of information to the Commission about abuse of the system from an individual. It was made public in the newspaper.]

- This individual forged their address and other information. This person claimed to live at 731 Sacramento Street. That building is a historic building housing the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. It is not a residence.

- He requested that the Commission look into this case for its legality and see if this person is entitled to this affordable housing.

- She is a single person living in a two-bedroom affordable housing unit with a parking space.

- Make sure that affordable housing built in the city is for families living in San Francisco.

- Also, while growing up, at every single government meeting always the Pledge the Allegiance was recited. I was surprised that this Commission does not show respect for our flag.

Mrs. Burrell

- I object to the three-minute limit for public comments because it opens up the opportunity for harassment.

- San Francisco claims equity in any social service corporation developed here as well as architectural projects.

- I was violated for promises with coordination and facilitation for thirteen years.

- Now, I have been homeless for eight months because it is not legal to sell me medical services.

- Medicare housing is medical services. If it were not legal, I would not ask for it. I got evicted in October 2006.

- At this point, they are charging $240 for a case manager service that violates the management merits.

- I need social service support outside of organized crime that in every nation of the world is doing business as social service

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2007.0428C (Tape IB) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1224 9TH AVENUE - east side between Lincoln Way and Irving Street; Lot 033, in Assessor's Block 1742 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 703.24 to allow an outdoor activity area for outdoor dining in the rear yard of an existing full-service restaurant (d.b.a. Bistro 9) in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Adam Whetnick, Project Sponsor representative

  1. This project came about during construction as people walking by stopped and started asking if they were going to have an outdoor dining area.
  2. The idea was brought up by the neighborhood and the result is in front of you today.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

MOTION: 17453

9. 2006.0572C (T. FRYE: (415) 558-6822)

842 MOULTRIE STREET - south of Crescent Avenue; Assessor's Block 5810, Lot 009 -Request for Conditional Use Authorization for residential demolition pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution 122-07 to remove a 1906 Earthquake Refugee Shack from the property to allow for its preservation at another location, to demolish the non-historic additions, and to construct a new single-family dwelling. The property is located within an RH-1 (Residential, Single-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 19, 2007.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

10. 2007.0338C (Tape IB; IIA) (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

2263 CHESTNUT STREET - south side between Pierce and Scott Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 0489 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 711.24 to allow an outdoor activity area for outdoor dining in the rear yard of an existing full-service restaurant (d.b.a. Squat & Gobble) in an NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small Scale) District, the Chestnut Street Financial Service Subdistrict and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Ahmad Larizadeth, Project Sponsor representative

  1. This shows a successful small business in San Francisco that started in 1993 at 237 Fillmore Street.
  2. Every two years they have added a new location on Castro, Haight, West Portal and the latest is at 2263 Chestnut Street.
  3. The property owner has invested a lot of money to improve the neighborhood and they have much support in all the neighborhoods where they are located.
  4. We have gathered over 500 signatures in support of this project.
  5. The interior design is very well done and the outside dining area is an open area space.
  6. [This shows how interesting it is going to be when it is done.]
  7. We have this retractable owning that open up to the center. It is not going to be a nuisance to the neighborhood.
  8. The business hours would be from 7am to close at 10:30pm.

Dominic Yam

  1. I live right behind the property.
  2. Item 10 says that the restaurant is Squat and Gobble. If you go to the site permit, it says that is the Pita Pet Restaurant.
  3. The entire process has been misguiding.
  4. The Gobble does not have a rear yard. They are using Pita Pet's name to get the permit.
  5. The noise and the time for business is the problem.
  6. Having access to the rear yard, people could access the roof and that would allow them access to go to other properties and brake in. It has happened before.
  7. They have a big lot that could accommodate customers and they make a lot of noise.
  8. Parking is another issue.

