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

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

February 12, 2009

February 12, 2009



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 12, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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



STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Alicia John-Baptiste, Craig Nikitas, Brett Bollinger, Glenn Cabreros, Irene Nishimura, AnMarie Rodgers, Andrea Contreras, Moses Corrette, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.


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. 2008.1326T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code Section 315.6: Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly amending the San Francisco Planning Code Section 315.6 of the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program to provide that ten percent (10%) of in lieu fees paid under Section 315.6, not to exceed a maximum of $15 million at any one time, be designated exclusively for the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing sites consisting of less than 25 units.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Proposed for Continuance to February 19, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Supervisor Chris Daly

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Antonini and Moore

2. 2006.0070T (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

IMPLEMENTATION OF Legislationto Control theLOSS OF DWELLING UNITS- Code Implementation Document - Proposed procedures and criteria to implement newly-adopted Code Section 317 requiring Planning Commission hearings for the removal of certain dwelling and live-work units. The document also sets numerical criteria, some of which are subject to administrative adjustment in response to changing economic conditions.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 22, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 12, 2009)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Antonini and Moore


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

3. 2008.1337C (A. BEN-PAZI: (415) 575-9077)

1301 Polk Street - west side between Bush and Austin Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0667 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 723.54 for a Massage Establishment in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The Thai Massage Establishment DBA "La Biang Thai Massage Therapy & Reflexology", which is currently operating at 1339 Polk Street, proposes to relocate to 1301 Polk Street. No physical expansion of the building is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


ACTION: Approved

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


MOTION: 17819

4. 2008.0408C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1167-1171 STANYAN STREET - west side between Alma and Grattan Streets, Lots 017 and 018 in Assessor's Block 2630 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 317 to demolish three residential units within two existing structures and to construct a three-story over garage, single-family residence and a three-story over garage, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


ACTION: Approved

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


MOTION: 17820


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:

There are just a few items I want to discuss. The first involves some items last week in which we did not grant conditional use. They happen to fall under the auspices of formula retail and I wanted to mention that my vote was because I felt that neither had reached the standard of being necessary or beneficial, which is what a CU has to have more so than being mealy formula retail. I do not feel that at least in my mind that the vote set a president either way had they been in favor or opposed because I feel that each time we do a CU we're looking at individual projects and we should consider their merits and whether they meet the standard. As far as car share and other issues that came up last week, I did a little bit of research and apparently the Code says that we need one car share space for projects of 50 or more up to 250, and then there is a graduated scale beyond that depending on how many units you have. However there is another part of the code that I don't believe we discussed and it says that a project sponsor can satisfy the care share requirement at an off site pod within 800 feet of the project. Again, this is good to know. I think we should really calendar in the future a discussion of the entire issue of car share, particularly for those with projects under 50 units, and with particular reference to those that may be displacing existing car share pods and try to have some sort of predictable understanding on the part of the Commission if possible so when project sponsors go forward they sort of know what they may be expected. Hopefully the other commissioners will be amenable to some sort of discussion in the future. Number three, I just want to mention that there has been a lot of discussion surrounding Medjool and their deck. My understanding is that there were some permits issued earlier when the restaurant was first approved that included the deck. Whether or not these were comprehensive enough to allow for the thing [deck], I don't have knowledge of and I will defer to Mr. Nikitas or others to answer that question, but I would like to say that in general there have been a lot of really good contributions made by the owner there and a lot of benefits have come out of that and his work in the neighborhood. However, the bottom line is that you have to have compliance and I would hope we are able to work with that particular person to be able to bring his building into compliance because I understand it is very highly rated as far as outdoor dining areas and its been a benefit to the neighborhood and I want to see if we can continue that if possible. Finally, I had meeting with project sponsors of 1690 Pine. I spoke with the architect of 1622 Broadway. I spoke with the opponents of the future plans of the Metro Theatre (I have now spoken to both sides of this one). I spoke to project sponsors for the Masonic. I thank the Mayor's Office of Housing for a report that answered the question of on-site housing. Affordable housing – what percentages there are for on-site, off-site and in lieu. Surprisingly, even in terms of number of units, 59% of the number of units is being built on site, 25% off site and 16% in lieu. In terms of total projects, 83% are on site, 4% are off site and 13% are in lieu. I think this covers a wide scope of projects, many of which we don't see. Maybe our focus is more on those where there are issues and we see more of the in lieu fee, but it appears that statistics are different.

