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

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

February 5, 2009

February 5, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 5, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1:35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Alicia John-Baptiste, Amnon Ben-Pazi, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Steve Wertheim, Pilar Lavalley, Brittany Bendix, Kevin Guy, Rick Crawford, Michael Smith, AnMarie Rodgers, Lily Langlois, Angela Heitter, and Jonas Ionin – Acting Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

1. 2008.0940C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2250 VALLEJO STREET - north side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 009, in Assessor's Block 0557 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 303(c) and 317 of the Planning Code to allow the merger of eleven dwelling units into two dwelling units in a three-story over basement residential building, within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions, including Modifications to Retain More than Two Dwelling Units

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 5, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

B. 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

2. 2004.0549C (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)

1836 Noriega Street - he north side between 25th and 26th Avenues, Block 2024, Lot 027- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j), for reduced parking within a Neighborhood Commercial District, to convert the existing, on-site garage area of a mixed-use building into additional commercial space in order to accommodate a pre school for, "Congregation Adath Israel". The property is within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X height and bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17810

3a. 2008.0729D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

3645 23RD STREET- south side between Fair Oaks and Guerrero Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 3647 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2007.10.10.5010, proposing to demolish a one-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: No DR and Approved

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

DRA#: 0059

3b. 2008.0730D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

3645 23RD STREET- south side between Fair Oaks and Guerrero Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 3647 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the replacement building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.10.12.5328, to construct a three-story over garage, two-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new building permit.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: No DR and Approved

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

DRA#: 0060

4. 2008.1179Z (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

2400 IRVING STREET - northwest corner of 25th Avenue, Lot 053 in Assessor's Block 1725 - An Ordinance to amend Map Sheets ZN05 and SU05 the Planning Code in order to reclassify the northern half of the Subject Property from RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) to NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale), pursuant to Planning Code Section 302. The proposed Ordinance is before the Commission so that it may recommend adoption, rejection, or adoption with modifications to the Board of Supervisors, and adopt findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend adoption to the Board of Supervisors.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 8, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

RESOLUTION: 17811

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini:

This last couple of week I did speak with project sponsors involved with the metro Theatre conversion, and those involved with Masonic Auditorium. I also met with opponents of 1650 Broadway. He commented on and complemented Supervisor Elsbernd and ask about some of these ideas that are being brought forward. His particular idea had something to do with TIC units being moved into condo conversions at a special rate. These are people already living in these units and there is a limit of how many of these can be converted every year. The idea is that the City can benefit from the conversion fees and other taxes. It is an interesting idea and I'd like to hear more about it. I don't know if we are going to get information on that, but I put that forward to the Director and others to get information.

Commissioner Olague:

I still have some questions about the project we heard a couple of weeks ago on Polk Street – the Senior Housing project. I believe at that time the staff did have some recommendations on how we could revisit the Code and possibly recommending that all double density type projects come before the Commission for a public hearing. And there were other recommendations that I remember the staff making and giving us that day and I'd like to know if that is possible? Is that going to come back to us as an action item or is that just going to be swept under the rug and we are never going to hear about it again?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Commissioner, we are drafting legislation that we will bring back to you. We are in the process of drafting revisions to the Senior Housing proposal, which would include a variety of different options. We're looking at location criteria; we're looking at some projects being required to come back to the Commission; some projects that meet location criteria with Notice of Special Restrictions, perhaps could be approved without Commission review, but that would be something that would be before you when we bring the legislation before you. I think we have an early draft of that internally. So we are not sweeping it under the rug.

Commissioner Olague:

Great! So the NSR and the CCNR are two subjects that I hope will come up as part of that discussion. Again, public hearings are going to be something I would like to see come out of it when it comes to double density projects. The other thing: I guess DR is something we are going to be hearing about again. I know that a lot of what we hear is that part of the reason that DR Reform is being recommended is with the intention of relieving the Commission of some of the burden of having to hear those cases, and that the Commission would have more of an opportunity to weigh in on policy type issues. Is it possible to see a work program that would address how, when and if this is relieved from our calendar what other type of policy issues would be brought before us and how? If that is part of the intention, then I'd like to see how that is going to become a reality.

