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 
 

December 6, 2007

December 6, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, December 6, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Alexander

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:45 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Elizabeth Watty, Steve Wertheim, Scott Sanchez, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. 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(aka 272 and 290 Sutter)- 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 . The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings containing approximately 35,600-square feet of retail space and construction of an approximately 110,000 gross square foot, 11-story mixed-use building (with an additional 16-foot-high mechanical rooftop penthouse) 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. 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 October 25, 2007)

NOTE: On July 12, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to uphold the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) by a vote of +2 -4, the motion failed. Commissioner S. Lee was excused. The Commission continued the matter to September 6, 2007 by a vote +5 -1,

(Proposed for Continuance to January 10, 2008)

SPEAKERS

Caroline Guibert, Beverly Grant Partnership Representative

- Requested the continuance to January 17, 2008 or after because the principle councils are unable to attend the proposed date due on unavoidable schedule conflicts.

Shelby Campbell

- Requested this item to be calendared for this month instead of any further delays.

- Submitted chronology of all the delays and continuances on this project that has happened for a year.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and W. 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 (with an additional 16-foot-high mechanical rooftop penthouse) 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 October 25, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 10, 2008)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 1

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and W. 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(with an additional 16-foot-high mechanical rooftop penthouse) 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 October 25, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 10, 2008)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 1

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

3. 2006.1525C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

2829 CALIFORNIA STREET AND 1933-1935 DIVISADERO STREET - southwest corner of California and Divisadero Streets, Lots 028 and 003, in Assessor's Block 1028 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1, 303 and 711.11 to allow a development on a lot greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in an NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project consists of demolishing the existing 2-story building (previously used as an ambulance repair facility) and constructing two, 4-story, mixed-use buildings, one fronting on California Street and one fronting on Divisadero Street. Combined, the two buildings will have a total of 12 residential units, 24 parking spaces (12 for the residential units and 12 for the commercial and office spaces) and 6 bicycle parking spaces (located underground with street access on California Street), and approximately 7,250 square feet of gross commercial and office space at the ground floor.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to January 17, 2008)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

4. (S. SANCHEZ: (415) 558-6326)

INDUSTRIAL ZONE - POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - A review of policies and procedures for development proposals in industrial zoning districts as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202 and consideration of adoption of a resolution establishing additional policies and procedures for development proposals in industrial zoning districts.

(Proposed for Continuance to December 20, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

5. 2007.1113ET (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 303/Protection of Solar Energy Systems - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mirkirimi as part of Board File No. 07-1338, that would add Section 303(n) to the Planning Code, to require Conditional Use authorization for any structure that would shade a previously registered Solar Energy System.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to December 20, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to January 24, 2008

AYES: Olague, S. Lee, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini and W. 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.

6. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 6 8, 2007

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 15, 2007

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

7. 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

- I wanted to comment on what I think is a very informative editorial from the San Francisco Business Times dated the week of November 23 – 29.

- There are a few sections and I am not commenting on the opinion expressed but rather the fact that more has to be done to address the question of affordable housing and start to give people some ideas of what these different income categories are.

- Who this would apply to or who does not apply and comparing those with the average or typical salaries of various employees.

- I think that this is very important because too often when we make decisions on things, there is a tendency of having problems with definitions, especially as we go forward with the Eastern Neighborhoods and the whole housing issue.

- We have to really know what we are talking about when we say affordable because it is not the same as inclusionary.

- This editorial has begun to spell out some definitions in income and price levels.

- I think that is the kind of thing that we need more of as our discussion goes forward.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I was able to attend the third in a series of community workshops for the Japantown Better Neighborhoods Plan last Saturday morning.

- It was a good workshop and I think there were about 150 people.

- It was also the first time that people in the community were able to take a look at two proposals in the Japantown area.

- One is a 400 foot high rise residential tower being proposed across from Saint Mary's Cathedral located in between two existing high rise buildings.

- The more important one, I guess, for Japantown is the proposed redesign of the Japan Center itself, which is currently owned by a company called 3D.

- There were various proposals, all of them are in schematic form and nothing has been finalized.

- They presented three different proposals for new buildings and a series of alternative ways that the existing center can be increased in retail space and housing.

- All the schemes are mix-used and they are not as dense or tall as I thought they might be.

- The continuing process will involve consideration of those sites as part of the Better Neighborhood Plan.