ACTION: Approved as amended to distinguish between the "Service" station in the outdoor dinning area from a "Bussing" station, which is not allowed in that area.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

MOTION: 17454

11. 2007.0285D (Tape IIA) (J. IONIN (415) 558-6309)

115 PRESIDIO AVENUE - west side between Jackson and Washington Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0984 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.11.13.7549, proposing to reduce the slope of the rear portion of the roof and reconfigure the rear façade of the fourth level of this single-family house. The roof change would be set back approximately 18 feet from the front façade (approximately 44 feet from the front property line) and increase the floor to ceiling height, creating additional occupiable living area in an RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

  1. [The Discretionary Review Requestor was not present. The Department received a phone call from the requestor today at 1pm asking for continuance. A motion for continuance was not made by a commissioner prior to the hearing of this item. Without that motion, the request for continuance was not granted.]

Andrea Evans, Project Sponsor

  1. We live at 115 Presidio Avenue. We have prepared a presentation today.
  2. The fact that the requestor is not here and in the interest of time, we would like to go on without the presentation unless you have particular questions.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

12. 2007.0518T (Tape IIA) (S. Exline: (415) 558-6332)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 315/Inclusionary Housing: Establish and Require Minimum Qualifications of Firms Marketing BMR Units - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Sandoval as part of Board File No. 070444 that would amend portions of the Planning Code to establish minimum requirements for firms that market below market rate units.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17455

13. 2007.0605T (Tape IIA) (S. Exline: (415) 558-6332)

Adopt the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program Monitoring and Procedures Manual- Doug Shoemaker from the Mayor's Office of Housing will be presenting an update to the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Monitoring and Procedures Manual. This update is due to recent changes in Planning Code Section 315 and is done on an as-needed basis.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption.

SPEAKERS

Myrna Melgar, Mayor's Office of Housing Staff

  1. We see this program in the context of all the other programs that we handle.
  2. The challenge in putting together a procedures manual and to make it transparent to all the users of this industry.
  3. We have tried to systemize a way for people to have access to the information and prepare themselves to get into those units, whether they are renters or buyers.
  4. Because we have about 15 years of experience in handling BMR [Below Market Rate] units, we have seen what happens with the marketing and possible abuses.
  5. In the manual we have tried to reflect the ordinance changes in the income levels and percentages.
  6. We had a serious of stakeholders meeting and we invited developers, lenders and the home ownership counselor agencies to tell us what they see is working.
  7. We had them reviewed the new ordinance and help us understand the process they go through before the application comes to the new Mayor's Office of Housing.
  8. That process led to a lot of really good ideas that we put on the table and tried to draft into the language.
  9. The other thing we tried to do is standardize things like how we handle the income verification with the Redevelopment Agency.

Chandra Egan, Manager for the Inclusionary Housing Program

  1. We met additionally with a number of developers during the stakeholders' process to talk about specific components that affect them.
  2. Each change in the manual is an effort to fulfill your will and that of the Board of Supervisors to bring clarity to the process of buying, selling, renting and reselling below market rate units.
  3. As you know, there has been a great deal of scrutiny around this program for the last few years.
  4. We now have a system that could handle the growth of the program and meet the expectations of buyers and renters. The program is growing significantly.
  5. This is the first update of this manual since 1992.
  6. We reorganized the manual to be clear. First it has a section for buyers, then renters and then developers.
  7. Per the ordinance, there is a preference for BMR units for ownership and rental whereby someone who applies for a unit must live or work in San Francisco by the deadline of the application for the unit.
  8. A utility bill, current pay stubs or lease stating the name of the household member would verify such a qualification.
  9. The second major change in this category is that we have been allowed to mandate a first time homebuyer workshop for BMR owners.
  10. This is to ensure the readiness of buyers.
  11. A potential buyer must participate in a workshop of 6 to 8 hours that would include the basics of credit, financing, owning and maintaining a home.
  12. We have an occupancy standard household size requirement. The household size that applies for a unit must be equal to the number of rooms in the unit.
  13. The next category is the developer, owner and property managers.
  14. The first highlight is that developer/project sponsor must declare the intent very early in the process whether to include BMR on site, pay in-lieu fees, or to build off site.
  15. The in-lieu fee has been updated based on the 2006 Planning Department Nexus Study.
  16. The selection of tenants or purchase/sellers has changed to reflect the fact that a lottery is required for every initial sale and rental.
  17. For re-rental, the lottery is not required but it is for re-sale of the units.
  18. Other changes made were for spelling; a number in the computed income; we accidentally called renters instead of sellers in section 3 and 4; and on page 41 income level that needed to say 80 percent instead of 100 percent.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-To define  work in San Francisco and  occupancy .