Director Rahaim responded:

Sure, we can do that.

Commissioner Olague:

The New Mission Theatre – we basically mirrored the veto of the Mayor. The lowering of the heights is something that occurred at the Board level. What I'm most concerned about is the process. My understanding is that it was a typo that led to the height increase. That is disturbing to me.

Director Rahaim responded:

Commissioner, that was an honest mistake by Mr. Rich. He has owned up to that mistake. He did not intend for that to happen. We had thought that since the Board had voted clearly on record for 65 feet, that that mistake could have been corrected without legislation. But the City Attorney insisted that the Board pass through legislation specifically on that item, hence the process that happened.

Commissioner Olague:

I guess I'd like to understand a little bit more. If the City Attorney could write something up? Are we planning by typo now? I was looking at the notice of preparation for that project and one of the things I noticed is that the roof top bar on the Majewel Restaurant is not legal. I want to know if this is true or not. The other thing that I was reading is that this SUD that is being proposed for the New Mission Theatre would legalize the illegal use that is currently at the Majewel Restaurant. I think that is interesting and was wondering if that was true of it is old information?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioner, my understanding is that the Majewel rooftop bar does have both Planning Code and Building Code issues. They have submitted for a Special Use District that would address those concerns. It has always been the Department's policy that when someone is pursuing a legalization through a process, that we allow that process to happen.

Commissioner Olague:

Then basically, the SUD for the New Mission Theatre project would legalize the current use. Is that common practice?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I haven't seen the SUD recently so I'm not that familiar & I'm talking about hearsay&

Commissioner Olague:

Maybe I'm getting old information

Commissioner Moore:

I'm curious and supportive of the questions Commissioner Olague is asking and I think it would be for the benefit for the entire Commission to stay abreast of the interpretation of this mistake because normally there would be errata to that mistake. That I think is common practice. I want to make people aware of a communication of 1250 Missouri Street – an issue that we had discussed here a couple of weeks ago. I'm not sure if Mr. Badiner is on this distribution list, but the point is that illegal construction is on-going. On the other hand it is based on the fact that proper permits weren't filed to correct the previous mistake. Mr. Badiner could you just briefly comment on that for the public because there has been a stream of emails that have come across our desks?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Yes, Ms. Bendix did a site visit earlier this week because the issue had come up. This is not on calendar so I'll just do a brief response. It appears that they have responded to all of the Commissions concerns. We are following up with DBI about whether new permits need to be filed to memorialize that and then we are going to bring this back to you as an informational item or a memorandum. We do believe that they have done all the items. There is access to the upper levels; the bathtubs have been removed; the kitchens have been split. That is all I want to say without it being on calendar. We are gratified that it seems to working, but we do not have a permit that does that. So in talking to DBI - they just revert us back to the original permits. Do they not need a permit to do that or what? We are just trying to figure out the paper work correctly.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Just to follow up on Commissioners Moore and Olague on Mission Street, can't we simply initiate a re-zoning of that parcel to bring it back down to 65 feet? Why can't we downzone to where it is suppose to be?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Commissioner, I think this will come back to you because if I recall correctly one of the Board's requests was to re-examine the heights along Mission Street even before this happened. We have a six month process to do that and the results will be brought to you and you can certainly take into account whether ultimately it should be 85 or 65 feet.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Are there any projects on hold during this period? I think we should initiate re-zoning and be done with it. Is there anything to prevent us from doing that?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

No, I don't believe there is anything to prevent you from initiating that re-zoning.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Then how do we do that formally?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Let me get you an answer to that. Whether what you've said is enough direction or whether we have to have a hearing to initiate. I think we do have to have a hearing to initiate, but if it's the Commission's direction to staff to start preparing that, that is what we need to know.