- After that, I went over to Yoshi's Jazz Club that was opening that Saturday.

- I talked to Supervisor Mirkarimi and I think there are some concerns now that perhaps the boundary of the Japantown Plan is too small, especially given the opening of Yoshi's.

- I was reading in Wednesday's paper in the food section that there are at least three other major restaurants that look like they are opening along Fillmore, just toward Post and Bush Streets.

- Given that kind of activity and the opening of Sundance Kabuki Theater, there seems to be quite a bit of activity.

- Having talked to Ken Rich and Rosemary Dudley who are part of the Japantown efforts, we might want to discuss a slight enlargement of the plan boundaries to include a little bit more South of Geary, especially on the Safeway side.

Commissioner Olague

- Is the Jazz Heritage District part of this?

Zoning Administrator Badiner

- I believe that is a portion of the Western Addition Redevelopment Area. It is more Redevelopment than Planning Department.

Commissioner Olague

- At some point, I would like an informational item on that during Director's Report.

Commissioner Moore

- I attended the Landmark Board's Meeting yesterday and I was very impressed with the level of dialogue.

- I particularly attended it because I was interested in the Laguna campus discussion.

- I hope that staff who attended would give at least a bullet-point overview to the Commission about what was talked about.

- Many issues are still unresolved but there was a general consensus on the importance of having this item resolved prior to really making any particular decision.

- I was very much impressed with the level of quality of that discussion and I hope that this Commission has the opportunity to sit across from the Landmark Board and really get to know the members to understand how they work and think.

- Second, expanding boundaries and overlapping districts: there was a presentation made on Eastern Neighborhoods historic resource evaluation with the Planning Department and they did an excellent job.

- They were describing that in this particular area there is a necessity to carefully look at the established boundaries and potentially expand them because the issues are much larger than just a line drawn on the land.

- I think this goes hand in hand with what Commissioner Sugaya was suggesting. I think we should be following that and hopefully we will get a presentation by them about the Eastern Neighborhoods preservation efforts.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- Apparently CEQA [California Environment Quality Act] changed recently in regards to appeal processes.

- Previously, an appeal of the Categorical Exemption or other environmental document could take place at any time in the process and items were pulled off the calendar because an appeal was filed.

- The change in the law now requires that the first action be taken by the approval body.

- In other words, the Commission would have to review a discretionary review or a Conditional Use prior to an appeal being heard in front of the Board of Supervisors.

- We will no longer have items pulled off the calendar in the week before because an appeal has been filed.

- You will hear the item and then the appeal would be heard at the Board of Supervisors.

- Obviously, Negative Declarations already have an appeal process and environmental reviews [EIRs] have a slightly different process.

- In might only affect Categorical Exemption. We will be preparing more information in consultation with the City Attorney.

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

AnMarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

A- Interim Moratorium on institutional uses in the Western SoMa introduced on November 6th by Supervisors Peskin, Ammiano, Daly, Maxwell, McGoldrick and Mirkarimi. The moratorium would prohibit establishments of new institutional uses in the Western SoMa planning area for 45 days.

The moratorium requires the Planning Department, if it were passed, to provide an update report 25 days after the controls are in place which would outline the proposed zoning and our plans, as well as the Western SoMa Citizens Task Force for the potential rezoning. The Committee voted to recommend approval to the Full Board of Supervisors.

B.-Interim control for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area C

These controls would require conditional uses for most projects. Exempted from the conditional uses would be principle permitted uses on the ground floors of NC districts as well as expansion of existing legal uses. Area C is approximately the shoreline area near the India Basin. Passed to the Full Board without recommendations.

C.-Institutional Master Plan for review for medical institutions

This Commission heard this item on October 11th and recommended approval with amendments to the Board. The modifications removed defunct language and provided further clarity to the master plan process. On November 19th the Land Use Committee heard this item and made one minor amendment. This week the Land Use Committee passed the ordinance as amended to the full board and it was passed on first reading.

Full Board

A.- Landmark initiation of the Metro Theater at 2055 Union Street. Adopted

B.- Two CEQA Appeals scheduled and both were continued

1- Categorical Exemption for 2721 Pierce Street – Continued to February 26

2- Determination of Exemption for 3424 Jackson Street – Continued to January 8

C.- Legislation Introduced

- Ordinance that would amend the Planning Code to define three types of entertainment uses based upon size. It would also amend the Police Code to create the same three definitions and require permitting for extended hours activities. Presented by Supervisor Peskin.