-To develop better language for  Enforcement .

-To come back in one month.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17456

14. 2007.0332D (Tape IIA) (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

1597 HOWARD STREET - southwest side between 11th Street and 12th Street; Lot 053 in Assessor's Block 3516 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.05.27.3610 to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a.  Emmalyn's ). The parcel is located within a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) Zoning District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

John Bakarmer, Project Sponsor

  1. We started in business in 2003. Last year we started a program donating bread to the neighborhood.
  2. We also have a compassion program on Mondays and Wednesday of every week.
  3. We started to reach out to the community and help our patients that live in the neighborhood to try to provide a better quality of life to them.

Melissa Thomas

  1. I am very much in favor of this project.
  2. We are not terrorists; we are disabled people that need medication.
  3. Do not be blinded by economic sectioning standards that sensor housing service recipients.
  4. Business and professional codes in California asserts that professional standard should not be imposed.
  5. Nonprofit prohibition against competing with independent efforts should not have been prevented.

Mathew

  1. Emmalyn's has helped me a lot and they are very supportive.
  2. They have been very kind to me.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

15. 2006.1476D (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

880-882 DOLORES STREET - west side between 22nd and 21st Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 3619 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.11.20.8161, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from three units to two units, in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 19, 2007.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

16. 2007.0447D (Tape IIA; IIB) (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

289 FREDERICK STREET - southeast corner of the intersection of Clayton and Frederick Streets, Lot 086 in Assessor's Block 1269 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.18.1917 proposing to construct a one-story side horizontal addition at the existing west side setback located towards the rear of the house and also to construct a rear horizontal addition at all (three) levels in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Edward Brower, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. I appealed to Zoning Administrator Badiner on April 26, 2006 to express my concerns over the variance. I did this on behalf of my daughter that died on June 3rd.
  2. This was a difficult time for us. We were unable to meet with the sponsor to discuss the project.
  3. I want to have a good relationship with my neighbors. I just want to preserve the existing quality of life in my home.
  4. The construction would block the sun on our building as it descends to the West.
  5. It seems that our basic concern is the shadowing on the back of the house and the need of the third addition.
  6. They have done their best to accommodate us beside the problem of shadows. It seems that there is no other way to address this concern.
  7. Please look at the shadow studies submitted.
  8. Images show the difference of what exists and the impact if this project goes forward.
  9. I also have studies for June 21. During the summer there is no shadow cast.

Dennis

  1. I take full responsibility for not calling the right people since the beginning.
  2. This could have been worked out.
  3. Project Sponsor made changes but to little effect. We were not sure exactly how much light would be cut out.
  4. Any amount of sunlight facing this project would be completely gone for the entire year.
  5. I asked Mr. Mahar if there was some kind of physical representation and he said that it would be easy.
  6. He said that they would make efforts to modify the project.

Bill Mahar, Project Sponsor

  1. I would like to bring your attention to the corner window that seems to be the contention of the third floor from 281 Frederick Street.
  2. All morning long it is in shade by the overhang in the angle of its own building.
  3. In the early afternoon with our proposed remodel addition it has full light on it.
  4. I would like to say that we designed this addition to meet guidelines and the criteria for historic buildings as well as the owner's need for a multi generational family home.
  5. They have been respectful of their own building, the neighborhood, and more particularly, with the owners of 281 Frederick Street.
  6. The addition is minor on all three floors.
  7. We met with the requestor and subsequently reduced the scale of the project.
  8. We thought we had an agreement and then it was appealed at the Board of Appeals.
  9. They did not appear at the hearing nor did they respond for rehearing within the ten days period.
  10. Showed initial design and revised drawings after meeting with neighbors and attending the Board of Appeals.