Commissioner Antonini:

Not getting into a discussion on this at this point, but this has come before us once before and I believe we voted on it. I don't remember exactly when that occurred. If it is the wish of the Board of Supervisors that it come back then of course it would. But I don't know that we necessarily have to initiate before that time.

Director Rahaim responded:

It is your prerogative to initiate legislation if you wish to. We don't do that often. There needs to be an action and a vote by the Commission.

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Commissioner, Ms. Rodgers has alerted me that she is going to make a report on this issue under Board of Supervisor's matters and you might want to take it up under that.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I'd also like staff to consider having a report on the Historic Preservation Commission activities. Lastly, I noticed that on the Historical Resource Review form that the Department is using with respect to historic resources and potential issues on proposed projects that step one exemption class only lists class 1 and class 3. I wonder why it doesn't list class 31. You don't have to answer that now, but if I could get something back in the future I would appreciate it.

Commissioner Moore:

I would like to ask that the Academy of Art be re-introduced. We haven't heard about it for a long time – the hotel room ordinance(?) I would like to get a feeling of where the overall process is going – just a little check list. I think it is important that we stay abreast of this.

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Can we start with a memo and go from there?

Commissioner Moore:

Yes

Commissioner Olague:

Along the lines of what Commissioner Sugaya said, maybe we can have a joint hearing with the Preservation Commission. Maybe that would be a couple of months away. This is just a suggestion.

Commissioner Borden:

I noticed that on the draft for a future meeting there is an item on large tourist hotels, but what about hotel conversions – SRO and tourist hotel room conversions to residential use. Do we look at that?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

That is a separate issued and unrelated. That is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Building Inspection Housing. If you would like and as your schedule allows, we could get some information on the Residential Hotels.

Commissioner Borden:

That would be great

Commissioner Lee:

We had discussions about joint hearings and special presentations and I would like President Miguel to work with the staff and at least give us a forward calendar so we'll know when it is that BIC, Commission on the Environment, MTA and Small Business will happen. What I'd like to do is maybe over the next few weeks have the President and Vice President put together a schedule for the next six months so we'll have a sense of when they will happen for informational presentations. Secondly, we used to get as part of our package every week a listing of questions from the commissioners with responses and timelines. Recently I haven't seen that. I know we ask a lot of questions. Sometimes we get a written report and sometimes we don't. But frankly I don't remember on some of the questions I have asked that staff have responded to. So hopefully we can get that.

Commissioner Miguel:

I'd like to mention that I have been in the process of meeting with each of the members of the Board of Supervisors to see what planning issues they have in mind that will be coming up in the future. I should complete the eleven members within the next couple of weeks is scheduling permits. I have met with people from the Metro, the Masonic, and Fell and Franklin regarding their particular projects. I am following up on the Senior and Disabled housing. I've had a number of conversations with people very experienced in the real estate community and believe that transmitting my information through the Department, that the Department is very much in line with what has to be done in that regard. I have also spoken with the Department about the next joint meeting with DBI. Hopefully we can get that scheduled sometime in March; the same thing with the Historic Preservation Commission. They are just getting started, but as they get up and running we can meet with their officers and schedule something for the future.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

6. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

This week I attended a monthly meeting of the Housing Action Coalition. I also attended a meeting of the building Owners and Managers Association at their monthly luncheon meeting. I wanted to give you an update of the Housing Element work. We have completed the first phase of the outreach. The Community Advisory body has completed its meetings. The next phase of that work is we'll go into a series of stake holders sessions and neighborhood outreach meetings. We expect 20 to 30 of those meetings over the next three to four months on various topics and various venues all around the city. We are putting out invitations to community groups that if they are interested in having us come to various parts of the city to talk about the Housing Element we are prepared to do that over the next three to four months.

