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
May 8, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 8, 2008

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:36 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Adam Light, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Aaron Starr, Adrian Putra, Paul Lord, 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. 2008.0291T (T. Sullivan-Lenane: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code Section 315.5: Off-Site Affordable Housing Requirements - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Sandoval amending the San Francisco Planning Code Section 315.5 to provide that twenty-five percent of off-site units given site permits annually may be built outside of the currently-required one-mile radius from the market-rate project, and to provide that off-site units cannot be located in industrially-zoned areas or within a quarter mile of developments containing 200 or more publicly-owned and operated affordable housing developments.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Proposed for Continuance to May 29, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

2. 2007.1280C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

1680 Market Street - north side between Gough and Franklin Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0854 - Request for conditional use authorization to establish a Large Fast Food Restaurant (d.b.a Subway) of approximately 1200 square feet. Additionally, Conditional Use authorization will be required for a Formula Retail use at the subject site as defined by Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. This site is within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale) Neighborhood Commercial District, and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 17, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 29, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

3. 2008.0308C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

755 Portola Drive - at the northeast corner of Evelyn Way; Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 2901C - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.44 and 790.91, to allow a small self-service restaurant (DBA Miraloma Taqueria) to be located within the existing retail grocery and liquor store (DBA Miraloma Market). The business owner proposes to add a seating area to the existing accessory use food preparation area of the market, thereby constituting a small self-service restaurant. The property is located within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to May 29, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

4a. 2006.0828CV (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)

1729-1733 Stockton Street - west side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets, Lot 007 of Assessor's Block 0089 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Section 161(j) of the Planning Code to modify the requirements for off-street parking on a property within an NC District. The project proposes to construct a one-story, vertical addition measuring approximately 500 square feet to the existing one-story detached cottage which is located within the rear yard of the subject property. The expanded cottage would measure approximately 25 feet by 22 feet horizontally, and would reach a height of approximately 25 feet. The project would require two new off-street parking spaces to serve the proposed dwellings units, however, the project does not propose any new off-street parking spaces. The project site is located in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to May 29, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

4b. 2006.0828CV (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)

1729-1733 Stockton Street- west side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets, Lot 007 of Assessor's Block 0089 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Sections 134(a)(1), 135, 140, and 188 of the Planning Code to modify the requirements for rear yard, usable open space, and dwelling unit exposure, and to allow the expansion of a non-complying structure. The project proposes to construct a one-story, vertical addition measuring approximately 500 square feet to the existing one-story detached cottage which is located within the rear yard of the subject property. The expanded cottage would measure approximately 25 feet by 22 feet horizontally, and would reach a height of approximately 25 feet. The project would add two dwelling units, for a total of six dwelling units on the property. The project site is located in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider this item concurrently with the Planning Commission.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 29, 2008)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. ( Tape IA ; IB) (L. Avery: (415) 558-6407)

APPENDIX A of COMMISSION'S RULES & REGULATIONS - On April 17, 2008, the Commission amended their Rules & Regulations - separating out requirements for submittals and hearing procedures. Those two topics are to be captured in an appendix to their rules and that discussion was continued to May 1, 2008. The Commission will discuss and consider possible action to adopt, amend, or not adopt proposed Appendix A of Planning Commission Rules and Regulations.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Sue Hestor

- Reminded the Commission that they are the original body to consider land use issues and urged them to be on the side of generosity regarding time.

- The Chair and the Commission have the ability to set the tone of the meeting and move things along and I think that is what you should be doing.

Marilyn Amini

- To me the most important thing is the amount of time that you provide for public comments.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- The amount of time that you provide for public comment is very important. Also, it is important that you keep a record of the pre-application process.

ACTION: Approved general submission as follows:

-The current practice for submission of case reports and submittals is to continue: one week in advance for Discretionary Review and standard cases, and two weeks in advance for complicated cases.

-Family members would not be included in any block of time for any presentations and should be reflected this way throughout the document.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

ACTION: Approved amending the submission of revisions for all categories as follows:

-Revisions should be submitted to staff (and DR requestors) by 5p.m. Tuesday [two days] before the Thursday Hearing. Revisions submitted at hearings are discouraged and will only be considered at Commission discretion.