- Amendment to the Planning Code that would create administrative enforcement remedies at the Planning Department. This would authorize the Zoning Administrator to assess penalties for Planning Code violations and would also establish enforcement remedies for the Director including issuance and recording orders of abatement, assessment of penalties as well as hearing and appeals process. Supervisor Sandoval and Maxwell presented this item.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals

- There are not any items that would be of particular interest but they overturned one of my variances, just to let you know that I get overturned too.

10. Design concepts for the 55 Laguna project (Tape IA; IB) (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

Fred Paulick, Architect

- [Submitted copies of the power presentation to the Commission]

- Keep in mind three fundamental principles in the development of the design concepts: (1) level of public amenities incorporated into our neighborhoods, (2) the amount of parks, community centers and gardens, and (3) sustainability emphasis in the development.

- It is a national pilot project for LEED for neighborhood development, currently scoring around the gold level.

- In addition to that, there are rental affordable housing choices and the retirement care community.

- [Showed photographs of the property and garage in its current condition]

- What we are looking forward to doing is the introduction of new green spaces on the site.

- The community garden would be over 10,000 square feet, which will make it one of the largest in San Francisco.

- The Community Center located on Hayes Street would be 12,500 square feet, making it slightly larger than the Capp Street and Telegraph Hill Neighborhood Centers.

- 83 percent of the Landmark structure's square footage is preserved, adapted, and reused into rental housing.

- Our neighborhood really is going to benefit from the inclusion of housing and public spaces.

- The development meets the General Plan goals and is compatible with the principles of the Market – Octavia rezoning plan.

Tim Cohen, Executive Director San Francisco Housing Action Coalition

- Spoke in support of the project because the development is providing high density rental housing with a high level of affordability, privately maintained public space, and it is located in a major transit corridor.

Cynthia Servetnick, Co-Chair Save the Laguna Street Campus

- Asked for a continuance of the decision on the final EIR [Environment Impact Report] and rezoning ordinance that is scheduled tentatively for December 20th. The documents and designs have not been made public and accessible to the public.

Judith Hoyem, Friends of 1800

- Requested that the commission not certify the final EIR, nor approve the proposed rezoning from public to private until you have taken into consideration the Landmark Board's comments.

Hadley Hall

- Spoke in support of the project because it is a good deal for the City and for the people of our community. Move it forward.

Dennis Richards, President of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

- I hope that you will use the resources of San Francisco Heritage in conjunction with the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board to really take a look at how to adapt the reuse of this site based on the new registration nomination.

Steve Vettel, Project Sponsor Representative

- The Board of Supervisors landmarked the three individual buildings, not the site as a whole.

- The process is that the EIR is certified and then it goes through with the Landmark Board in terms of the reuse and preservation.

ACTION: Public discussion only. This is not an action item.

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

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

Dennis Richards, Duboce Triangle Association

- [Submitted a letter]

- We are really excited about the recent Code Enforcement survey on the Planning Department web site and we hear that there are thousands of cases in the backload.

- It seems that the workload versus the amount of people that you have covering it stopped scanning a long time ago.

- We think that having four people per quadrant instead of one would be better and we want to make sure that they are expected to drive around and actually see some of the violations; to talk to the neighbors; and engage the neighborhoods.

- Last, we hope that any violation would get attached to the property tax bill, if it is verified, and be waived by the Zoning Administrator in the case that the person is cooperative.

- You should hold a hearing on Code Enforcement because we really think it is an important area that needs to be discussed.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR (Tape IB)

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.

11. 2006.0997C (C. Jaroslawsky: (415) 558-6348)

1864 8TH AVENUE - east side of 8th Avenue, between Noriega and Ortega Streets; Assessor's Block 2044, Lot 003A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for residential demolition of an existing single-family dwelling (pursuant to Board of Supervisors) Resolution 122-07) and the construction of a new, two-family dwelling. The rear of the property faces Laguna Honda Boulevard and Reservoir. The subject property is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17515

12. 2007.0997Q (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2242-2252 15TH STREET - north side between Castro and Noe Streets, Lots 103 in Assessor's Block 3540 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed six-unit residential Condominium-Conversion with the General Plan, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17516

13. 2007.1241C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

2112 15th Street- north side between Sanchez and Noe Streets, Assessor's Block 3541 Lot 010 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 721.49 to change the use from retail sales and services to a financial service (doing business as  Washington Mutual Bank ) in the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17517

14. 2007.0533I (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)

UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN - Public Hearing on the University of the Pacific School of Dentistry Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The IMP contains information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use of affiliated buildings, and development plans. The IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department's website (from www.sfplanning.org click  Publications & Reports and then  Institutional Master Plans ).