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Land Use (last week):

  • 483 Bosworth Street rezoning from public (P) to RH-2 (Continued)
  • Interim zoning moratorium on tobacco paraphernalia establishments in the Haight Street NCD. This was continued until the Supervisor could introduce an ordinance that would require a CU to establish these establishments (continued to next week)
  • Converting Hayes Street from one way to a two way street (continued to next week)

Full Board (this week):

  • Veto override consideration – The Mayor vetoed an item that would have corrected a clerical error considering a map height for the New Mission Theatre. You heard that item on August 7, 2008. At that time the Planning Commission recommended 85 feet for the length of Mission Street. When the Board's Land Use Committee heard the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan, they lowered the heights along Mission Street to 65 feet except for two properties which represent these theatre parcels, which they recommended keeping at 85 feet On November 24, the full Board voted lowering the height along Mission Street to 65 feet for both of those theatres. It was already 65 feet for the rest of Mission Street and they voted to lower it for the two theatres. It was after this hearing that planning staff erroneously did not amend the zoning height map for that New Mission Theatre parcel and the Board subsequently adopted the ordinance with that mistake in it. The Board realized that and introduced a correcting piece of legislation that would again lower the height on the New Mission Theatre from 85 feet to 65 feet. This was the legislation that was vetoed and considered by the full Board for override. This week the full Board did not have the two thirds votes necessary to override that veto so the original 85 feet was the height that was retained.
  • That is my report for the Board of Supervisors. I was asked to address a little bit of the Market/Octavia CAC: Just this week the Mayor announced his potential members for the CAC and that completes the final compliment. The Board had already put forward their names. Staff is working with the City Attorney to develop appropriate noticing and work with the new CAC members. We expect to have the first meeting of the CAC within the month.

BOARD OF APPEALS

  • 456 Urbano Drive – The Planning Commission this as a triple DR and I heard the variance on December 20, 2007. One of those DRs was staff initiated because the project sponsor didn't reduce the scope and was not in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. One of the DRs filed from the adjacent neighbor at 450 Urbana was about shading on solar panels. At the hearing before you, planning staff demonstrated that there would not be significant shading to the solar panels. You did take discretionary review to reduce the size of the building but did not address the solar issues. The DR requestor did appeal your decision seeking compensation for the loss of the electrical production caused by the project. It was a three to one vote, with Goh dissenting to uphold your decision finding that there was not significant solar shading.

Historic Preservation Commission

Yesterday, the Historic Preservation Commission held their first meeting. There are four commissioners – Charles Chase, Courtney Damkroger, Karl Hasz and Alan Martinez. Linda Avery served as the Commission Secretary. The first rule of business was to get some rules of order in place so they could start acting. They did adopt some rules and voted to have an interim President and Vice President and will re-visit election of officers after the 6th member is seated. They voted Charles Chase as President and Courtney Damkroger as Vice President. Then they proceeded to go through calendar. They had a very robust calendar including an item that you will here a little later – the re-write of Articles 10 & 11. They also heard several EIRs and CEQA reviews, a Mills Act contract and two Certificate of Appropriateness applications. They had a full calendar and are up and running.

8. (a. john-baptiste: (415) 558-6547)

Budget FY2009-2010: Goals, Financial Conditions, Balancing Options - Informational Presentation - to discuss the Department's proposed FY2009-2010 goals, review the financial conditions facing the City and the Department, and present preliminary budget balancing options.

SPEAKERS: David Pilpel

ACTION: Informational only – no commission action

9. (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9075)

1 Hawthorne Street - north-east side between Howard and Folsom Street, Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3735 - Informational Presentation of Public Artwork. On March 23, 2006 the Commission adopted Motion 17215 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-O (SD) Zoning District, and a 250-S Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Drew Saloman - representing Project Sponsor, Valerie Rheim, Robert Hudson,

ACTION: Informational only – no commission action

10. (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Planning Code Articles 10 and 11 - Informational Presentation to discuss policy issues for preservation planning and the rewriting of Articles 10 (Preservation of Historical Architectural and Aesthetic Landmarks) and Article 11 (Preservation of Buildings and Districts of Architectural, Historical, and Aesthetic Importance in the C-3 Districts) to implement the provisions of the new San Francisco Charter Section 4.135 (Historic Preservation Commission).