Craig Nikitas responded:

Commissioners we need to be circumspect in having any sort of discussion about something that is not calendared. I'd be glad to answer questions about it in terms of what Commissioner Antonini asked regarding the permits. There were a series of building permits approved for Medjool pursuant to the conditional use authorization granted by the Planning Commission for a tourist hotel and residential room hotel. The permits did show development of deck space on the roof but the permits were for usable open space for the users of the hotel rooms. There was never a permit issued that authorized a restaurant or bar on the roof. The only relief for that would be a legislative change that would allow such uses above the second floor in this use district. We are pursuing an enforcement case to correct the violations.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I just noticed that the Commission has been vetted in the Chronicle this week a number of times mainly surrounding American Apparel. There was one small thing that said we met for 9.6 hours last week and that a third of it was spent discussing the clothing store. We made the C. W. Nevis' Colum. I guess that's general purpose columnist. We made Andrew Ross' Colum in the Business Section and we made the Editorial Page under Ms. Milner. I guess everyone at the Chronicle feels that we were cast under some kind of magical spell since all of these references by these writers seem to think that there is something magical happening out in the Valencia area and that must be the reason we made the decision that we did. Strangely enough, I don't think any of them really addressed the key issues that were being raised and the reasons that we made the decision that we did. I was tempted to write something but I haven't done anything yet.

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Commissioner Sugaya, you neglected to mention – I have been told, I haven't heard this – that we got 20 minutes on Rush Limbaugh also.

Commissioner Borden:

I too noticed all the coverage that we got on that topic. One of the issues that came up last week was the issue of car share. What I think might be nice is if we codified, in relation to car share, a replacement policy. Because right now we don't have a policy for if someone is building on a site and there is more and more surface parking lots that is going to be developed in the future, there is more of a chance that car share will be impacted. I think is not likely that many of these projects will be more than 50 units but I think we should have some sort of replacement policy or in lieu fee or something that we should look initiating from the Commission level on that topic. The other issue that comes up quite a bit is issue around parking requirements and the fact that we changed them in Eastern Neighborhoods and in the [Market] Octavia Plan, but we haven't really done any substantive parking requirement changes in other transit corridors in the city. When we have projects we'll often cut back the parking or scale back the parking and I think it's fair if we kind of create some criteria and codify that it is fair because then developers know going in what the requirement and expectation is we actually put it in code what we have already been thinking.

Director Rahaim responded:

On the issue of car share, I've spoken to Matt Ford, Director of MTA, about the possibility that came up last week of having car share spaces on the city streets. He wasn't aware of any reason particularly why that couldn't happen, but we're going to have further discussions.

Commissioner Lee:

When I read the paper about Medjool's non compliance, I was thinking about the level of non code compliance of a lot of projects. Before Director Rahaim was here, I was involved in litigation in Chinatown where the past Chinatown Economic Development group took money from the city on a land use issue for open space when a building got replaced by a long-term tourist hotel. My question to the staff is the level of impact of non compliance and money. I think we had this discussion before. We have a code compliant section. We get a lot of calls about non compliance. We have a lot of illegal in-law units in San Francisco. So my question is what is the city doing about code compliance throughout the whole city? If you raise one issue here, what about all the other issues that you've gotten complaints about? I think this whole issue of non compliance of building issues – we should get a list together to figure out where we're at and take a look at it. I look at it and say we haven't been taking care of things that have been non compliant years ago. This whole thing that I have been involved in with litigation in the city and the money and the mis-use of funds for open space that the Planning Department approved as conditions of approval before I even came on the Commission. My question is how many more issues of non compliance that we know as a staff, as a department, that we are not enforcing?

