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

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

January 17, 2008

January 17, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 17, 2008

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:37 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Anmarie Rodgers, Sophie Middlebrook, Aaron Starr, Jonas Ionin, Brett Bollinger, Sarah Dennis, Stephen Shotland, Joshua Switzky, David Alumbaugh, Adrian Putra, Leigh Kienker, Sara Vellve, Shelley Perdue, 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.

A majority of the Commission decided to hold the Election on this day rather than continue it ( Tape IA ; IB)

1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year.

(Proposed for continuance to February 7, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Retain Dwight Alexander as President and Christina Olague as Vice President

AYES: Alexander, Olague, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee

2. 2004.0548E ( Tape IA ; IB) (J. BATTIS: (415) 575-9022)

1450 15th STREET - Lot 064 of Assessor's Block 3549, bounded by 14th Street, Folsom Street, 15th Street, and South Van Ness Avenue in the Inner Mission neighborhood. Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for demolition of the existing one-story, 20- to 26-foot-tall, approximately 8,226-square-foot (sf) industrial building, constructed in 1908, and the construction of a four-story over basement, approximately 43-foot-tall building. The proposed, approximately 32,300 gross-square-foot (gsf) building would include ten residential units on the second through fourth floors over approximately 7,100 sf of Production, Distribution, & Repair (PDR)/Business Service use on the ground and basement levels. The proposed basement level would contain a ten-space residential parking garage (about 5,600 sf) with ingress and egress from Shotwell Street. The proposed project would result in an approximately 24,000 gsf increase on the project site. The approximately 8,227-sf project site is within a Light Industrial (M-1) use district and within a 50-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 8, 2007)

(Proposed for continuance to February 7, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3a. 2004.0548CVE ( Tape IA; IB) (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

1450 15th Street - northwest corner of Shotwell and 15th Streets, Lot 064 in Assessor's Block 3549 - Request for Conditional Use (CU) Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 215 and 303 to allow the demolition of an existing one-story industrial building and construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with 10 residential units over Production, Distribution, & Repair (PDR) uses on the ground and basement levels within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation. This proposal also includes Variance requests for rear yard and parking. The Zoning Administrator will consider the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to February 7, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3b. 2004.0548CVE ( Tape IA; IB) (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

1450 15th Street - northwest corner of Shotwell and 15th Streets, Lot 064 in Assessor's Block 3549 - Request for Rear Yard and Parking Variances pursuant to Planning Code Section 134 and 151 for the construction of a new four-story mixed-use building with 10 residential units over Production, Distribution, & Repair (PDR) uses on the ground and basement levels within an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 7, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2007.1143C (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

658-666 SHOTWELL STREET - west side between 20th and 21st Streets, Lot 062 in Assessor's Block 3611 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(c), to add eight (8) new beds to the existing residential care facility for a total of 29 beds on-site, within the RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X height and bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with recommendations

(Proposed for Continuance to February 14, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2007.1326C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

2333 BUCHANAN STREET - (a.k.a. 2140 Webster St. and 2340 Clay St.), north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets, Assessor's Block 0613, Lot 029, Block 0628 Lot 013, and Block 0628 Lot 014 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 303.4(d)(5) for the California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) Pacific Campus to modify conditions of a previous PUD authorization for way finding signs that exceed the number and size of signs principally permitted by Section 606(b)(1) in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 17, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes- Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

6. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 6, 2007.

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 13, 2007.

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

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

- Thanked Commissioner Moore for her comments from last week in regards to the Eastern Neighborhoods business zoning.

- We want to make sure that before making this zoning those who may be included are actually interested in it being there. I think that is a point very well taken.

- I would also like to extend that point to the housing situation, particularly as we look at this UMU area.

- We tried to extend our housing to include the middle class with a little higher affordability and we start looking at various situations to increase height and bulk.

- Before we do that, it would be wise to talk to some of the people that may fit the profile of those possible residents and make sure that they are in fact interested in the type we are providing.

- In theory, we can do a lot of things to increase height and bulk but if the prospective buyers are not interested in that we are not really solving the problem that we are trying to address.

- I think it is really important to talk to the respective people we are trying to see and find out what really matters to them.

- Does it matter if they have individual entry to their units? Parking? What are the areas? Start with that rather than build something first.

- I have some ideas on this matter and I will be talking to some of the staff in length about that.

- As we proceed, it is really important to do some sort of sensitivity or outreach to prospective people or businesses we are marketing to as part of these neighborhood plans.

- I think it is really important to find out whether we are providing for them or not.

Commissioner Sugaya

- A couple of things that I mentioned months ago.

- One was the comment with respect to staff perhaps considering extending the Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan area down to Fillmore or maybe the MUNI station and perhaps the Safeway as well. I have not heard back on that.

- Second, there is a high rise proposal at Post Street and Gough and Laguna in between two other existing mid-high-rise buildings.

- I was wondering what the status of that was within the department.

- Lastly, many months ago following the appointment of our new director; there were items in the papers with respect to Mr. Macris staying on for special projects out of the Mayor's Office.

- We have not heard back on specifically what he would be working on and I just want to follow up on that too.

Commissioner Olague

- I asked this question of the Zoning Administrator last week but we were not able to finish our conversation.

- I would like to ask the City Attorney if we can start calendaring conditional use items as they relate to the Academy of Arts College and I was told that the full EIR has to be completed.

- I would like to know if that is the case or if we can start calendaring them.

- Clearly they are in violation. They have been for years and I do not think that justifies them continuing and allowing this behavior.

- I would like to start calendaring those conditional uses before the full EIR is completed.