SPEAKERS: Steven Atkinson, Steve Vettel

ACTION: Informational only – no commission action

11. 2008.1404I (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)

THE ART INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO ABBREVIATED INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN - Informational Presentation - Report on the Art Institute of California – San Francisco's Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The Art Institute of California – San Francisco is located at 1170 Market Street (Block 0351 Lot 051), 1145 Market Street (Block 3702, Lots 044 and 044A), and 10 United Nations Plaza (Block 0351 Lot 050). The Abbreviated IMP contains information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use of affiliated buildings, and development plans. The IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department's website (from www.sfplanning.org click  Publications & Reports and then  Institutional Master Plans ).

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required

SPEAKERS: Jim Haas

ACTION: Informational only – no commission action

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.

SPEAKERS: Bob Planthold – regarding the factual accuracy, validity and completeness of statements recently made by planning staff at a public hearing before another body here in the city on January 11 at the Appeals Board. A person representing the Zoning Administrator said regarding a case that the ADA doesn't apply. Just that simple oral statement. Nothing was said by that person about criteria used to analyze why it didn't apply. That person also said that the California Fair Housing and Employment Act doesn't apply. That person also claimed to have talked with staff that same day, January 11, at the Mayor's Office of Disability and claimed to have been told by staff at the Mayor's Office of Disability that the ADA didn't apply. I went through the upper management at MOD. Nobody recalls having had a conversation with that staffer. Nobody recalls ever making a statement that ADA doesn't apply. But by making a statement that ADA doesn't apply or that the California Fair Housing and Employment Act doesn't apply, the Board of Appeals might have relied on upon the claimed professionalism of that staffer and made a decision in error. There is a whole title of ADA that staff and City Attorney often ignore. There is a duty of the department to respond to a claim of disability even if it's not a question of code or structure, or of gradiance. If there is a claim of disability you have to analyze and respond. Nothing said by that staffer indicated that there was any analysis by Planning staff about that code aspect. That person didn't respond to that claim. That person might not have been aware of it. You have a problem with ADA responsiveness.

Sue Hestor – Both the Building Inspection Commission and the Board of Appeals solicit public response. Planning doesn't. Not this kind of response – little forms saying  what did we do wrong,  how can we improve how we do our business? Both of them deal with the same kind of projects you deal with. There is no institutionalized feedback mechanism from people that are here, that are at the Department, that deal with you on the phone to say here is something that should be commended; here is something that I don't understand; here is something that you should improve. I think that would be a good idea. My second thing, I am probably the lay person most familiar with the conditions of your records because I go through them a lot. I talked to Ms. Avery about this and told her I was going to bring this up today. You really don't have a coherent policy for managing your records. Case records are all over the place in terms of how they are organized. Some persons case files are perfect. They are well organized, they are in file forms; from others you get a box of loose papers. Files get lost. Most of it comes through Mr. Badiner's side of the Department because that is where all the cases come from. It is hard to understand who is responsible. I'm going to talk to the budget people about. I'm asking you to have a structure and have some responsibility. MEA is responsible for its files. I don't know who is responsible for giving directives in project case files. We should have a system and someone responsible for tracking. Other cities have ways of tracking their files; control sheets; something.