Director Rahaim responded:

Commissioners, the challenge we have with code enforcement is how we prioritize the enforcement activities. We have a current set of priorities that are being evaluated. But you right, there is a huge backlog. In my view, since I have been here only a year, I have been shocked by this small number of code enforcement staff that have assigned to this function. That is one of the few parts of the Department that is still General Fund funded so that function is at risk. I also think that we need to have another discussion with you about these priorities and about what types of code enforcement activities should be prioritized over others.

Commissioner Olague:

I was going to bring up the question of enforcement during the budget discussion because I have some concerns just given the issues that have been raised here from 1250 Missouri to the Polk Street Senior project and other projects that are not code compliant or have enforcement issues for lack of a better description. If we have only two staff people and we have budget constraints, I'm not sure how we deal with it. I can understand how Director Rahaim might have some concerns as well with having a staff of two people on an issue that clearly is bleeding out all over the city. At some point I know we need to have a discussion on that. I have been receiving calls about the Medjool also. And honestly folks, there was nothing behind it. What I found the most amusing was sort of these insinuations that it was part of this greater conversation that I was sitting around having coffee with other people about this whole thing. I just came to this on my own. Actually, I have a mind of my own and I know it is hard to believe that some of us can actually think independently, but that is actually the case. The issue with the veto is maybe I wouldn't have handled it that way. Here at the commission, we voted for 85 feet. That is not the point. I was having concern with the process. People can chose for whatever reason however they want to arrive at decisions and justify it or rationalize it. I respect it, but I felt that it was a planning issue and as a planning commissioner I needed to highlight my concerns about how the process went down. I was more concerned with the process not really with the outcome. As for the Medjool, I just happened to be a little inundated with these enforcement issues that have been raised here from the public and others and I happened to sit in a workshop where the New Mission Theatre was being referenced as a case study on how to apply a certain tool that is being introduced here in the city. As I was reading through the Notice of Preparation the day before the Commission hearing, I caught the detail that the Medjool was not legal and had some enforcement issues and that the rooftop deck would become legal as a result of a special use district approval. I think that was another issue that concerned me too. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Medjool is a place where many people have enjoyed dining and the view from the rooftop deck, but none of us had been aware that there were any enforcement issues around that and I'm glad you have explained that today Mr. Nikitas so we understand the specifics of that. But that is not even the point here. I think I was concerned with the fact that there are all these enforcement issues that become the burden of the public, and I don't think that it should be the public that always brings these kinds of dramatic cases to us. It shouldn't always be the burden of the public to point these things out. My question was how often are enforcement issues legalized through a special use district approval; an approval that hasn't even taken place yet and is a few months away from occurring?

Craig Nikitas responded:

Commissioner Olague, in this case the application for the SUD will be withdrawn by the applicant. Which is why once that happens, we do have an enforcement issue here. Typically in cases when an applicant is pursuing a remedy through the Commission, a remedy that will eliminate the enforcement issue as the SUD would have and is a reasonable legislative thing to ask for on this block that also involves the highly desired adaptive re-use of the historic theatre and providing housing in a derelict department store, it seemed reasonable to put that before the decision makers – you [the Commission] and the Board of Supervisors to consider a special use district. There are people on both sides of the issue as to whether rooftop bars are appropriate in districts and that would have been before you. However now it will not. Under the Eastern Neighborhood zoning the New Mission and condo project can precede with a conditional use application and Medjool is on its own. We can provide you with a status report as it moves through the process.