Marlena, Deputy City Attorney

- I do not know what the specifics are about the Academy of Arts permit. I would have to consult with the Planning Department and get back to you about it.

- But in general, the City cannot take a discretionary approval action on a project until an environmental review is complete.

Commissioner Olague

- What would be the purpose of an environmental review when these people are clearly in violation of the Planning Code and we continue to let them go on?

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I took your question last week very seriously and I am consulting with the City Attorney on how to respond to you.

- If we have a hearing, we want to make sure that any of our decisions are defensible in court.

- We may choose, in discussion with the City Attorney, to go into a potentially private session to discuss this if it is allowed under State Law.

- There are significantly legal questions on how we bring this to the Commission.

Commissioner Olague

- If I can get a response by next week, I would really appreciate it.

- In light of last week's presentation from the Mayor's Office of Economic Development, there was an article in the Chronicle about Bayview Hunters Point stating that the African American population would no longer be able to afford to live there.

- We really need to look seriously at this issue. There are quotes from current residents saying that they are fixing things but it is not for them.

- We are looking at people leaving because prices go up and people move out.

- I would like to understand better what our City policy is in terms of trying to help retain some of that diverse population in the City.

- I would like to see a more comprehensive look on what has been done to retain the African American population there.

- I am not convinced that the policy that the City is adopting is really supportive in terms of retaining diverse populations.

Commissioner S. Lee

- Just want to echo Commissioner Olague's concerns about the status of the permits for the Academy of Arts University and what is going on with the Flower Mart.

- Those businesses are going out of business by the time any action on the land use gets done. Those businesses would be gone and they are not coming back.

- I would like to request a closed session with the City Attorney to understand the full picture because everybody knows how long the EIR process is.

- I would urge the City Attorney to do whatever research is necessary to come up with some creative strategies for the City - not just the Planning Commission.

Commissioner W. Lee

- I also would like a closed session to discuss the Academy of Arts University issue. We should do it as soon as we can.

- I think we should acknowledge Mr. Macris for the fine work he has done with the Planning Department coming in as an interim and staying as a Director for the last several years bringing integrity to the Planning Department.

- We should write a letter to Charles Schwab to ask why they are moving 1500 well paid jobs to another place.

- I do not know if the City is doing something to retain these jobs. Have we asked companies that are trying to leave the City to not leave?

Linda Avery, Secretary

- You absolutely have the prerogative to do that. But from my experience, the Commission as a body has not done it.

Commissioner W. Lee

- It would make sense that we ask whoever is leaving to stay.

Commissioner Antonini

- I like that idea because companies often leave San Francisco and it would be good to find out the reasons that they want to leave.

- If it is us who is putting up a barrier to keeping employment here, we should try to do something instead of just letting them go.

Commissioner Alexander

- Asked City Attorney if the Commission could schedule a closed session for next week.

Marlena, Deputy City Attorney

- Our office would need to look into this to see if there is an appropriate provision under the Sunshine Ordinance for scheduling a closed session at this time and work closely with staff on doing that.

Commissioner W. Lee

- My sense is that under the grounds of the Sunshine Ordinance regarding litigation, we could have a closed session.

Marlena, Deputy City Attorney

- There is no pending litigation at this time.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We would do everything we can to get you the information and if it is appropriate to go into a closed session we will, but I do not want to prejudice anything that comes before you in the future by any statements that are made now.

Commissioner Alexander

- I would like to have it on calendar for next week and if we cannot have it we'll just cancel it.

Marlena, Deputy City Attorney

- We should respectfully hold off on calendaring until we can provide some advice to you on the exception under the Sunshine Ordinance.

Commissioner W. Lee

- Asked the City Attorney to research what was done in the past to see if it is applicable to this situation.

- Secondly, I know that the City Attorney's Office put a task force together regarding the quality of SRO's [Single Room Occupancy] down on 6th Street.

- Given the number of violations of this institution why can not the City Attorney's Office bring in the Building and Fire [Departments] and all the inspections to go through each one of these units to make sure that they are up to all the City's standards?

- We can discuss it at a later date because we have done that once before.

Commissioner Antonini

- Just wanted to add that I am also concerned with the Flower Mart situation and I would be very supportive of calendaring whatever is the appropriate action as soon as possible.

- I do not want to see what appear to be businesses that are interested in remaining there and not be able to continue. It is important that we move rapidly on this as soon as possible.

Marlena, Deputy City Attorney

- The Commission can vote to calendar the item either as an open informational session or as a closed session pending advice from our office on whether it is appropriate to do it as a closed session.

- Commissioner Sugaya

- I would like the City Attorney's Office to look at the situation with the Academy of Arts and see where the City can bring suit against that institution.

Commissioner Olague

- Regarding Commissioner W. Lee's comments about drafting a letter to Charles Schwab, I am more interested in a comprehensive look at job retention and what the economic development plan is for the City.

Commissioner Alexander

- My thought is to perhaps calendar an informational item at some point from the Mayor's Office of Economic Development and have them come and talk to us.

- Part of that discussion would be how our land use decisions are affecting the ability to retain jobs. We need to continue to look at that.

John Rahaim, Director

- I will talk to the Director this week and we will figure out when the best time might be for them to come to you.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I think that the article is not an isolated example because it also points out that there are equal or higher numbers of movement going out of the Cities of Oakland and Richmond.

- Both cities have larger African American populations than we do and it was interesting to see the movement into more suburban areas.

- I think Mr. Lee that Antioch had a huge growth factor. And I think it is a regional phenomenon. Perhaps the Mayor's Office can take a look at that and put us into context.