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required. This is an informational item only

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: None. No action is required on the Institutional Master Plan

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

ABSENT: Alexander

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

15. 2007.0584C (Tape IB; IIA; IIB) (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

2298 MARKET STREET - northeast corner at Noe Street; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3560 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303(e), to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization in order to allow the existing large fast-food restaurant (D.B.A. Café Flore) to operate and provide outside food-service 24-hours a day, 7-days a week, and to allow  other entertainment – including amplified music – until 2 a.m. daily. The Subject Property is within the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial District and 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 25, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor Representative

- The Castro district is an interest little mix of businesses that work in this neighborhood.

- There is an ecosystem that thrives with a particular type of forum and Café Flore is at a very interesting location

- They want to make some modifications to help them survive.

- I believe that the conditions proposed by the Planning Commission take away some of the things that the Café already enjoys and need to survive and imposes unnecessary regulations.

- The concentration of activities is pronounced within two mayor corridors: Market and Castro, and Market and 16th with many different things.

- This neighborhood desperately needs a good place to go that is available 24 hours a day for seven days a week.

- The way that they manage their businesses keeps them from becoming a problem.

- The do not do a lot of amplification and this application is trying to provide something new that is needed.

- We do not want people to stand around the corner, smoking and talking. Café Flore has a patio and should be available to keep people off the street.

- Where is the sound really coming from? The sound may come from the Metro, other clubs on Castro, or other many venues there.

- Please carefully review the conditions being requested by the Planning Department and consider what is needed in this area.

Graham Bennett

- Spoke in support to the project because the owner is extremely sensitive to and inclusive of everyone.

Randy Webb

- I support the project because having a D.J. and music does not automatically convert the place to a night club.

Elizabeth Doerr

- Supports Café Flore because it is unique and has charm. The City needs Café Flore including its patio life.

Gregg Bronstein

- I'm in support of the project because the Castro area's a night life is ideal and is shopping for local, national and international tourists.

Aaron Smith

- Café Flore is the only safe place within many blocks and they have beautified Noe Street with planters.

- The place is so small that it can not become a night club.

Robert Tuter

- Review carefully the conditions mentioned by the Planning Department.

Craig Steely

- Opposes the project because it really works as is and the building would not support that change.

Rock Trowbridge

- I'm opposed because the 24-hour service would be harsh and excessive to the neighborhood.

John Wood, San Francisco Late Night Coalition

- The issues from the neighborhood are pre-existing and are not particularly from Café Flore.

- Read a statement from Jane Warner, Special Police Officer in the Castro, supporting the project.

Gary Virginia

- I support the project because Café Flore has been a venue for charity fundraising and it is almost impossible to have those without a sound system and amplified noise.

Sear Brooks

- I support the project because it is a local and unique venue to night entertainment to attract generations to live and work in the City.

Michael Joseph

- I oppose the request because the building is a very attractive shed with no solid walls and the sound goes out very easily.

Mara Feeny

- Give some more time to the conditions already in place to see if it works and do not give any extension of service.

Donna Sachet

- I'm in favor to the changes because the owner has looked at other possibilities to stay in business.

Ken Woodard

- I support the project because there are few places to go in the neighborhood and have a conversation.

Jimmy Strano

- Café Flore is a venue for fundraisings and they are the only place open to get something to eat after the clubs are closed.

- Read a letter from Jason Rigs, Deputy Director of Stop Aids Project, in support to Café Flore.

Laura Baron

- Concerned about the business restrictions during extended hours. I'm in support of Café Flore for providing a nurturing and safe environment.

Imogene Gieling

- I'm in opposition to the 2 a.m. extended hours because people want to keep the party going after going to the clubs, causing disturbances to the neighborhood.

Tague Griffin

- I oppose the extended hours because the owner needs to address some issues regarding his performance and duties with the neighborhood before asking for any extension.