Commissioner Miguel:

Commissioner Antonini and I were present at the Department this week where there was a discussion regarding discretionary review changes. It was extremely well attended and extremely well handled by staff. I think there were over 50 people there from many neighborhoods in San Francisco with some repetition but some very good suggestions. The staff has been working on this for some time and their outreach as evidenced by this and other meetings has been excellent and I would like to compliment them on that. This is one of the areas in which the Department is preceding and which I trust will be finished before the year is out. There are two other areas in which the Department is preceding also with public comment – one is the Housing Element and the other is notice standardization discussion within the Department. At the present time notices from the Planning Department go out to different geographic limits; they go out with different time limits because they come into the process over various time periods. It is confusing to the Department, for the Commission and to the public. There probably is no reason for it, or at least the Department is trying to figure out if there is good reason for not having at least a much more standardized system. For those of you who are interested, please check the agendas for Articles 10 & 11 discussions. The Planning Commission will coordinate to the greatest extent possible, with the new Historic Preservation Commission so that we do not have to have a total duplication of hearings; a total duplication of public comment and we can get things done in as an efficient manner as possible on this. At some time before the middle of the year there will be an announcement that DBI and Planning joint computer system will be finally coming to fruition. Other than that, I have had discussions with people regarding a couple of items on today's calendar – the matter on Broadway and Franklin; and also the Metro Theatre. As far as last week's Valencia Street situation is concerned, I have to mention that I took my wife out last night for her birthday at a restaurant a block away from that location on Valencia Street and weren't comped.

Commissioner Borden:

It was brought to my attention in the Cow Hollow neighborhood where there are existing wires that connect all the different cell phone companies, the PG wires that hang overhead. Recently there has been an increase of new boxes being attached to those wires, sometimes right in front of people's windows where more and more utility companies are adding things to these wires. What is the procedure for notification because people have not been receiving notification and all of a sudden wires are being weighed down with more and more utility boxes?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Very generally there is little procedure for notification. Much of those boxes are within state jurisdiction, or federal jurisdiction, but the utilities have the right to use the wires. There are other issues such as antennas and such, which I believe we had some litigation in the past and we are reviewing. I can't really comment on those. A lot of those [boxes] are state pre-empted

Commissioner Borden:

It seems like a safety hazard. Sometimes those wires are now hanging supper low on the street because they've been loaded up with things. There is nothing that we can do here?

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

We can consult with PUC and others. Generally I will say, that within the street right-or-way, the Commission does not always have jurisdiction. I don't want to make sweeping statements. There are times when we do have jurisdiction, but generally that is not within our jurisdiction. But we will consult with PUC and the City Attorney and see what the issues are.


6. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Just a few things to report: I had the great pleasure and honor of being a judge in the Chinese New Years parade last Saturday. It was my first time attending the parade. It was quite an event and a lot of fun. Yesterday, I also spent a little bit of time with John King, the Architectural reporter of the San Francisco Chronicle who is doing a story on my take on contemporary new buildings in the city and what direction the city might go. That is going to be the subject of the story in about a week. I want to bring to your attention a letter in your packet from the Mayor's Office of Housing regarding on site in lieu housing fees. Doug Shoemaker suggested writing this in light of a lot of discussion that happens at the commission about this issue. One of the surprises to me was that the majority of affordable units are provided on site. Much of that is project that you don't see at this Commission. And also what was interesting to me in that letter was the notation about the in lieu fee and how the affordable rental housing program, which the private market often does not provide. Doug has made the offer of coming to have a larger discussion with the Commission. If you would like to schedule a hearing on that, we would be happy to do that.

Commissioner Miguel:

I would think that if you would ask him to come next week when we are discussing Daly's legislation, it would be quite in order. His letter also mentions the fact that there has been a $20 million drop in revenue and there are at least six developments that are on hold because there is no funding.

7. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission.


Land Use:

  • 483 Bosworth Street, aka 1 Lyell Street (former CalTrain property) the Commission heard this on 8/8/08 – forwarded to full Board with recommendation for approval
  • India Basin Industrial Park Zoning Map Amendment – info only
  • Hayes Street two-way restoration from current one-way info only
  • Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan– info only


  • Supervisor Mirkarimi introduced some permanent controls for the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District for a new restricted use Subdistrict that would prohibit tobacco paraphernalia establishments from any side in the district


365 Fulton Street(southeast corner of Gough) – the Commission has not seen this case. It's at the west end of the Performing Arts garage. Until January 1st of this year, this project was in the Western Addition A-2. The project has been going through the Redevelopment Agency review process and has had close coordination and cooperation with the Planning Department. It is a five-story, 54 foot tall, mixed use building, contains 120 studio dwelling units, retail, social services and medical offices on the ground floor. It is proposed to be housing for the formally homeless. The project permit was appealed and before the Board last night for the following concerns: the appellant said they had only heard about the project recently; they had parking and traffic concerns; concerns about concentration of special-needs tenants; compliance with the current zoning; and lack of public notification. The appeal was denied 5 to 0.