Glenn Raswyck

  1. I work for the Smith Family who owns the property. They were unable to come because of the arrival of their children to the home.
  2. This family has lived at this property for 19 years.
  3. This project is to ensure a multi generational home.
  4. They have changed the plans twice to accommodate and address one neighbor's concerns.
  5. We have heard no other concerns or complaints from any one else.
  6. I hope you approve this project.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee and W. Lee.

17a. 2006.0616BEKX (Tape IIB; IIIA) (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Andrew Junius, Project Sponsor representative

  1. This is a great opportunity for the city. Much more development could go on this site.
  2. What we are proposing is a really nice addition that would really utilize this site in providing new office space.
  3. There are going to be nice things on the ground floor to really make the building much more useful and user friendly. It is going to bring this building back to life.

Michael Castro, Architect

  1. This is a corner of Howard and Spear. Because of its corner location, the site gets high visibility from both streets.
  2. 120 Howard Street is low in its context. All the surrounding buildings are taller with the exception of one landmark building to the South.
  3. A four-story vertical addition would bring the building to the height of its west neighbor.
  4. Architecturally, the existing building is bulky in its proportions. It has a perceivable two-story base and a concrete parapet. It lacks of true top.
  5. The proposed addition provides a top for the building. It is intended to provide a more contemporary top that would be respectful to the existing architecture.
  6. As mentioned earlier, as the building rises the massing also lightens.
  7. The current entrance is from an alley off of Howard Street. A part of the renovation is to extend the building lobby out to Spear Street creating a new street front entry.
  8. We have a unique urban infill opportunity to provide new office space with minimum demolition and utilizing the existing building.
  9. We believe we would provide a contemporary top that respects the existing building and it would be a good addition to the South of Market Neighborhood.

Steve Atkinson, representing California State Bar Association

  1. We have several concerns about this project. Most of them have been resolved.
  2. We accepted the modification of condition 3F.
  3. A few minutes ago in the hallway, I reached an agreement with Andrew Junius on a proposed condition dealing with sharing a health/safety and site plan.
  4. [Read the agreement and submitted it to the Commission]
  5. What we are proposing is that the project sponsor share their plans and prepares a health/safety plan.
  6. That there would be a dialogue between the two parties and not be supervised by this department.
  7. We have one remaining issue about safety; substantial sprinkling is needed. We had an understanding that we would be allowed to participate in the peer review process of the Building Department.
  8. The condition that we are suggesting is basically that we would be allowed to participate in that process.

Terrance Paret, WJE

  1. In 1992, WJE was retained on behalf of the City of San Francisco to perform a review of the seismic retrofit of City Hall.
  2. I personally performed that work.
  3. The State Board of California is retaining WJE to review the seismic adequacy of the 120 Howard Street project.
  4. We have substantial knowledge relevant to this project because both 120 and 180 Howard Street were designed by the same engineer.
  5. The 120 Howard Street project involves determinations of an existing high-rise building constructed 34 years ago.
  6. It is sufficiently robust seismically to support a multi story vertical addition without strengthening as the project sponsor has proposed.
  7. The current Building Code requires that for a vertical addition to be permitted, the entire building must comply with today's seismic requirements.
  8. WJE assigned four experienced engineers in making this determination, including a former Commissioner of the California Building Standard Commission.
  9. I am here to present our primary findings that also have been transmitted to Mr. Tom at DBI [Department of Building Inspection] for consideration during the pier review.
  10. WJE was told that we were going to be invited to participate in the process. To date, we have not been notified of a single meeting.
  11. We have concluded that this project is seismically deficient with respect to numerous critical requirements.
  12. These deficiencies exist throughout the structure and they have a major potential impact with respect to earthquake safety.