Commissioner Antonini

- I just want to get a clarification around the issue we raised about the letter to Charles Schwab. Are we proceeding with that?

Commissioner Alexander

- I would be supportive of that as a possible case study on how the Mayor's Office of Economic Development dealt with that and how our policy makers are looking at those things and look at some solutions.

Commissioner Moore

- It might be actually worth also asking SPUR because they have a good handle on regional issues.

- Perhaps they could weigh in because I do believe that they are very interested in the regional larger scale of physical planning as well as economic issues.

Commissioner S. Lee

- If the rest of my colleagues want to send a letter to Schwab, that is fine.

- I think we also need to understand where we are in terms of the workings of City government.

- We are the Planning Commission and I suspect that a letter or communication from the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor might have a little bit more clout with Schwab in terms of entertaining what their plans are.

- In fact, it really should be the Mayor's Office of Economic Development that should be driving the attraction retention of businesses and jobs.

Commissioner Alexander

- Our letter probably should go to the Mayor's Office of Economic Development.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA)

8. Director's Announcements

John Rahaim, Director of Planning

- Mr. Badiner will do most of this report today.

- I am spending a lot of time getting briefed by staff on various major projects including projects that are coming to this Commission as well as the larger neighborhood planning projects.

- I do plan in a couple of weeks bringing in some initial budget thoughts to the Commission as well. We are working on that.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- Update on the General Advertising Sign Program: This Commission is aware that this has been an issue -- whether all signs are legal and in the proper location and of a proper height.

- We were funded to do a sign survey and an inventory was submitted in October 2006. We did a field survey by some dedicated staff from July to November, 2007.

- We used a pilot program from technology using laptops and updating the information to the main computers. We used laser tools to do measurements.

- We found 27 sign companies that submitted about 1100 sign records. We asked for their inventories.

- We consolidated those and we have about 1275 different sign applications that the sign companies have given us and we actually found 1650 signs, about 400 more.

- In summary; while we relied upon the submittals from the sign companies, we did an extensive amount of work by ourselves with some very dedicated intern staff.

- The sign companies then filed an junction to prevent us from releasing the map and any other data showing what we have found.

- Unfortunately, the judge ruled in favor of the sign companies and the map that we have created we are no longer allowed to release.

- We are in discussion with the sign companies and considering whether we want to pursue challenging the injunction.

- I thought it was important that you know this because I think we have done some great work ahead of schedule and we cannot show it to you.

- Our first hearing with the Administrative Law Judge would be at the end of January.

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

Anmarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee:

A- 25 day report on the interim moratorium for institutional uses in the Western SoMa area that became effective on December 18 to require the Planning Department to present a report within 25 days that would outline permanent controls to alleviate the conditions that lead to the moratorium. Passed on to the full Board for adoption.

B- Mayor's Office presentation on the Bayview Waterfront Development Project. This was an informational only item and was similar to the report you heard a week ago at this Commission.

Full Board:

Introductions:

A- Ordinance from Supervisor Daly that would amend the Planning Code to create a community stabilization fund and PDR funds and imposing fees on new developments in the Eastern Neighborhoods.

B- Amendment that would extend the interim moratorium on institutional uses in western SoMa.

C- Ordinance sponsored by Supervisor Peskin that would amend the Planning Code to do a number of things:

a. Reduce parking spaces for seniors, affordable housing, group housing and others.

b. Revise a minimum dimensions for off street parking spaces.

c. Provide for optional parking in all new residential buildings over 10 units.

d. Include car share parking as part of the residential parking use.

Hearing requests:

-Mayor's presentation for the solar energy program

-To consider item to be before the voters on the ballot: incentive for family size affordable housing units.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals

A. Home Depot on Bayshore Boulevard EIR. Upheld

10. (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

555 MISSION Street - south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Assessor's Block 3721, Lot No. 120. The subject property is within the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) District, 500-S and 550-S Height and Bulk Districts, and the Transbay Special Use District. Informational Presentation on the public art proposal for the office development project that is currently under construction on the project site. The office project was approved by the Commission in 2001, and consists of a 31- story building with approx. 550,000 sq.ft. of office space, below-grade parking and an 11,000 sq.ft. plaza.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational only

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.

SPEAKER(S)

Azalia Merrell, Carpenter's Union

- Requested that the Commission hold an informational hearing to ask for the facts about the 1884 Mission Street project that was approved. Now the owner wants to sell the project to a different sponsor.

- That project was everything that a project should be within the community. It provided below market rate units that are now in jeopardy. If it is sold to a different sponsor, it should go throughout the entire process.

Valerie Tulier, Regarding 1884 Mission Street

- Requested a hearing because as it was approved from this Commission. It was a good project for the community with 20% affordable housing and office space for community groups.

-C. Whitefeather

- Requested to not hold the hearing on 55 Laguna Street after 5 p.m.

- Asked the Commission to look into people's funding before approving projects because there are unfinished projects around Laguna Street.

Jeffrey Heller

- Dean Macris [former Planning Director] has profoundly and positively added to the City and he is well deserving of a significant send-off. I volunteer to help organize it.

[No name stated]

- Thanked the Commission for all its efforts in helping the businesses of the Flower Mart.

Calvin Welch

- I would like to propos an amendment to section 315, the density bonus for family housing. It has not been made clear that it is an initiative ordinance going on the June ballot.

- Time is of the essence. There should be a hearing pursuing proposition C that was passed last November that now requires a public hearing.

- The concern is how many times can you use a density bonus? The essence of your proposed Eastern Neighborhoods public benefits and affordable housing program is dependant upon capturing density bonuses.