Nathan Purkiss

- Spoke in support of the project because it is critical to preserve this kind of space in the community -- a safe and supportive venue for new generations.

- Read a letter from assemblyman Leno in support of Café Flore.

Judith Hoyem, Eureka Valley Promotion Association

- I'm concerned that the change requested is a mayor one. I ask that the Commission impose another condition that the existing permit be reviewed in one year.

Sabrina Chaw

- I'm in support of the conditions stated by Planning Department staff because what is being asked for is reasonable. This is not about being against Café Flore but about the community.

Steve Adams, Merchants of Upper Market Castro

- We voted in support of Café Flore because we have lost a lot of our institutions and need to maintain the community's vibrancy.

Dan Glyzer

- In support of expanding to 24 hour service to have better choices because Café Flore is not a live music center.

Dennis Richards

- Any additional expansions have to be balanced with the residential and commercial mix.

- If you agree that this meets the provisions on the Planning Code, I suggest that instead of having the patio closed add the condition to monitor it while it is open.

Bill Robinson

- I support extending the hours because he should be given the opportunity to make his business successful when he has exhausted other avenues.

John G. Rohrer

- I support Café Flore because he should be given a chance to try and have an open late night place to go to.

Joseph Alfano

- I fully support Café Flore's request because living within 50 feet of it, I have never had any problems with them about noise.

Demian Quesnel

- The conditions that the Planning Department has suggested on the expansion use balances all the elements regarding residents, entertainment, noise and so forth.

Jaime Menns

- I support Café Flore because there is only one amplifier and six speakers and the owner is an honest person who will work cooperatively to address situations or issues if they come up.

Paul de Jong

- As a programmer, I support the extension of hours because it is very important for the City to have a place open late at night.

Eric Glaser

- I support Café Flore because we need a space late at night for the younger generation to have a place to gather as a community.

Bob Burnside

- I fully support the extended hours because they have been part of the neighborhood culture and having people around late at night discourages crime.

Bruce Campbell

- Café Flore request is very modest and it would be the only place open late at night and it would increase safety.

Kimberly Fisher

- I support Café Flore because it is a small café, cannot hold many people, and the amplification is for the electrical system and not necessarily means loud.

Michael Thorn

- I support the extended hours because being in the media, Café Flora is a place where I can meet with clients at convenient hours for us.

- The owner is incredibly supportive in this community.

Aaron Dolson

- As political writer and mentor, I use Café Flore and fully support this application.

Michzel Micheel

- Café Flore is a great and wonderful place that we need to preserve and I fully support the extended hours.

Brian Busta

- Living right across from Café Flore, I have never heard loud noise and am here to support the application for extended hours.

Mark Kliem

- I support the changes to the hours because the Castro is an entertainment neighborhood and we do not want it to become a suburban retirement village.

Eric Willson

- I'm in support of extended hours because it would be wonderful to have the place available late at night for people who have a different schedule like me as a photographer.

Peter Cohen

- I support staff's recommendation because it seems that the conditions are not problematic and being able to constrain the outdoor noise is important.

J. D. - Owner

- The patio is extremely important for the survival of Café Flore, which we all love.

- We have about 30 – 35 employees and we are trying to meet payroll and taxes.

Carie

- I support conditions presented by staff because there is a need for compromise between the two parties involved with Café Flore.

Adam Light, Castro Coalition

- We support the extended hours because Café Flore is part of the solution for noise problems and is not aggravating them.

- We need vibrant active neighborhoods and this is a venue providing an alternative for people instead of standing on the streets.

Michelle Burk

- San Francisco deserves more places open late at night and this would provide to the café a boost to survive as a neighborhood institution.

Bob Davis, Director of Entertainment

- We are willing to work with you. We would monitor this the same way as we would do any place else. We will pay close attention to this and work in an on-going basis with your staff.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as drafted by staff and modified to:

-Allow courtyard use until 3 a.m. with employee monitoring after 12 a.m.

-Require a report in 9 months with at least two monitoring visits by the Night time Entertainment Commission.

-Café Flore to give a telephone contact number to neighborhood residents and Associations.

-Monitor the Noe Street entrance after 12a.m.