1573 Haight Street is another case that would not have come to you. It was a letter of determination. There is an interpretation that allows wine tasting in liquor stores under very specific requirements. We are concerned that that wine tasting could morf into a bar or restaurant if that wine tasting happens from 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. Monday thru Sunday. The appeal last night was on accessory wine tasting to a chocolate shop in the Height Street Alcohol Restricted Use District. For two reasons I determined that [wine tasting] would not be an appropriate use. One is that it is in the height Street Alcohol Restricted use District and two; accessory uses are customarily those uses that are accessory. They can be normally seen. The Department did not feel that chocolate was normally sold in candy stores and wine in another. I was not successful. Supervisor Mirkarimi supported overturning my decision. The argument was made that the Alcohol Special Use District noted very specific d this was a different license (this was for a winery to sell off site). I was overturned 5 to 0.

1671 11th – was a DR that this Commission saw on 5/27/08. It was a vertical addition to an existing two-unit, two-story dwelling unit. Two DRs were filed. The Planning Commission took DR and approved the project placing a number of conditions on the project. One that there be an NSR to restrict the use to a two-family dwelling; (2) to eliminate all bathrooms on the ground floor; remove the roof deck at the rear of the building; remove bay windows at the front of the building. The Commission was overturned to allow a half bath on the ground floor. In essence you were upheld but with an added condition and the only way to do that is to over turn you and add the modification.



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

Budget FY2009-2010: DRAFT BUDGET, WORK PROGRAM, AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES - Informational Presentation to review and seek Commission advice on the Department's draft FY2009-2010 Budget Proposal, Work Program, and Performance Measures.

SPEAKERS: David Pilpel

ACTION: Informational only – no Commission action

9. (C. NIKITAS (415)-558-6306)

Briefing and discussionon "Lights Out for Birds" - Informational Item - a voluntary program to turn off unneeded building lights at night during key times of the annual migratory bird cycle. Past and current Conservation Directors of the Golden Gate Audubon Society will present information about the program, which has been successfully implemented in several cities, resulting in the saving of electrical power, money, and other resources, and greatly reducing bird mortality.

Preliminary Recommendation: - No action to be taken

SPEAKERS: Noreen Whitting

ACTION: Informational only – no Commission action


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.


Patricia Vaughey

Re: Metro Theater


10. 2005.0893E (B. Bollinger: (415) 575-9024)

1650 BROADWAY (a.k.a. 1622-1662 Broadway) - 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 seven-story, approximately 75-foot-tall, 55,900 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

SPEAKERS: Jim Ruben - representing Project Sponsor, Pia Heaphy, Sandie Wernick, William Grant, Susan M. Bartoaupi, Andrew Marefos, Barbara Paris, Diane Molberg, Barbara Wirth, Kathleen Delucchi, Amy Anderson, Juan Balcazar, Newcombe George, Ramesh Chandra Patel, Thurlo W. Petrich, Harold Young, Shaun Matlin, Vannesa Carrington, Pierre Gasztowtt, Alex Bevk;