- This would define density bonuses going totally to 850 square foot 2 bedroom  family housing'. There is no requirement for affirmative housing.

- What is the impact of granting this density bonus mandated by voters that you cannot amend? What is the impact that will have on your proposed density bonus program for the Eastern Neighborhoods?

- I do not think you are allowed more than one bonus. I hope you really look at it and what it really means for the Eastern Neighborhoods.

Sue Hestor

- One of the things you are supposed to track is your housing production.

- We do not track occupancy and you need that information to show what level of affordability is provided to figure out what targets you met in your Housing Element.

- Second is environmental review. We do not have adequate transportation analysis.

- We do not have the information because we are not asking whether people take Muni, Caltrain or drive to work.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

11. 2007.1332A (Tape IB) (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

Dr. Carleton B. Goodlett Place(City Hall)- Assessor's Block 0787; Lot 001, on the block bounded by McAllister, Gove, and Polk Streets and Van Ness Avenue. The subject property is the Board of Supervisors' Chamber in City Hall, a contributing structure to the Civic Center Historic District, local San Francisco Landmark Number 21. The site is zoned P (Public) with an 80-X Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness in order to make the president's dais and the clerk's desk in the Board of Supervisors' chamber accessible to persons with disabilities. The scope of work for the proposed project is limited to the president's dais and the clerk's desk within the Board of Supervisors' chamber in City Hall.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17529

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

12. 2006.1525C (Tape IB; IIA) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

2829 CALIFORNIA STREET & 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 existing L-shaped property consists of two lots containing a total of 10,587 square feet. The property is currently developed with a 2-story building (previously used as an ambulance repair facility) fronting on California Street and a parking lot fronting on Divisadero Street. The project consists of demolishing the existing building 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, 21 independently accessible parking spaces, 8 bicycle parking spaces and approximately 6,830 square feet of gross commercial and office space at the ground floor. Both structures will be 40' in height and will cover the entire site at the ground floor. The Divisadero Street building will have a 27.5' rear yard setback at the upper floors and the California Street building will have a 34.5' rear yard setback at the upper floors.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 6, 2007)

SPEAKER(S)

Ray Steffen, Owner

- The property is  L' shaped with two separate buildings.

- We are very excited about the project and feel that it would have many benefits for the neighborhood such as green materials, high quality residential units, and four retail units that are new neighborhood serving uses.

- It would increase property values in the neighborhood. We have met with neighborhood members, residents associations, almost all small businesses and they support the project.

- Submitted a 79 signature letter from the immediate neighbors and neighborhood associations supporting the project.

- We tried to match the unique characteristics of the neighborhood so it would attract families.

Charles Castro, Co-Owner

- Our project would enhance the ongoing revitalization efforts near California and Divisadero intersection.

- It would replace a vacant lot and a depilated building with a quality mixed use property.

(-)John Rhode

- Concerned about the blockage of natural light to two windows along the side of our building by the fence. They are willing to construct light-wells on the other side, but not ours.

- Submitted a letter from the tenants in 1915 [Divisadero Street]

(+)Andrew Steward, Architect

- We are proposing a mixed use structure that would replace the existing building and parking lot.

- It is consistent with the architectural style within the neighborhood as well as introducing modern elements that reflect current design influences.

- It is in full compliance with all zoning regulations. It is our intent that the new development would substantially improve the character, stability, and public safety of the existing neighborhood and businesses.

(-)Morris

- Concerned about sound pollution from the eating ventilation, air conditioning for the units, and the parking garage.

(-)Ahmed Khaishgi

- Concerned about the lack of privacy. The 20 foot wall with no setbacks, roof-decks and parking garage will cause noise pollution.

(+)Elizabeth Moore

- I support the project and the roof-deck and the commercial space on the ground floor.

(+)Terence Isobe

- The development is in conformance with the character of buildings, guidelines and zoning.

ACTION: Approved as modified - option  A (larger setback without bamboo)

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

MOTION: 17530

13a. 2007.1046CV (Tape IIA) (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

1654 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Cole and Clayton Streets, Assessor's Block 1230, Lot 012 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303, 719.24, 781.9(a)(4) for the creation of an outdoor dining area at the rear of an existing restaurant (d.b.a.  El Balazo ) and to allow the expansion of this nonconforming restaurant that serves alcohol in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District, the Haight Street Alcohol Restricted Use Subdistrict and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is also the subject of a rear yard variance.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKER(S)

Le Andre Davis, Project Sponsor

- The proposed rear yard deck would be for part-time dining and it would not be visible from the street because it would be enveloped with a fire exit corridor.

- The dining deck will have limited hours from 12 noon to 7p.m.

- The variance that we are seeking is because both adjacent properties encroach into the rear yard and our existing platform for the dining deck and exit corridor are being replaced.

ACTION: Approved with conditions with staff modifications:

Project Sponsor agreed to retain the existing store front configuration and alterations will be made only to accommodate ADA accessibility.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17531

13b. 2007.1046CV (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

1654 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Cole and Clayton Streets, Assessor's Block 1230, Lot 012, located in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District, the Haight Street Alcohol Restricted Use Subdistrict and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Variance for an outdoor dining area in the required rear yard of an existing restaurant (d.b.a.  El Balazo ). The subject property has a depth of 137.5 feet and requires a rear yard depth of 34.5 feet measured from the rear property line. The proposal would encroach approximately 14'-6 into the required rear yard and extend to within approximately 20 feet of the rear property line.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 13a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator granted the variance with the standard conditions of approval

14. 2005.0893E (Tape IIA; IIB) (B. Bollinger: (415) 575-9024)

1650 BROADWAY - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project at 1650 Broadway includes the merger of two vacant lots (Assessor's Block 0570, Parcels 10 and 11) and construction of a new eight-story, approximately 80-foot-tall, 85,200 gross square foot (gsf) residential building with 34 units and a two-level subterranean parking garage with 49 independently accessible spaces. The 13,624-square-foot project site is located on the north side of Broadway, between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street in the Pacific Heights Neighborhood and is currently being used for private parking. The project site is within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) use district and an 80-A height and bulk district. The project would require Conditional Use authorization for the portion of the building height above 40 feet in a residential zoning district, and a variance for rear yard modification.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 15, 2007)

SPEAKER(S)

Vanessa Carrington, Appellant Representative

- Our appeal was in response to the environmental review. The Planning Department's response was that some of the raised issues were not environmental.