-After the 9 month report, the Director or Zoning Administrator, with the advice of the Commission, may extend the permit to a 24-hour operation or shorten the hours.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17518

16. 2007.0162D (Tape IVA) (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

2908 ULLOA STREET - between 30th and 31st Avenues; Lot 041 (formerly lot 017) in Assessor's Block 2395 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.20.7180, to construct a new, two-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: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Roger Yien, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The main issue is obstruction of sunlight because we only have two windows on the eastern side of our building.

- Most of the neighbors do not support this project because it is too large and out of line with the neighborhood.

- The other concern is that the two stories over the garage would devalue our properties.

- I have been trying to work with the project sponsor to accommodate our needs with no success.

- The other concern is the third floor deck. We think that there should not be a third floor at all for privacy issues.

- The lightwell was 11 feet before but now is at 20 feet, and at such a height would still deter the sunlight.

- Please eliminate the third floor because it is excessive and does not suit the neighborhood.

Silvia Johnson

- Disappointed that there would be less privacy.

Ramon Lei, Project Sponsor

- We are trying to build our home on this vacant lot and have made efforts to decide on our needs and compromise with the Planning Department and DR requestor.

- Our family of two children and in-laws need this space of four bedrooms and 4 bathrooms.

- We hired a professional appraiser to evaluate the value and actually our project would increase their value and not decrease it.

- We did shadow studies and would cast shadows only for a couple of hours a day.

Dennis Yeung

- Showed a model of the project. Actually, the light-well of the requestor's house blocks the sunlight already.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as modified:

-Required a Notice of Special Restriction to maintain the property as a single dwelling.

-Reduce height of the building by 2 feet by doing more excavation in the rear.

-Revise the plans so there is no direct entry to the rear rooms from the ground floor.

-Widen up the light-well by one foot making it 4 feet.

-Plant a street tree.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

17. 2006.1362D (Tape IVA; IVB) (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

76 LAIDLEY STREET- southwest side between 30th and Harry Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 7538 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.10.4591, proposing to construct an independent two-story structure behind and accessory to the existing 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 with modifications

SPEAKERS

Paul Tergis, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The main justification for this project is that we have an irregular mid-block area. But it is not.

- I notice that there are approximately 24 structures where 22 are above 120 feet and only two are smaller.

- Our area is unique and if the project goes through it would set precedence for large structures in the backyard - changing totally the character of these lots.

Judy Tergis

- I oppose the project because there are no backyard structures on the block and it would impact privacy.

Greg Clark

- I oppose the project because it is too large and would take away the green space and set precedence in the area.

Ivy Young

- This area is qualified as a significant resource and further studies should be made.

- Asked the Commission to request an EIR [Environment Impact Review] for this project.

Ron Young

- Encouraged the Commission to consider the preservation of open space and flora because they enrich the enjoyment of the City.

Rosalie Blazej

- I oppose the project because it would eliminate the green space.

- Project sponsor submitted the packages saying that there are structures in the backyards and the only ones existing are decks.

Lu Blazej

- This is about two buildings with two permits and we do not oppose to the vertical addition. But we do oppose the separate pool structure because it would impact the mid-block open space.

Hiromi Ogarra, Project's Architect

- There are two mayor characteristics on this block: physical diversity and permanent green space which is protected by the Planning Code.

- There is a wide range of building depth and there are a few structures on Laidley Street and other like structures as elevated decks that break the mid-block open space.

- The project represents a carefully revised design through neighborhood meetings and Planning Department advice.

- There would be minimum shadows of natural light to adjacent properties.

- It would have a roof garden and from the aerial view the structure would disappear.

- We believe that this project is appropriate and there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in this case to warrant discretionary review.

Joe Acayan, Project Sponsor

- We would like to customize our home to suit our needs because I work from home and need a quite space that is physically separated but yet close to the family.

- We like to swim and with a 16 month-old child, we need the pool to be enclosed for safety.

- I had at least 17 documented meetings with neighbors and the architect has made many revisions in order to eliminate or minimize impacts.

Marada De Ley

- We have really worked hard in preserving the green belt field of our yard and our project is very sensitive to issues and care for nature.

- Our architects are LEED certified and have done wonderful work in designing the project.

Robert McCaffrey

- I support the project because it enhances the area by having split structures instead of a continuous one.

Silvia Johnson

- It beautifies the area with all the details.

Jim Zack

- This project will not really impact the mid-block open space. There are no extreme circumstances and you should not take discretionary review.