-An analysis of these procedures should be scheduled before the Commission in September.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, and Miguel

NAYES: Moore and Sugaya

ACTION: Approved time allotments as follows: For DR hearings the DR requestors or their representative are allowed up to five minutes each and up to three minutes for each person supporting the DR; up to five minutes for the Project Sponsor or their representative (with additional time that is not to exceed 10 minutes if there are multiple DR requestors) and up to three minutes for each person supporting the project; each side is give up to two minutes for rebuttal. For standard/complex cases, initial presentations by project team or organized opposition is not to exceed 15 minutes and individual speakers, for or against the matter, are not to exceed three minutes each; In all cases, the President or Chair has the ability to impose time limits and may otherwise exercise his or her discretion on procedures for the conduct of public hearings; an analysis of these procedures should be scheduled before the Commission in September.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel and Moore

NAYES: Sugaya

6. Commission Comments/Questions (Tape IB)

· 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 noticed that the Mayor had a press release earlier regarding a report that points out higher populations have ramifications and many funding issues. I thought that was a positive development.

- I want to bring to the attention of the public that we frequently see the price of homes in San Francisco. In most recent reports San Francisco is the only county in the Bay Area that seems to show a slight increase in price.

- However; when you read those reports carefully, they are single family homes. I am not sure if that is indicative of all ownership, particularly condominiums and multifamily situations.

- Part of it is that we have a limited supply of single family homes because they have not increased rapidly.

Commissioner Lee

- A couple of requests: one involves my greater interest in Director Rahaim's comments in the SPUR monthly newsletter. I want to ask Director Rahaim if he can provide to the Commission, from time to time, your perception on some of the things that the Commission and staff have not looked into.

- I'd also like to request that staff and the City Attorney's Office review DR procedure. In the mid 90's, there was a process where only four commissioners would take DR. Is there another way to have a sub-committee for DR's because it takes so much time?

- We put a lot of money in the Matrix report. I would like to have from you your sense of what we can do with the Matrix report. Because of priorities and budget issues, I would like to get a sense what the Mayor's Office is going to provide you, the department, and the Commission to implement the Matrix report and if there is anything we can do to be helpful.

- A week and a half ago the Mayor's Office of Economic Development had an economic conference in Chinatown. I'd like to ask the City Attorney's Office what the process would be if we decide to start looking at the rezoning of the Chinatown.

Commissioner Sugaya

- 55 Laguna Street with respect of the mitigation monitoring program: can we get at some point how staff is looking at implementing that particular plan?

Commissioner Moore

- I have a question for Director Rahaim. With our limited resources, or staff resources, the backlog for the Commission, and major policy projects in front of us, why do projects already in the initial stages requiring height reclassification, already have neighborhood opposition before they are in front of us, but they are encouraged to do EIRs?

- I am talking here about a project on Van Ness and Filbert. Why are we encouraging these types of projects to go into EIR knowing full well where they are going?

Director Rahaim

- My understanding is that we are required to review the project and to process it f they file an Environmental application and pay the fee even if does not meet the current zoning because they can apply for a zoning change. We are legally obligated to proceed if the sponsor requests it.

Commissioner Moore

- Are the hours that staff anticipates to spend on this project anywhere near that of what it costs to apply for such a process?

Director Rahaim

- Certainly on the Environmental Review, our cost is covered by the project fee. That is why the fees are as high as they are.

Zoning Administrator

- They would also have to apply for a conditional use and/or reclassification/rezoning. We have the ability to charge time and materials if our costs exceed the base fee.

- But if they want to apply, we have the obligation to review their application.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IB)

7. Director's Announcements

John Rahaim, Director

- Yesterday I did visit with the Chinatown Community Development Center and had a very interesting discussion with their staff about the issues they see in the neighborhood. I actually took a tour of the neighborhood through their eyes.

- One of the issues was whether we should be looking at some planning work around the central subway stations. I am going to explore that because it seems to be a good idea.

- About the Matrix report, we are looking at coming to you early to mid June with our initial responses to the Matrix report. There would be short, mid, and longer term efforts that we will be undertaking to improve the procedural process in the department. DR procedure is one of the things that we want to look at to be in the short or mid term.

- Next week we will have an early special hearing at 11a.m. to look at PDR replacement.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We had originally budgeted to take on the DR process as part of the Matrix. We were going to try early. As a matter of fact, I was going to start during this hearing to read the 2001 report and start pulling together those ideas to report to the Planning Commission. I think we do have a range of options.

- As you know, we are in a general advertising review process. Proposition G was passed and we were founded to do a survey. We did the survey and we were ahead of the process and expected to be done about this time.

- Since January we have been in enforcement mode on the general advertising signs --sending out violations.