- I am basing my comments on the environmental checklist drafted by the Planning Department –Gerald Green.

- We are concerned about the safety of the children at Saint Bridgette's School at the loading zone, and the liqua faction of the property.

- The Planning Department does not mention the liquor faction but I have a map that shows it.

- [Photos showing already existing traffic congestion on Broadway]

- The proposed development is out of character with the neighborhood.

- I'm concerned about senior citizen health in conjunction with a two year construction with a lot of dust and debris.

- Also, parking is so difficult in this area and that would increase significantly.

- The sewer line at the adjacent property was not taken into consideration when doing the design. They will not do a setback.

- The building at 1690 Broadway, studio apartments, is loosing its solo source of natural light.

- There are three large trees in the back sitting on three properties and they should not be able to do anything with those trees.

(-)Shauna Matlin

- I'm concerned about 1690 Broadway, studios and senior residents, losing their only source of natural light. I'm also concerned about noise pollution and parking congestion.

(-)Igor C. Ramos

- I'm concerned about blockage of natural light and the proposal to relocate the fire exit of 1620 Broadway. This puts a burden on my mother who is the owner of that building.

- The proposed project could be constructed with a setback instead.

(-)Diane Molberg

- I'm concerned about environmental issues with air quality and noise impacts affecting the health and safety of seniors and children.

(-)Bruno Morelli

- I'm supporting the neighborhood because of my own experience of not having natural light. No one else in the neighborhood deserves that.

(-)Mario and Kathleen Delucchi's

- The proposed project is too big and it would diminish the value of our property.

(-)Barbara Paris

- Broadway is an enormous corridor and the proposed project is going to affect the entire neighborhood negatively. It needs to be modified.

(-)Jennifer Drone

- I'm concerned about the quality of life with this project, which is going to offer only one affordable unit.

- If it is going through, mitigate some sort of compensation for the most affected residents.

(-)Andrew Maretos

- The proposed project is going to diminish the value of our property. I'm also concerned about the quality of life.

Joe Yoto, Project Sponsor Representative

- This is a hearing under the California Environmental Quality Act on whether the Preliminary Negative Declaration prepared by staff is adequate and I submit to you that it is.

- We will be back before you in the future on the building issues.

- Conversations and mitigations with the neighborhood are going to start happening from now until the time we come back with the conditional use process.

- The report is very lengthy and addresses every issue that you have heard today.

ACTION: Continued indefinitely

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

NAYES: Antonini and Sugaya

15. (Tape IIB) (S. Dennis/S. Shotland: (415) 558-6314/ 558-6308)

VISITACIONVALLEYSCHLAGE LOCK MASTER PLAN - Staff will present information on the Visitacion Valley Schlage Lock planning process. Staff will brief the Commission on the workshop series, present the draft Design for Development document that was developed from that public process and provide a general schedule for final plan development, including actions that the Planning Commission will be asked to consider taking in the future to adopt the final plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational presentation, no action required.

SPEAKER(S)

Tom Evans, Redevelopment Agency

- The overall goal of this redevelopment plan is to take developments in zone 1 and make sure they deliver community benefits to zone 2 and the rest of the community.

- That would be primarily in the form of fiscal benefits and tax income that we would be able to provide through redevelopment mechanisms.

- We have three categories: affordable housing, economic development, and contributions to the community's enhancement.

- In terms of affordable housing, the production goal is at least 25 percent.

- While this process was going on, the Mayor's Office of Economic Work Force Development began a neighborhood commercial corridor program for Leland Avenue and Bayshore Boulevard. We have no intention to supersede that program but want to contribute along with it.

- We want to bring redevelopment tools that ensure the clean up of brown fields.

- In terms of community enhancements, we want to make sure to look at traffic calming, public arts, and improving and maintaining the streetscape.

Jonathan Scharfman

- I'm encouraged by the process and hope to see an expeditious final review of the redevelopment plan.

Sarah Karlinsky

- It is very exciting how this plan marries land use, transportation and open space planning.

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

16. (Tape IIB; IIIA) (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)

TRANSBAY TRANSIT CENTER/CALTRAIN DOWNTOWN EXTENSION PROJECT -Staff of the Transbay Joint Powers Board will give an Informational Presentation on the status and content of the Transbay Transit Center/Caltrain Downtown Extension Project, and the recent design competition for the terminal and tower.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only, no action required.

SPEAKER(S)

Bob Beck, Senior Program Manager with the Transbay Joint Powers Authority

- We have been working with the Redevelopment Agency to develop a plan for the community and a larger 40-acre redevelopment area that surrounds the terminal culminating a concept plan done in 2003 by the Redevelopment Agency.

- The elements of our program includes the Caltrain extension from the existing terminal at 4th and King Streets, and replacing the ramp from the west approach of the Bay Bridge with a new ramp that will serve directly to the terminal.