Phil Mathews

- This will be a useful and reasonable improvement for the family. There has to be expansion available to suit modern styles and needs.

Alex Schroeder

- Read 2 letters in support of the project because it would enhance the area.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved as modified by staff.

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

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

18. 2007.1222D (Tape IVB; VA) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

848-850 BAY STREET- north side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.07.18.7164 proposing to construct a 12' tall, 4.5' wide by 5' deep elevator penthouse on the roof of the subject 4-story, 2-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation- Take Discretionary Review and modify the project.

SPEAKERS

Peter Iskadar, Project Sponsor

- The building façade is setback 12 feet from the property and we kept everything the way it was.

- I open up communication to all the neighbors.

- We submitted the proposal for the penthouse and found that in the Code the elevator is exempted as long as it is less than 16 feet.

- We went for 12 feet and we can even go lower to 11 feet.

- There are a lot of elevator penthouses in the area.

David Reyes

- I am in support of this project because it would improve the neighborhood, not block any view, and would give a major face lift to the area.

John Lougaran, Russian Hill Neighborhood

- I oppose the project because it is already a sizeable rise above the line of the other houses and adding the elevator seems to be excessive.

Josephine

- I oppose the project because it is already a big construction and would be made larger with the penthouse on top.

- It would create precedence in the neighborhood and we want to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

Silvia Johnson

- A lot of this review can help understanding the project.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved per staff recommendation allowing no more than 4 feet from the roof.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

6:00 P.M.

Item taken out of order and followed item 15

(Tapes IIB; IIIA; IIIB; IVA)

19. 2006.0737I (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612 AND S. SANCHEZ (415) 558-6326)

ACADEMYOF ART UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN - Public Hearing on the Academy of Art University Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The IMP contains information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use of affiliated buildings, and development plans. The IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department's website (from www.sfplanning.org click  Publications & Reports and then  Institutional Master Plans ).

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required. This is an informational item only

SPEAKERS

Michael Burke, Attorney for the Academy of Arts University

- With great assistance and prodding from staff, I think we have made tremendous progress.

- The Academy has been tremendously generous with its money and services to high schools, colleges and the City.

- I submit that an urban university is better when it is dispersed than located in one place.

- The other thing we are doing is preserving existing buildings that are worn and thorn. We repair and fix them.

- The school is a job and business training attracting institution that helps students get to the point where they can male a living from commercial art.

- The University makes property and other tax payments bringing hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the City's economy.

Patrick McCann

- This master plan would adversely impact our businesses at the Flower Market -- being possible displaced into unforeseen areas if not completely out of business.

- We were given notices to vacate by April 20th [2008].

- An institution like this could seek out other properties and have students live at that property and have them walk.

- I am here to try to keep an institution that has been here for a long time [Flower Market].

- They could accumulate properties but have a plan condensed into a great footprint.

- This whole proposal is inefficient for a campus.

Mark Tognoli

- Take into consideration the sale of half of the Flower Market because. 30 businesses are going out of business and over 300 employees would be losing their jobs.

Mike Ferro

- Concerned that small businesses are being displaced by larger institutions.

John Nicolini

- Small businesses are being displaced with no option for relocation.

Jeff Iwamasa

- This larger institution is going to destroy the Flower Market and there is no place for small businesses to go.

Doug Ingman

- This is an auspicious and important night for this Commission because for the first time in the history of San Francisco you are hearing an Institutional Master Plan that is not centrally geographically located.

- You have to be diligent and question this because it is not a traditional master plan.

- [Shared some insights on how Institutional Master Plans was dealt with it in the past.]

Bruno Morelli

- Concerned about traffic congestion and pollution when most of their campuses are located on major corridors. Students from other institutions in the City use public transportation.

ArnoldTownsend

- I support the Academy of Arts for the employment and education they bring to San Francisco. I like their outreach and diversity.

Robert Garcia, Save our Streets Tenants and Merchants Association

- There are a lot of buildings that are being converted to other uses - such to students housing.

- It is destroying the neighborhood with congestion, traffic and noise.

Liz Polo

- Speaking as the owner of a small business, the Academy of Arts has been a good neighbor in terms of cleaning and security.

Dr. Jamie Williams

- The Academy of Art is an academic institution and we are going to have athletics that would bring students from other schools and help with the economy of the City.