- The proposed project does not include correction of any of these deficiencies nor any seismic strengthening except a single column line in the basement.

Sheri Pearl, Director of California State Bar

  1. This is our headquarters where all of our major functions are conducted.
  2. We are mandated to protect the public and the administration of justice.
  3. Some of the functions that are happening at 180 Howard Street include State Bar offices and courts, The Office of Admissions, The Office of Chief Council, Legal Services and our Board of Governors.
  4. Court proceedings are held in the Court Room located on the sixth floor and the evidence in these hearing must be recorded.
  5. The Bar has significant concerns about the level of noise that would be generated by the proposed construction work and the impact that this would have on the critical ability of the Court to conduct business.
  6. Many of the witnesses that are called to testify in these trials are reluctant, elderly and many have difficulties with mobility issues.
  7. The Bar is concerned that the proposed project would obstruct safe entry to the building that shares common entry on the courtyard.
  8. On average, we have 20 to 30 visitors a day come seeking legal referral services, consumer protection, attorney information and more.
  9. The proposed construction may interfere with the ability to perform public protection functions that is mandated by the Supreme Court of California.
  10. To ensure that these important public services are not adversely impacted, the State Bar believes that we should be allowed to review and comment on the health/safety plan.

Ivan Resnikoff, The UPS Store at 182 Howard Street

  1. This plan is fantastic because it would provide more business for me down the line.
  2. My concerns are health and safety of this plan.
  3. I understand that this plan is not seismically acceptable at least in the terms of the codes.
  4. I am concern also with access and safety for my clients and for customers of the non-profits that are in the building.
  5. It would put everyone in the neighborhood at great risk in case of an earthquake.

Michael

  1. The City usually goes for an outside seismic peer panel that they have for this particular project.
  2. They have been reviewing the seismic design since January of this year.
  3. The seismic peer review wrapped up today and the panel contacted the City and a final letter will be issued shortly.
  4. During the review, we have agreed to take into account the comments from WJE.
  5. The majority of the comments were based on fundamentally erroneous assumptions.

MOTION: To approve with amendments

AYES: Antonini and Sugaya

NAYES: Alexander, Moore, and Olague

ABSENT: S. Lee and W. Lee

RESULT: Motion failed

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

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini and Sugaya.

NAYES: Moore

ABSENT: S. Lee and W. Lee

17b. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 17a

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

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Antonini and Sugaya.

NAYES: Moore

ABSENT: S. Lee and W. Lee

6:00 P.M.

18. (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (K. RICH: (415) 558-6345)

The Eastern Neighborhoods Program encompasses the Mission, Central Waterfront, East SoMa and Showplace Square. Planning Staff, along with staff from the Municipal Transportation Agency and the Recreation and Parks Department will present a progress report on the Transportation and Open Space elements of the planning process and a proposed schedule for completing these elements of the Plan. Planning staff will also present a proposed framework for further informational hearings in July and August for the Commission's review.