ACTION: Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration was upheld

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


MOTION: 17821

11. 2008.0862C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1622-1662 BROADWAY - north side between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street, Lots 010 and 011 in Assessor's Block 0570 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 253 and 303 to allow development of a building that exceeds 40 feet in height. The project proposes new construction of a seven-story, 34-unit residential building with 49 underground parking spaces on a property currently used as a parking lot within an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) Zoning District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Jim Ruben - representing project sponsor, Ray Gurnick, Barbara Brooker, spoke in favor of project; Jane Winslow, Pia Heaphy, Sandie Wernick, William Grant, Susan M. Bartoaupi, Andrew Marefos, Barbara Paris, Diane Molberg, Barbara Wirth, Kathleen Delucchi, Amy Anderson, Juan Balcazar, Newcombe George, Ramesh Chandra Patel, Thurlo W. Petrich, Harold Young, Shaun Matlin, Vannesa Carrington, Pierre Gasztowtt, Alex Bevk, spoke in opposition to the project; Marie Bouquet and David Ruffin were neutral

ACTION: Following testimony, the Commission continued this item to 3/12/09. The public hearing remains open.

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


12. 2004.0764E (I. Nishimura: (415) 575-9041)

1634-1690 PINE STREET - northeast corner of Pine and Franklin streets; Lots 007, 008, 009, 0101, 011, and 011a in Assessor's Block 0647 - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project would involve demolition of five historic architectural buildings and a parking lot, and construction of a two-tower residential-commercial mixed-use building with an underground five-level parking garage on an approximately 35,460-square-foot site. There would be a 155-foot high, 15-story tower in the east portion of the project site and a 240-foot tall, 24-story tower in the west portion of the site. The two towers would be connected with an 18-foot tall entrance lobby. The project would include 283 dwelling units and approximately 6,400 square feet of ground floor commercial/restaurant space, and up to 317 parking spaces, for a total building area of approximately 377,815 square feet. The project site is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would require a Zoning Map amendment to reclassify the Height and Bulk District; and authorization of Conditional Use for a proposed project on a 10,000-square-foot or larger site within an NC-3 District and for a Planned Unit Development (PUD). In addition, the proposed off-site affordable housing project site at 800 Presidio Avenue may need to be approved as Special Use District (SUD).

Note: Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted in the Planning Department's offices until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required.

SPEAKERS: Bernard O'Discoll and Geraldine Clifford are in favor of the project; Alvin Hui, Michael Disend, Beatrice Wahlberck, Marilyn Jacbson, Jerome Jacbson, Jonathan Swain, Bettie Lichtman, Mel Flyer, Jerry Adams, Al Flanberg, Alex Bell, Pierre Gustav, Ms. Kimball, and Chris Boone, are in opposition to the project; Ralph Romberg and Christine Clark are neutral.

ACTION: Public hearing on the draft EIR – no Commission action

13. 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 The Commission may adopt the Baseline Inventory at this hearing or any hearing prior to March 15, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Baseline Inventory.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2009)


ACTION: Approved adoption of Attachment A, including the Commodore Hotel with an asterisk

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


MOTION: 17822

14. 2008.1110E (A. CONTRERAS: (415) 575-9044)

6600 Third Street - west side between Le Conte Avenue and Keith Street; Lot 9 of Assessor's Block 5476 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed demolition of a two-story, 43-room hotel ( Franciscan Motel ) and construction of a three- to five-story, 100 percent affordable residential building with 73 units, 8,685 sf of supportive services/common area, and a 21-space garage accessed from Le Conte Avenue. The 26,245 sf project site is located in a RM-1 Zoning District within the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan Area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

SPEAKERS: Abel Herrera - appellant, Steve Vettel - representing project sponsor

ACTION: Preliminary Negative Declaration was upheld

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


MOTION: 17823

15. [LANGUAGE FROM ADDENDUM] (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)

Adoption of the findings of the Market and Octavia Area Plan Survey (Survey) - Informational presentation and Proposed Adoption - 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.

preliminary Recommendation: Adopt staff's recommendation.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2009)

SPEAKERS: [under category A, Items Proposed for Continuance, David Pilpel spoke to request that this item be continued in whole, or hear the informational item and proposed action could be continued to a later date]

ACTION: Without hearing this matter, the Commission continued it to 2/19/09 to combine and consider the informational presentation and the possible adoption of findings of the Market and Octavia Area Plan survey as one item.

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

ABSENT: Antonini and Moore


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))


Adjournment: 7:58 p.m.

Adopted: July 9, 2009

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