- We have, so far, 59 signs removed and we had our first hearing in front of the Administrative Law Judge last month. We did not fair very well at the beginning because it was staff against some very well versed lawyers.

- There was opportunity for further submittals and yesterday the judge released his findings on a case on Folsom Street, which we won with a $50,000 fine, the removal of the billboard and the award of administrative cost to us and the City Attorney.

- Staff has done an outstanding job, particularly Jonathan Purvis, Kimberly Durandet, Daniel Sider, Elaine Forbes and the City Attorney.

- The other point I want to let you know about is the Action List. There will be a response to Commissioner Lee's request about restaurants and the expediting process in next week's packet. I believe the Hospital's memorandum is in today's packet.

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

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Full Board

A- Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District - Passed. This allows up to four new full service restaurant in the Haight Neighborhood Commercial District.

B- Ordinance to extend the date for Medical Cannabis Dispensaries - Passed. It extends the time from March 1, 2008 to January 1, 2009.

C- Height and Bulk provision on North Beach Passed.

D- 1575 South Van Ness – This was a conditional use that you took a 3 to 3 vote on. In the absence of positive action, the case is in effect disapproved. Staff drafted a memorandum reflecting what we thought a resolution of disapproval would say. The Board Overturned the disapproval with conditions: to revoke the conditional use permit for up to three years if the conditions are not met, maintenance of the building, signs to be reviewed and approve by Planning Department before installation, street trees, all equipment shall conform to the noise ordinance, project sponsor shall provide information to the department in connection to the neighborhood impacts from the project.

Board of Appeals

A- 1060 Gilman Avenue – Previous permit in 2004 to build a new three story building in a vacant lot. There was a DR filed and the Commission took DR and denied the project. The property was sold and the new owner submitted a permit in 2006, which was exactly the same as the previous one. Staff should have brought that project to the Commission but there was no clarity on that. We will put in writing the procedure for cases like this. Continued to June giving the opportunity for the project sponsor, staff and DR requestor to work on the design.

9. (Tapes IB; IIA) (A. GHOSH: (415) 558-6282)

Informational presentation on the State Propositions 98 and 99 for the Statewide Election of June 3, 2008 – presentation by Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland-Knowels.

SPEAKER(S)

Andrew Schwartz

- If proposition 98 and 99 pass, it could potentially severely constrain your power of regulating the use of land and protect the environment of neighborhoods.

ACTION: No action is required of the Commission. Informational presentation

E. 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)

Bruce Re: Academy of Arts

- I would like to know if they have a car museum and if it is supposed to have the address visible and big enough for the public to see.

John BardisRe: Academy of Arts – 1727 Lombard Street

- This property is one of seventeen others that are in violation. It was continued last week and that is setting precedence that other properties can keep violating the Codes.

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

10a. 2004.0296X (Tape IIA) (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

631 FOLSOM STREET - south-east side between 2nd and Hawthorne Streets, Lot 090 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Informational Presentation of Public Artwork - On April 28, 2005 the Commission adopted Motion 16997 approving a mixed use building at the site. The conditions of approval of this Motion include a Public Artwork requirement pursuant to Code Section 149. The conditions of approval also require that the final art concept and location be submitted for review by, and be satisfactory to the Director of the Planning Department in consultation with the Commission. This site is within the C-3-S Zoning District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKER(S)

Richard, Artist

- There was a rich history on Folsom Street. It had been developed early on with vineyards and stables prior to 1849. It changed hands relatively few times in history.

- Along with the content of the artwork, it has to do with the conditions of the site. Being the darker side of the building, we are trying to brighten the area choosing white marbles.

- We are adjacent to the AT&T Plaza and we want to welcome the neighbors with equal views from the Folsom Street side and the AT&T Plaza side. In a sense, we are joining the Plaza and bringing a water feature to the artwork.

ACTION: No action is required of the Commission. Informational presentation

10b. 2007.1267X (Tape IIA) (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

631 FOLSOM STREET - south-east side between 2nd and Hawthorne Streets, Lot 090 in Assessor's Block 3750 - Request for an exemption pursuant to Section 309 to add 52 off-street parking spaces to the previously approved 64 off-street parking spaces in a mixed-use building currently under construction - The building is to have 114 dwelling units, each containing at least two bedrooms and at least 1000 square feet. Under this proposal there will be a total of 116 off-street parking spaces, 108 of which will be stored and accessed by mechanical stackers. Two of the spaces will be dedicated to car-share vehicles. No physical expansion of the approved building is proposed. This site is within the C-3-S Zoning District, and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 2\4, 2008)

SPEAKER(S)

Alice Barkley, Project Sponsor Representative

- When this project was approved in 2004, there was an extremely high demand for housing of any kind.