- We would be building an underground station at the Caltrain yard and bringing bus tour facilities beneath the west approach of the Bay Bridge for Golden Gate Transit and AC Transit to layover buses during the midday.

- There is a total of 12 acres of property being transferred to the TJPA [Transbay Joint Powers Authorities] and this is one of the mayor sources of funding to this program.

- The purpose in developing a design competition was to select a design as well as soliciting a development proposal for the tower site. Ultimately three proposals were submitted.

- The jury recommendation was to proceed with the proposal from Peli and Hines Corporation. Our Board adopted that recommendation at our meeting in September.

- [Showed conceptual images and video clip of the tower design]

- We are currently negotiating our design contract and we are taking those to our March Board meeting to move toward the planning process.

Norman Verns

- Asked if this tower is for commercial or residential. If it is residential, is it for middle income people?

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

17. 2007.0942D (Tape IIIA) (A. PUTRA: (4150 575-9079)

221 SANTA ROSA AVENUE - south side between San Jose Avenue and Capistrano Avenue; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3145 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.06.12.3674, proposing construction of a single-story addition at the west side of an existing dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S)

Gabrielle Merel Kojder, Discretionary Review Requestor

- It would block natural sunlight and it does not follow the physical character of the neighborhood.

- It sets an adverse precedence and we have boundary issues with the property line.

- We built two 3D models, summer and winter, simulating the sun light during the year.

- There is no house with horizontal additions in the neighborhood.

(-)Marianne O'Connell

- I'm opposed because it would block natural sunlight impacting health and children development.

Reza Khoshnevisan, Project Sponsor

- There is a mixed character of homes and styles in the neighborhood.

- It is within the design guidelines and there is no requirement for side yards on this project.

- We are impacting the sunlight of the neighbors but it is not significant.

- We are just trying to increase living space and it is a minor project.

(+)Grant Becker, Owner

- I would like to make my kitchen bigger because my family is growing and we need the space.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

18. 2007.1199D (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (A. Putra: (415) 575-9079)

160 Broadmoor Drive - west side between Winston Drive and Stonecrest Drive; Lot 001F in Assessor's Block 7235 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.07.06.6111, proposing construction of a single-story addition with roof deck at the rear of an existing dwelling in a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S)

Mary Whooley, Discretionary Review Requestor

- The proposed project would block natural sunlight to the kitchen, a room that we use for homework, meals and family activities.

- We feel that we would be boxed in and it is inconsistent with existing pattern in the neighborhood.

- Potential solutions could be increasing setbacks of the deck that are to be outside of the kitchen/dining room.

(-)James

- I'm opposed to the project because it would significantly impact sunlight.

(-)Paul

- I'm opposed to the project because it would block the sunlight to the room that we use for homework and family activities.

(-)Marco

- The project is going to block sunlight to the room we use for homework and family activities.

(-)Peter

- I'm supporting the requestor and there should be compromise to prevent blocking of natural sunlight.

(-)Margaret

- I'm in support of the requestor because the potential addition would block sunlight and there has not been proper neighborly negotiation.

Jim Herlihy, Project Sponsor

- The extension is to accommodate my wife's parents.

- We informed our neighbors of the process and gave them the reasons why we are doing this.

- We have made significant concessions throughout this process.

- Submitted 37 letters of support from neighbors.

- There is nothing extraordinary or exceptional about this DR request.

(+)Angela Logan, Architect

- The project has already been recommended for approval and it is in compliance with planning and design guidelines.

- There would be minimum impact and several compromises have been made.

- We designed a really welcoming and beautiful addition keeping storage, trash and parking inside.

(+)William Scheneider

- I support the project because it is in compliance and it is a good addition that preserves the character of the house.

(+)James Brady

- I'm supporting the project because there would be minimum impact to sunlight.

(+)Rose Hayes

- There is plenty natural sunlight and the project should be allowed to go forth.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

ABSENT: Olague

EXCUSED: Antonini

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

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

SPEAKER(S)

(-)Cynthia Servetnick

- The final EIR contains a feasible preservation alternative that should be implemented.

- We believe that the statement of overriding consideration is inadequate and strongly recommend an economic and independent consultant to weigh in on this matter.

(-)Robert Cherny

- The report is inadequate in terms of the refusal to consider the dental clinic site as part of the overall planning.

(-)[No name stated]

- The neighborhood is full with a lot of properties, people, and traffic. New proposals should be denied.

Anson Snyder

- consider mitigations presented In the EIR that are trying to preserve the existing historic nature.

(-)[No name stated]

- The report is inappropriate because new projects were not taken into account in terms of traffic considerations.

19. 2004.0773E!MTZC (Tape IIIB) (L. KIENKER: (415) 575-9036)

55 LAGUNA STREET (aka 218 - 220 Buchanan Street) - most of the blocks bound by Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets, Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 870 and Lots 1 and 1A in Assessor's Block 857 - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report related to the proposal to construct seven (7) new buildings and adaptively reuse three (3) existing buildings to create approximately 330 dwelling units, a large institutional residential care facility to accommodate senior residents (operated by  open-house ), approximately 12,000 square feet of community facility space, no more than 4, 999 occupied square feet of commercial/retail space, and approximately 310 off-street parking spaces. The project would include construction of an approximately 25,000 square foot publicly-accessible park on the former Waller Street right-of-way and a community garden of approximately 10,000 square feet. The existing University of California Extension site is located in a P (Public) Zoning District and 80-B and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify EIR

NOTE:The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on May 2, 2007. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)

ACTION: FEIR Certified

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

MOTION: 17532

20a. 2004.0773E!MTZC (Tape IIIB; IVA) (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

55 LAGUNA STREET (aka 218 – 220 Buchanan Street) - most of the blocks bound by Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets, Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 870 and Lots 1 and 1A in Assessor's Block 857 - Adoption of CEQA findings, Consideration of Alternatives and Mitigation Measures, and Statement of Overriding Considerations related to the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project described in Item 19.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the CEQA findings

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)

SPEAKER(S)

(-)Robert Cherny, Vice-President of the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board

- The proposal ignores and obscures the architectural and historical cohesiveness of the landmark structures. They have a relationship to each other.