SPEAKERS

Peter Albert, Deputy Director of Planning at Municipal Transportation Agency

  1. Planning at MTA [Municipal Transportation Agency] has four divisions: livable streets, street management, MUNI service and long range planning.
  2. We are going to be reorganized making it an even more effective organization.
  3. Some of the issues and solutions in the Eastern Neighborhoods that we are aware of is the need to relieve traffic congestion.
  4. We are developing management strategies and techniques that deal with congestion.
  5. We know that additional housing units will create additional transit demands.
  6. What we want to do is make sure that the service and capacity is in place for when housing takes place.
  7. We are integrating transportation solutions: transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
  8. We know that in the Eastern Neighborhoods the existing networks are auto oriented.
  9. We want to support livable and walkable communities there and we know that we have to improve pedestrian and bikes safety.
  10. All San Francisco needs to be dealt with the same strategy.
  11. We also recognize how important it is for heavy truck traffic district's needs to be accommodated and to have a fully functioning neighborhood.
  12. We need to take into consideration loading zones and truck routing as well.
  13. In the East SOMA, Mission, Showplace Square, Potrero Hill, and Central Waterfront; we have the freeway network.
  14. We are really trying to make the most efficient use out of the streets. We have to balance the services there.
  15. We are really working hard to get the bike EIR [Environmental Impact Report] complete to get back to the business of creating bike routes and networks in San Francisco.
  16. We have a complex problem but a terrific opportunity to make a multi model service in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  17. On Second Street, we are considering the creation of a streetscape plan that addresses new landscaping with possible bike lanes and transit supportive treatments.
  18. On Folsom Street, we were considering a boulevard with streetscape improvements with an urban function for moving traffic.
  19. On 16th Street, we want to make sure we have a rapid bus or very advanced bus services in this corridor to help link the BART station [Bay Area Rapid Transit] and MUNI/Metro in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  20. This is a map of projects in the pipeline for bicycles, pedestrians and transit. We are doing this in an integrated fashion and they are in our Capital Improvement Plan.
  21. We know they need to be in place as the Eastern Neighborhoods develop.
  22. We have the challenge to fund strategies to make this transportation real.
  23. We are quantifying the order of magnitude of these improvements and the costs.
  24. We have to go through the identification of finding sources. We are brain storming right now looking at revising impact housing, new transportation fees, assessments and parking benefit districts.
  25. This is the map for developing the region showing transit focus areas.
  26. These areas highlighted in brown reflect areas that have gone through public review - redevelopment areas that focus on transit and therefore are eligible to receive money to build the infrastructure we need.
  27. This summer we are going to refine transportation mitigation during the EIR.
  28. We are looking to finalize the plan policy in September.
  29. We want to do a nexus study for impact fees to connect it with the need of these neighborhoods.

Don Kemelin, Planning Director of the Recreation and Park Department

  1. This is actually new for us and the Department is very happy to be in a place that we could work with City Planning with the creation of open space in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  2. We have gone through very informative site visits in looking at sites that might make good potential parks and taking into consideration maintenance and use enforcement.
  3. We have participated in the Eastern Neighborhoods workshops hosted by the Planning Department and also provided comments on the open space needs assessments.
  4. It is preferable to focus on larger sites of at least a quarter of an acre and I think half an acre or an acre would be best.
  5. The main reason is because of the diversity of recreational uses you could put on a spot like that.
  6. Also from a maintenance perspective, the department has really struggled with having many large properties but also has acquired over time a number of smaller properties that have become very difficult to maintain in a consistent manner.
  7. We are looking for a balance of active and passive recreational uses.
  8. We tried to keep in mind these two factors and focus on particular types of sites.
  9. There are a number of city owned sites and properties already in the Eastern Neighborhoods that we are looking at and value for potential parks.
  10. We clearly would like to prioritize places with access to public transportation.
  11. They all play an important role in making a park ultimately successfully.
  12. Funding is a big part of this equation.
  13. The Budget and Finance Committee approved the Mayor's budget for the Recreation and Park Department that included 37 more custodians as well as 15 additional gardeners.
  14. That is very good news for us.

Ruben Davis

  1. What is being done on the Third Street Corridor? I am very emotional about that issue.
  2. The T Line is a disgrace to Third Street. The sound is totally out of place and we do not need advertising there.
  3. I request that you go easy on all of these new ideas.
  4. I also want to address 16th and Folsom Street.