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

12. 2008.0720C (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

988 Valencia Street - west side between Liberty and 21st Streets, Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 3608 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 703.3, and 703.4 to establish a formula retail use (dba American Apparel) in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District. The subject property is within a 50-X Height and Bulk District and is a contributing resource to the Liberty-Hill Historic District designated under Article 10 of the Planning Code. No building expansion is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Ryan Holiday - Representing Project Sponsor, Tom Heinz, Jean Duncan, Alix Izen, Isaac Fitzgerald, Joe Lewis, Andrea Hightower, Pete Trachy, Chris Rolls, Ivan Jaigirdar, Shawn Magee, Eileen Hassi, Heidi-Jane Schawabee, Steven Lemay, Jack Rayndard, Nick Evans, Pete Ryan, Aaron Shire, Mark Felix, Justin Kanalakis, and Peter Glikshtern spoke in favor of project. Jeremy Laseen, Joe Snead, Elizabeth Zitrin, Clint Mitchell, Alam Freedman, Isabel Dondevila, Roisin Isner, Roman Gaillard, John Levin, Will Lowry, David Hawkins, Christina Murray, Mirand C. Burns, Kendra Foshman, Dairo Romero, Emily Noll, Marianna Cherry, Jennifer Jones, Breezy Culberston, Jonathan Rosen, Leila Mansur, Jillian Soto, Ryan Moritz, Brigid Flood, Ivy McClelland, Skot Kuiper, M. Boynu, Mitche Manitou, Sarah Frna Wisby, Manish Champsee, Larry Griffin, Jill Rosenthal, Monkey, Matt Garson, Joshua Katz, Christina Pappas, Gail Wechsler, Isabel Douglas, Chris Connolly, Derek Foagerstrom, Nellie Tischler, James Choi, Drina Boban, Matteo Tachin, Shane Michalik, Alison Dewald, Caleb Poterbin, Lauren Smith, Dylan Lundy, windy Chien, Gloria Grubb, Lale Shafaghi, Aaron Kiebel, Liz Hille, Dema Grim, David Catechi, spoke in opposition to the project. Taylor Norden was neutral.

ACTION: Following public testimony, the public hearing was closed and the Commission passed a motion of intent to disapprove with final language to come back to them on 2/19/09

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

ABSENT: Lee

13. 2007.1269C (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9089)

3398 22Nd street - northeast corner at Guerrero and 22nd Streets, Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 3617 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 145.2, 303 and 710.26 to legalize a walk-up facility (ATM), dba "Swipe USA", that is not recessed 3-feet from the property line, in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District with an 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 15, 2009)

NOTE: Will also include a brief informational presentation regarding Swipe USA's practice of installing ATMs within the City and County of San Francisco.

SPEAKERS: Andre Davis - Project Sponsor, Molly McKernett,

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Lee

MOTION: 17812

14a. 2006.0826CV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1946 Polk Street (AKA 1591 Pacific Avenue) - southeast corner at Pacific Avenue, Lot 024 of Assessor's Block 0596 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow development on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet, to reduce parking requirements, and to grant an exception to bulk requirements. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story retail building and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story mixed-use building containing approximately 39 dwelling units, approximately 35 parking spaces, and approximately 2,300 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of January 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Tom Sullivan - Representing project sponsor, Amy Anton, Tom Radulovich, Brent O'Brien, and Michael Schoolnik spoke in favor of the project. Nafiseh Lindberg, Kimberlyu Bryan, Jim McCormack, Michelle Murray, Penelope Clark, Frank Cannata, Wyllie Adams, Dawn Trebbeft, Tim Colen, and Penelope Clark were opposed to the project.

ACTION: Approved as modified to require 2 or more car share spaces

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

ABSENT: Lee

MOTION: 17813

14b. 2006.0826CV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1946 Polk Street (AKA 1591 Pacific Avenue) - southeast corner at Pacific Avenue, Lot 024 of Assessor's Block 0596 - Request for a Modification of Rear Yard Requirements within a Neighborhood Commercial District. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story retail building and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story mixed-use building containing approximately 39 dwelling units, approximately 35 parking spaces, and approximately 2,300 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider the request for modification of rear yard requirements concurrently with the Planning Commission's consideration of the conditional use authorization at this same hearing.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of January 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the modification of rear yard requirements.