- On January 7 the entire site was added to the National Register in part because of the relationship the buildings have to each other.

- The proposed new structure features very different colors, textures and massing from the landmark buildings. It should not mimic but compliment the historic buildings.

- The proposal would demolish Middle Hall, one of the structures now listed on the National Register, solely to create open space.

- If the Dental site was part of the planning process, it should be possible to have the same amount of housing and probably more – a new dental facility and the preservation of the historic structures.

- Housing, good design and historic preservation are not in conflict; we can have all three.

(-)Alan Martinez, Landmark Preservation Advisory Board

- The architecture of the new building is incompatible with the site and the buildings around them. There are no strategies on the design part.

- If they preserved these two buildings, they would be eligible for a 20% tax credit.

Ruthy Bennett, Project Sponsor

- This project is urban infill with existing design, with increased housing choices and opportunities - something that we are really committed to in terms of rental, ownership and affordability.

- In our minds, we are very committed to preserving the historic architecture and worked with patrons to help us understand the historic pieces of the project.

- The project is 328 units of multifamily rental housing with 20 percent affordable without any City subsidy. It is internally subsidized.

- One building would be senior housing with 85 or more units - 100% affordable senior housing. We are please to be working with Open House.

- The Mayor's Office of Housing has agreed to work with us and Open House on funding to have 100% affordable senior housing.

- There is almost an acre of open space that is publicly accessible. There is a 12,000 square foot community center on Haight Street. And again, it is publicly accessible. All of this is being supported by the development and there is no City funding for those amenities.

- This project would take down the walls that have separated this site from its neighbors. Those walls have created unsafe conditions.

- I wish to thank many people who have helped in working together in collaboration on this project.

(+)Mary Seattleman, Open House

- Open House is realizing a dream today because a coalition of businesses, non-profit and government organizations have joined together to build the first affordable housing project in San Francisco expressively welcoming LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual] seniors.

Daniel Solomon, Architect

- Waller Street where meets Laguna Street is transformed into a permanent public amenities would be inviting, useful and would join the legacy of these kind of parks and open space.

- The other elements are mid-block lanes and courtyards.

- The architecture honors what we consider to be the essence of the Market Octavia Plan of weaving new construction through historic preservation.

[No name stated]

- We need to honor the planning process that is taking place and think of the concerns of future citizens of our neighborhood when the need for public services and community institutions is going to be greater.

(-)Ron Miguel

- This is the best compromise that we are going to get so they should finally go ahead.

Christopher Peterson

- I have supported the basic elements of this project but there is room for improvement and it genuinely needs transit and pedestrian orientation.

[No name stated]

- I am requesting a supportive community center where everyone is included and there are employment opportunities for the young generation.

(+)Elaine Adamson

- I support the project and hope it will be accepted by the Commission.

(+)Bre Jones

- Submitted a support letter for this project.

(+)Sarah Karlinsky

- There has been a great deal of compromise on this project and it is an incredible opportunity to provide a variety of housing.

(+)[No name stated]

- I support the project because it is a combination of a dedicated community based and planning process to serve a historically underserved population. [Submitted a written statement]

(+)[No name stated]

- Spoke in full support of the project.

(+)Steve Mayers

- Spoke in full support of the project because it is very important to include housing for an underserved population.

(-)[No name stated]

- Asked to continue this project until we get a clear response because at every meeting we get something different.

(+)Marty Low

- I am in support of Open House and the senior housing because there is inadequate service in the City and it is difficult to find a place to live.

(+)Corry Wick

- Any new project for senior housing must include wheelchair access and this plan has that. This is a great chance to create a welcoming community.

(+)Meribeth Meacham

- The project looks like an excellent location for senior housing near public transportation, stores and the Castro area.

(+)Gordon Smith

- Shared his own experience of receiving a notice to vacate and how Open House is helping. This project would give the opportunity to this organization to help other people.

(+)Darieck Scott

- I'm excited about how this project integrates into the neighborhood and I'm looking forward to it. I urge the Commission to support it.

(+)John Beattie

- This is a great opportunity to enhance the neighborhood and make it useful.

(+)Jon Roemer

- This is a good project to improve that area and I urge the Commission to support it.

(+)Brett Wesner

- This is a great example of what can happen when non-profit organizations and for-profit developers get together really for the good of the City.

(+)Stephen Liacouvas

- I support the project because the current status of the site is undesirable, and the housing and amenities are such possible benefits.

(+)Carol Salvagione

- This project is imperative for the safety and the beauty of the neighborhood and for the housing and community benefits that it would bring.

(+)Arthur Hurwim

- This is the first time that we are doing something that is the right thing to do for the LGBT community.

(+)Mark Rogers

- I'm speaking in support of the project and asked you to approve it in its current form and do it as quickly as possible.

(+)Marilyn Isabell

- This project brings hope for the LGBT senior community.

(-)Jasis Price

- I oppose the project because the space is too small for this kind of project.

(+)Michael Theriault

- The project sponsor has created a balancing act between the competing public needs with the housing, employment opportunities, open space and community benefits.