- There is a substantial increase of families living in that area and the project is definitely designed to be family friendly.

- Project Sponsor had paid the 10% in-lieu fee and has volunteered and agreed to conditions of approval, if the Commission approves the application, to pay the difference between the 10% to 12% inclusionary requirement fee which is approximately $750,000.

(+)Gerry

- It is not realistic for families in the South of Market to not have a car. You need to give the families the tools to actually live and stay there.

(-)Sue Hestor

- We do not track how many children come to live in these developments. We need solid information and not assumptions. Also, we need to encourage the use of public transit.

ACTION: Intent to approve with final language on May 22, 2008

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Miguel, and Sugaya

NAYES: Moore

11. 2007.0585D (Tapes IIA; IIB; IIIA) (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

111 COLON AVENUE - between Montecito and Greenwood Avenues; Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3135 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application#200702053372 to extend the rear of an existing, first and second-level and add a partial third level, and relocate the garage door from the rear to the front, of a single-family dwelling within an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District, within the Westwood Park Residential Character District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S)

Anita Theoharis, Discretionary Review Requestor

- As discussed in our initial submission, the primary purpose behind the creation of the RCD was to protect the neighborhood's character by prohibiting vertical expansion.

- The Discretionary Review analysis fails to contain any meaningful analysis of the impacts of this type of development in the neighborhood as a whole, rebuttal of our design review conclusion, and to directly reverse the choice mandated by Planning Code Section 244.1

- The whole purpose of Code 244.1 was to make Westwood Park subject to a separate set of rules and intended to avoid the uniquely detrimental impacts vertical additions could have on the RCD.

(-)David Melamed

- The vertical addition will impact the light on our yard.

(-)Robert Geleta

- Requested looking at this project and go by the guidelines.

(-)Kurt Meinhardt

- Westwood Park is a unique neighborhood and its design guidelines were set up to address vertical addition impacts.

(-)Greg Morris

- We have tried to capture, as a document for our neighborhood, the work that has gone to preserving the neighborhood. [Showed photos]

(-)Hugh Byrne

- 92% of all of homes in Westwood Park are one story or one story over basement and it is a well preserved neighborhood.

(-)Kathy Betiks

- My hope is that you would approve our efforts to save it from the potential destruction of its architectural and historical heritage.

(-)Caryl Ito

- Urged to reject the proposed vertical addition because of the neighborhood's uniqueness being family friendly.

(-)Geoff Williams

- There are valuable reasons to preserve the neighborhood and not allowing vertical additions can even help global warming using natural daylight.

(-)Anne Chen

- We sent out a letter last Friday about this project and we have received 200 replies representing 400 residents opposing this project.

(-)Clyde Theriot

- As a resident of Westwood Park, I am urging you to take discretionary review.

(-)Stephen Theoharis

- 244.1 say that the general guidelines are now amended by the Westwood Park Guidelines, which is un-rebutted, to avoid vertical addition.

(-)Greg Clinton

- The legislative intent was that when an extension is desired, it should go out or down but not up to preserve the neighborhood's character.

Joseph Railla, Project Architect

- The Westwood Park Association's concern is that there are some 100 1-story left out of the track of 685 houses and predominantly they are 2-story houses.

- Another concern is the uniformity of building height and massing that accentuates the low density of single family homes. San Francisco is a vertical and diverse city.

- The house would be only 3 feet – 2 inches higher than the up-hill neighboring house and there would be no impact to light and air because there is no encroachment into the rear yard.

(+)Sululagi Palega

- The addition is to accommodate the family and what we need to preserve is the people that live in San Francisco to maintain its diversity. [Submitted letters of support]

(+)Bernice Cole, Owner

- Originally, we sent out notification to the immediate neighbors and when it was brought to our attention, we requested an eight week extension to work with the neighborhood.

- The project is to accommodate our family.

(+)Shawn Nicholson

- The guidelines indicate that not all vertical expansions are intended to be excluded.

- I think we have to consider modest vertical extensions that are in line with the historic significance of the neighborhood.

(+)Jenny Morrison

- The neighborhood has changed and families should be encouraged to stay and not to leave.