15. 2008.0367C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

5640-5648 Mission Street - northwest side, at the northerly corner of Mission and Whipple Avenue Lots 008 and 009 of Assessor's Block 7098 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under, Planning Code Section 711.81 to develop a Large Institutional Use (Buddhist Temple) above the ground floor and Section 711.21 Use Size greater than 3,999 square feet. The proposal is to construct a new second story to the existing one story temple building, expanding the building to 5,959 square feet in area for temple offices and a parsonage in an NC-2, Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Lincoln Lu - Project Sponsor

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Miguel, Lee, and Moore

MOTION: 17814

16. 2008.0140C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

4127-4129 18TH Street - south side between Castro and Collingwood Streets, Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 2695 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 703.4 to expand a formula retail pharmacy (d.b.a Walgreen's) into the adjacent storefront and Section 715.21 to establish a Use Size greater than 1,999 square feet in the Castro Neighborhood Commercial District, the Upper Market Special Sign District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKERS: Joel Yodowitz - Representing project sponsor, Tom Hordon, Gustavo Serina, R. Sherumann, Joseph Titi, John Giusti, Maggie Krugin, Tom Bonovol, Sharon Woo Andrew McDonald, Scott Winner, Glenn Petrononi, and Tom Lenoble were in favor of the project. Judith Hoyem, Alan Martinez, Gary Weiss, Demian Quesnel, Joe Curtin, Tom Radulovich, Dennis Richards, Rafael Mandelman, Steve Clark Hall, Alan Beach-Nelson, and David Thorheim were opposed to the project,

ACTION: Disapproved

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

ABSENT: Lee

MOTION: 17815

17. (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)

Adoption of the findings of the Market and Octavia Area Plan Survey (Survey) - Informational presentation - The Survey consists of buildings within the Area Plan boundaries, built in or before 1961, and not previously surveyed. Survey products generated by the consultant include: Market and Octavia Area Plan Context Statement; Survey Report; 1563 DPR 523A forms; 155 DPR 523D forms and 9 DPR 523D records. The Planning Department has drafted 2 DPR 523D records as a substitute for one of the 9 consultant-prepared DPR 523D records. On December 17, 2008, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (Landmarks Board) endorsed Survey findings, and recommended the Planning Commission to adopt with conditions. The Market and Octavia Area Plan Context Statement was prepared in conjunction with the Survey and was reviewed and endorsed by the Landmarks Board on December 19, 2007. Please note: This will be the first of two hearings on the survey. This first hearing will be an informational presentation by Planning Staff, and the consultant team of Page & Turnbull. The Department will seek Commission adoption at the second hearing scheduled for February 12th, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 2/12/09

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

18. 2009.0010U (A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Adoption of baseline Inventory of Large Tourist Hotel rooms - Section 41F.3(g) of the Administration Code requires that a  baseline inventory of the number of rooms commercially available for rent as of March 1, 2009 in Large Tourist Hotels (hotels with over 100 rooms) be adopted by the Planning Commission. This Section further requires that an  annual inventory of the number of Tourist Hotel Rooms commercially available for rent be updated each year thereafter. On May 23, 2008, the Department prepared a draft list of Large Tourist Hotel rooms. This list is available at http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=81515. The Commission may adopt the Baseline Inventory at this hearing or any hearing prior to March 15, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Baseline Inventory.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 2/12/09

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

19. 2008.1358T (A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Amendments to Planning Code Sections 803.4 and 815: Massage Services in South of Market Residential/Service Mixed Use District. [Board File No. 08-1504] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisors Dufty and Daly amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 803.4 Uses Prohibited in SoMa Districts, Section 815 Residential/Service Mixed Use District, and Table 815 to allow a business operating as a full-service spa to provide massage services with a Conditional Use authorization; and adopting findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Lee and Moore

RESOLUTION: 17816

20a. 2008.0734TZ (L. LANGLOIS: (415) 575-9063)