Beatriz St.John

- It would be helpful if the Academy of Arts could be more inviting at all of its campuses instead of having high fences.

Patricia Lanao

- The Flower Market is a community and has the feel of a family. Please do everything in your power to avoid destroying this community.

Oliver Nisch

- The Academy of Arts has become very dominant on Sutter Street and we need more variety.

- I'm concerned about noise, traffic, and graffiti.

Maria Arellano

- Before making any decision, consider that we are going to mutilate one of the best diverse places we have in the City and a lot of people would be with no jobs.

Peg Leech

- There is a lot written in the plan asking students to be good neighbors, but the Academy of Arts itself has made no effort to be one when they moved into the Greenwich Street location.

David

- I'm concerned about neighborhood safety with a lot of after hour student activities creating disturbances, fire, skateboarding, etc. and with the lack of supervision.

Kelly Dearman

- The Academy is important for coming generations because they create more job opportunities.

NancyMasser

- Asked that the Star Motel on Greenwich Street be removed from the list for dormitories.

- Page 66 of the plan essentially says that the Academy has threatened that they would leave San Francisco if they do not get it their own way. That does not seem to be a spirit of cooperation.

Eileen

- The plan is a land-use document and the real focus has to be where the conflicts are.

- The Star Motel represents a really huge challenge. What criteria are they using in terms of short and long term on their acquisitions?

Harold Hoogasian

- Spoke in opposition. This institution has disregarded proper process. A moratorium should be put on anything they are doing that is non-conforming.

Ryan Dumlao, Academy of Arts Student

- Shared a personal experience of getting a scholarship from the University to enable him to finish his education and move-on.

Dennis Conrad

- All institutions must respect the planning process. They should be an optimal size.

- The Academy has to be looked at as an institution and business.

Chris Creighton

- The Academy needs to modify the labeling of its building in general -- like from Saint Bridget's Church.

Gordon North, Academy of Arts - Operations Department

- Spoke about maintenance standards in terms of safety systems, habitable items, environmental protection, and dormitories - which are inspected every quarter for needed repairs.

Daisy McArthur

- Asked to put a stop to the Academy of Arts from going around purchasing property and displacing people.

John Hanley

- The Academy of Arts knows it made mistakes and is willing to work with the people and the City.

Craig Horacow

- Academy of Arts is very good because it provides young creative people in this industry with options. They are the future of the City.

Brendon Williams

- I'm against the purchasing of so many buildings. They need to put a limit on the amount of people to only those who can come and communicate better with the students.

Skot Kuipen

- Please include in the plan that the Academy become a leader in arts preservation and expansion in San Francisco, and adopt the principle details of the Arts Task Force.

Mike Petricca, Director of Campus Safety – Academy of Arts University

- My job is making sure that the students, staff and neighbors have a safe and secure environment.

- [Read a letter from the Police Officer Association supporting the Academy.]

Katie Hall

- I have two issues with the Academy and they are compliance and compatibility with the neighborhood. They have intentionally purchased properties and done what they wanted.

Joy Duffy

- I visited the Star Motel – an Academy of Arts campus and there were a lot of disturbances and no security.

- If the Flower Market is sold, find mitigations for the people being displaced and unemployed.

Clementina Garcia

- The permits are supposed to be granted considering the needs of the City.

- I suggest that the Academy sell the Saint Bridgett's Church building back to the parishioners.

Alberto Bertoli

- The Master Plan of the Academy is a good one to be distributed throughout the City for bringing about education opportunities.

Joe Passini

- What is next after the sell of the Flower Market? People selling should sell their shares to the existing businesses at the Flower Market.

Rebecca Delgado, Vice-president of Housing – Academy of Arts University

- Submitted letters from small businesses surrounding the properties, non-profit organizations, and the Department Public Works recognizing the participation of our students cleaning up the streets and planting trees.

Sue Hestor, Attorney for Growers of the Flower Market

- The Master Plan is not done. It needs revisions.

- They have bought a lot of rent controlled housing and taken it off the market. How much housing has been lost and how much more are they going to take?

Sarah – A Student

- We are just here to learn and it is sad that we are not being accepted as part of the community.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. This is an Information only item.

The commission has requested that the Academy of Arts University consider modifications to the Institutional Master Plan in late January or early February, 2008.

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

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

SPEAKERS

None

Adjournment: 11:23 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, January 17, 2008.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:31 PM