(+)Jeff

- I support the project because it is a modest extension and a horizontal addition is not a good idea because of the loss of the shared open space [small park for children]

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved horizontal addition but disapproved the vertical addition. Encouraged architects on both sides to explore possible further horizontal expansion to the south side and rear yard.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Miguel, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee

12. 2008.0215d (a. starr: (415) 558-6362)

2157 green street (aka 2151 Green Street) - south side between Fillmore Street and Webster St.; Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 0557 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.02.13.4062 proposing to construct a single-family house with six levels stepping up the vacant, up-sloping lot, with a maximum height above grade of 40 feet in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation- Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2008)

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN

13a. 2008.0246D (Tape IIIA) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1949 Oak Street - south side between Shrader Street and Cole Street; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 1226 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.11.13.7942 proposing to increase the number of dwelling units from 2 to 5 and to construct a 3-story rear addition on the existing 2-unit 3-story house in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S)

Lynn Grano, Discretionary Review Requestor

- This project does not rehabilitate the historic structure. It merely saves the façade.

- Contrary to the General Plan, it does not preserve/conserve the existing housing character in this neighborhood made up of single family dwellings and 2 to 3 unit apartment buildings.

- If you are inclined to grant the permit, I would suggest putting a condition that some of the units be affordable.

- It would impact street parking, privacy and open space.

Chesney Floyd, Architect

- The project restores the façade of the building and also restores an existing grand staircase inside. We retained more than 75% of all exterior walls.

- At least 40% of the buildings in that neighborhood have five units or more.

- The project is more than 3 feet below the height requirement at the rear.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Lee

13b. 2007.1344V (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

1949 Oak Street- south side between Shrader Street and Cole Street; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 1226 - Request for Variances from the rear yard requirements of Section 134 and the parking requirements of Section 151 to provide a rear yard at the rear east half of the property equal to approximately 48' where 67' is required and to provide 2 parking spaces where 4 are required. The project proposes to increase the number of dwelling units from 2 to 5 and to construct a 3-story rear addition on the existing 2-unit 3-story house in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance subject to standard conditions of approval.

14. 2008.0141D (Tape IIIA) (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)

327 EUREKA STREET - east side between 20th Street and 21st Street; Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 2750 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of all dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.12.06.9818, proposing to reconfigure the existing two-family dwelling to a single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S)

Bonnie Bridges, Architect

- The house was originally a single family dwelling and we are essentially restoring it to the historical use.

- There is no extension to the footprint of the house. It is entirely an interior remodel.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Antonini and Lee

5:30 P.M.

15. (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

WESTERN SOMA CITIZEN PLANNING TASK FORCE STRATEGIC ANALYSIS MEMOS (SAMs) - The first of three informational presentations of the Western SoMa Strategic Analysis Memos - This initial presentation covers the analysis of Housing changes in the Western SoMa Special Use District since the adoption of the South of Market General Plan Element in 1989. In addition, the Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force will describe the analytical tools created to evaluate appropriate new housing development locations in the Western SoMa Special Use District. Finally, the work undertaken by the Task Force and the owner of the 8th and Harrison Streets project site will discuss lessons learned and insights gained during a two year working relationship to shape a forthcoming development proposal for a mix of uses on a three acre parcel.

SPEAKER(S)

Ameer Hasik

- [Shared experience of working collaboratively with Western SoMa Citizen Task Force on a project at 8th and Harrison Streets for land use alternatives]

Jim Meko, Chair of Western SoMa CitizenTask Force

- It just made so much sense to us to do it this way and help you understand this community before we set out changes.

- We just want a plan that works and that the entire neighborhood can embrace.

Tobby Levy

- We want to embrace developments that preserve people and uses that are existing in the area.

Marc Solomon

- We need to have a balance between what the people want and what the developers want to build and hope that what we are doing in the Western SoMa is going to help do that.

Anthony

- Being on the task force has been a real joy because we are very reasonable people and we have brought up very good things in a cooperative way.

Keith Silva

- I have been following the task force and it is doing a great job.

Scott Kipper

- I really enjoy the process of integrating developers with the community as well as the City being involved.

Bob Meyers

- The task force has been doing a lot of work and I suggest that the subway be discussed more in Planning, and that the concept of increase density in heights where appropriate along 4th Street be included in the Western SoMa.

ACTION: No action is required of the Commission. Informational presentation

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: 8:41 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, May 29, 2008.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Adopted

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, 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 10:00:35 PM