IndiaBasin Industrial ParkZoning Update - an area generally bounded by Cargo Way to the north, Jennings Street to the east, the southern property-lines of the parcels facing Galvez or Fairfax Streets on their south sides to the south, and Third Street to the west. Proposal to amend the Planning Code by adding Planning Code Section 249.42 establishing the India Basin Industrial Park Special Use District and land use and setback provisions thereto per Planning Code Sections 302 and 306.3. The proposed ordinances coincide with the expiration of the India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Area and Plan and its transition to the Planning Department for entitlement authority. Blocks 4570, 5203, 5235 and 5236 are within M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Use District and proposed to be within PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) Use District. Blocks 5237 and 5242 are within M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District and proposed to be within PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) Use District. Blocks 5239 and 5240 are within M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District and proposed to be within PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer) Use District. The portions of Blocks 4602A, 5253 and 5254 that are within the subject area are within M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District and proposed to be within PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer) Use District. Block 5241 is within M-1 (Light Industrial) Use District and proposed to be within PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) Use District, with the exception of Lot 018 which is proposed to be within PDR-1-B (Light Industrial) Use District. The entire subject area is within a 65-J Height and Bulk District, which is not proposed to change.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Lee

RESOLUTION: 17817

20b. 2008.0734TZ (L. LANGLOIS: (415) 575-9063)

IndiaBasin Industrial ParkZoning Update - an area generally bounded by Cargo Way to the north, Jennings Street to the east, the southern property-lines of the parcels facing Galvez or Fairfax Streets on their south sides to the south, and Third Street to the west. Proposal for a Planning Code Map Amendment per Planning Code Sections 302 and 306.3 to rezone Blocks 4570, 5203, 5235 and 5236 from M-2 (Heavy Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) Use Districts; Blocks 5237 and 5242 from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) Use Districts; Blocks 5239 and 5240 from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer) Use Districts; the portions of Blocks 4602A, 5253 and 5254 that are within the subject area are zoned M-1 (Light Industrial), from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-1-B; Block 5241 from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) Use District, with the exception of Lot 018 to PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer) Use District. The entire subject area is also proposed to be within the India Basin Industrial Park Special Use District. The proposed ordinances coincide with the expiration of the India Basin Industrial Park Redevelopment Area and Plan and its transition to the Planning Department for entitlement authority. The subject area is within a 65-J Height and Bulk District, which is not proposed to change.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Lee

RESOLUTION: 17818

6:00 p.m. -- [Although the following items may be called after the listed time, they will not be called before.]

21. 2008.1145D (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9089)

2975 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - between Dwight and Woolsey Streets; Assessor's Block 5458, Lot 026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit 2008.06.25.5278 to convert the existing ground floor retail space formerly known as Best Tile and Building Supply, to a billiard parlor and bar dba Jimmy Billiard Palace. The property is located within an NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Building Permit Application was withdrawn

22a. 2009.0038D (A. HEITTER: (415) 558-6602)

32-40 VARENNES STREET - east side between Green and Union Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for Staff-Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2008.07.28.7751; proposal to reconfigure a dwelling unit for installation of a garage opening and ramp in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove project.

SPEAKERS: Brett Gladstone - Representing Project Sponsor, Jeff Woo, Vincent Avello, Mathew Miller, and Mrs. Miller were in favor of the project. Tom Radulovich and Michael Yeung opposed to the project. Donna Chan, Jesse Liu/Carol Cheung, Tommy Hung, Cindy Wu, Malcolm Young were in favor of the Commission taking DR.

ACTION: Took DR and disapproved the project

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

ABSENT: Lee

DRA#: 0061

22b. 2008.1340D (A. HEITTER: (415) 558-6602)

32-40 VARENNES STREET - east side between Green and Union Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor's Block 0115 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.06.12.4300; proposing to construct a stair penthouse on the roof of the building and associated rooftop deck in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: [Same as those listed for item 22a]

Motion: To take DR and Disapprove

AYES: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Miguel, Antonini, and Borden

ABSENT: Lee

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion, the project is approved as proposed.

DRA#: 0062

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

NONE

Adjournment: 11:15 p.m.

Adopted: July 9, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:38 PM