(+)Matile Rothschild

- We need housing for LGBT seniors and this is a great opportunity for that.

(-)Pamela Smith

- I'm speaking in support of keeping the historical buildings because there are many projects for housing going on in the neighborhood.

(-)Tamara Colby

- With this project, the community would loose a historic district, an educational facility, and open space. We should honor our buildings.

(+)Tim Cohen

- I strongly support this project because it is a great opportunity for the neighborhood and the entire San Francisco with everything that it is bringing.

(-)Cynthia Servetnick

- It is time to look at the plans, urban design, and working sensitively with historic resources.

Robin Levitt

- This is a much improved project over the first proposal, but I am concerned about traffic and less parking should be considered.

Jason Henderson

- I'm speaking in support of the project. I request that during your discussion that you make clear the percentage of affordable housing and please consider less parking.

Adam Millard-Ball

- It is a great project and I ask that you consider less parking, including the dental school. Also, at least make sure that all the standard guidelines for NCT are incorporated in this project.

David Winslow

- We think that this area should be zoned accordingly with the Market Octavia Plan - either NCT on the perimeters or RTO on the Market corridor.

(+)Ruth Herring

- Spoke in support of the project because it is going to provide housing for seniors.

(-)Lavon Taback

- The developers are only looking to increase profit and I do not believe that they demonstrated good faith with this project.

(-)[No name stated]

- I'm concerned about the change of use on this site that is resulting in a reclassification and the loss of open space and an educational site.

Jim Warshell

- This plan should be made better in terms of accomplishing the goals of affordable housing and considering NCT zoning with less parking.

(-)Mark Paez

- The issue here is just how it was approached because the project was proposed and the preservation aspect was thrown out rather than embracing it.

(-)Rich Hauptman

- This project is not the right one because the sponsor was resistant and reluctant to provide affordable housing.

Steve Vettel, Project Sponsor Representative

- 83% of the square footage of the existing building site is being preserved and adapted for reuse consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards.

- The parking ratio is .6 to 1, which is absolutely consistent with the NCT zoning that is proposed around it as part of the Market Octavia Plan.

(-)Allen Brown

- Reject the proposed project because it has been rushed and it could provide more community benefits.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17533

20b. 2004.0773E!MTZC (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

55 LAGUNA STREET (aka 218 – 220 Buchanan Street) - most of the blocks bound by Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets, Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 870 and Lots 1 and 1A in Assessor's Block 857 - Request for General Plan amendments related to the project described in Item 19. The General Plan amendments consist of changes to the Market and Octavia Area Plan element of the General Plan to amend Map 1 – Land Use Districts from "P" (Public) to RM-3 (Mixed, Medium Density) and NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) and Map 3 - Height Districts from 40-X and 80-B to 40-X, 50-X and 85-X, amendment to the Housing element, Residence element and Land Use Index of the General Plan to amend Map 2 – Generalized Residential Land Use Plan from Public/Open Space to Residential and Mixed Use and Map 3- Residential Density Plan from Public to Moderately High Density.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 20a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17534

20c. 2004.0773E!MTZC (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

55 LAGUNA STREET (aka 218 – 220 Buchanan Street) - most of the blocks bound by Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets, Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 870 and Lots 1 and 1A in Assessor's Block 857 - Request for Planning Code text amendment related to the project described in Item 19. The Planning Code text amendment consists of adding Section 249.23 to the Planning Code to create the Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets Special Use District. The specific provisions of the Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets Special Use District would (a) establish maximum parking standards (b) generally impose performance standards for residential and non-residential off-street parking (c) impose a maximum off-street loading standard (d) generally impose a unit mix standard for residential density and (e) acceptance of community infrastructure improvements.

Preliminary recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 20a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17535

20d. 2004.0773E!MTZC (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

55 LAGUNA STREET (aka 218 – 220 Buchanan Street) - most of the blocks bound by Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets, Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 870 and Lots 1 and 1A in Assessor's Block 857 - Request for zoning map amendments related to the project described in Item 19. The zoning map amendments consist of (1) reclassifying the height and bulk districts for the project site shown on Map 7H of the Zoning Maps from 40-X and 80-B to 40-X, 50-X and 85-X and (2) reclassifying the use district on Map 7 from P (Public) to RM-3 (Mixed, Medium Density) and NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) and (3) adding the Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets Special Use District to Map 7SU.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the resolution

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 20a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17536

20e. 2004.0773E!MTZC (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

55 LAGUNA STREET (aka 218 – 220 Buchanan Street) - most of the blocks bound by Laguna, Haight, Buchanan and Hermann Streets, Lots 1, 2 and a portion of Lot 3 in Assessor's Block 870 and Lots 1 and 1A in Assessor's Block 857 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to (1) locate a community facility in an R (Residential) District and (2) to develop lots in excess of 10,000 square feet in an NC-3 District and (3) to develop a non-residential use in excess of 5,999 square feet in an NC-3 District and a Planned Unit Development for (4) exceptions to modify the location of the required rear yard and (5) to modify dwelling unit exposure for approximately 8 dwelling units and (6) to modify compliance with the dimension provisions for common open space for the project described in Item 19.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 20, 2007)

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed on item 20a

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

-Under design #6; continue to work with the Planning Department and the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board; and at the end of that paragraph that reads architecture features add and compatibility of the seven new buildings with the landmark structure.

-Exhibit C, page 2 is to reference the 20% of affordability.

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

ABSENT: Alexander

MOTION: 17537

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))

SPEAKER(S)

None

Adjournment: 10:50 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, March 13, 2008.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: 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 10:00:33 PM