Tom Radulovich

  1. I am encouraged with some of the things heard today, particularly how the city demands transportation management measures and how they are modeled.
  2. The policy side of the Planning Department understands that if you want housing in the transit corridor you would need more transit and less parking in the buildings.
  3. What you do not get the benefits of are these policies that are really trying to manage transportation.
  4. First of all, we need to understand the advocacy of those policies.
  5. We need to get this wisdom that exists on long range planning over the MEA.
  6. We are very antiquated on modeling transportation impacts and traffic.
  7. I want to emphasize that we are going to end up with the upset we got with Market and Octavia.
  8. If we manage transportation, we can actually have the greenery and the infield that we want.
  9. I would like to show a map where you can see the traffic arterial streets. SOMA and the Tenderloin are the densest.
  10. Those areas are most likely to be car-free household.
  11. We need to think of residential cluster in the neighborhoods that would help calming traffic and not just individual streets or alley.

Meredith Thomas, Neighborhood Parks Council

  1. We are really pleased to see the proactive steps the City is taking to revise and address the open space need in San Francisco.
  2. We are very much looking forward to launching our open space task force this fall.
  3. Also, to work collaboratively with the City on getting some opens space planning in the next 18 months.

Kate

  1. It is impressive, the thinking that has been done around creating new open space opportunities and making acquisition along the corridor of different neighborhoods.
  2. However, the concern that I want to raise is that there is not enough attention in the effort to look at new spaces, but is being focused on existing open spaces.
  3. We live two blocks from Franklin Square Park that is unusable by the neighborhood with the possible exception of soccer players.
  4. The place has litter, needles and it is unsafe. We would like to see more emphasis on the improvement of existing parks.

Judy West

  1. Franklin Square Park is one of my key topics as well.
  2. This is a beautiful asset of the City. The area surrounding the park is currently being designated for industrial protection.
  3. As we are struggling with putting new housing in neighborhoods where you need to build a park, there is an existing park and around it we are binding housing.
  4. This seems not to be really the best solution.
  5. I encourage you to focus on Franklin Square Park and the parcels around it as a focus for high-density housing.
  6. I find it very frustrating that the entire emphasis of the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning is stating to lower the value of the land to remain affordable.
  7. Then, you struggle to find the money for the parks and all the rest of the stuff.
  8. We have to upgrade these neighborhoods and not downzone them.
  9. Another key issue is 17th Street. This is a bicycle corridor and is targeted for a green corridor.
  10. The way to make it happen is allowing the housing and small retails to go along 17th Street.
  11. Your zoning is proposing that to be the industrial protection area.
  12. This process is out of order. We are doing the transportation and park planning and yet your zoning is already finished.

Judith Berkowitz, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

  1. I urge you to instruct staff to extend the written comments deadline from June 30th to July 15th.
  2. Today I learned that the deadline was changed to yesterday with no notice given.
  3. We had requested that the Mission area planners present the program at our June meeting about a week ago.
  4. We received positive confirmation of their attendance to our meeting three and a half weeks in advance.
  5. We published the presenter in our agenda. However, we received a message at the last minute informing us that they were not attending and that I could go to the open office hours.
  6. Although we called back and left messages, we received no return call.
  7. Members of my organization as well as other groups and coalitions on land use were looking forward to the presentation to inform our written comments on the draft Mission Area Plan.
  8. We feel that we need a slightly longer period to submit our written comments. There is a lot that needs to be evaluated.

Steve, Mission Revitalization Coalition

  1. We spent the last month looking at the Mission area plan draft and we submitted a response to that plan yesterday.
  2. One thing in our twelve principal findings is that 16th Street is going to be an amazingly important artery for the Mission District.
  3. Especially with the Mission Bay and UCSF [University of California, San Francisco] within one mile of the northern part of the Mission.
  4. Another component pointed out today with 16th Street are the need for links between BART and light rails.
  5. The area would be PDR [Production, Distribution and Repair] and we are trying to figure out if this new zoning would be 20th or 21st century styled and if it is going to be compatible with residences.
  6. We desperately need a current definition for the PDR that is proposed for the eastern part of the Mission.
  7. You would then have a better idea for the nexus study as to what the residential impacts are going to be.

ACTION: Progress report only and no action is required of the Commission.

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS: NONE

Adjournment: 8:10 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, July 19, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: W. 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