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

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

August 6, 2009

August 6, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 6, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1: 40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Elizabeth Watty, Kevin Guy, Tim Frye, Mat Snyder, Lily Langlois, Sharon Young, Mary Woods, Elaine Forbes, Dan Sider, and Linda Avery – 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.

1a. 2009.0684D (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 – Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2008.12.01.7545 to demolish an existing single family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the demolition.

(Proposed for continuance to: September 24, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

1b. 2008.1379DDDDDV (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 Pennsylvania Avenue - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.01.7550 to construct a two family dwelling unit as the replacement structure to the proposed demolition of an existing single family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. Four separate neighbor initiated Discretionary Review requests regarding the replacement structure have also been filed and will be considered at this hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take DR and approve the new construction with modifications.

(Proposed for continuance to: September 24, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

1c. 2008.1379DDDDDV (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 Pennsylvania Avenue - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 - Request for Front Setback and Rear Yard Variances pursuant to Planning Code Section 132 and 134 for the construction of a new two family dwelling unit as the replacement structure to the proposed demolition of an existing single family dwelling within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. These Variance requests will be heard and considered by the Zoning Administrator. Two requests for Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, and four separate neighbor initiated Discretionary Review requests, regarding the replacement structure, have also been filed and will be considered at this hearing.

(Proposed for continuance to: September 24, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Miguel 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. 2009.0396C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

77 FARALLONES STREET - south side between Plymouth and San Jose Avenues; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 7108 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.1(f) and 303, to allow a second dwelling-unit to be added within an existing single-family dwelling that is located in the RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

MOTION: 17929

3. 2009.0513C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

69 CAMBON DRIVE - east side between Font Boulevard and 19th Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 7324 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 703.3, 703.4, 713.43, and 790.90, to allow a formula retail large fast-food restaurant (DBA Papa John's Pizza) to operate within the NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial, Shopping Center) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

MOTION: 17930

NOTE: Items 4 and 5 were pull off the Consent Calendar and heard as the first two items under the Regular Calendar

4. 2009.0374C (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

182 Gough Street - between Oak and Page Streets, Lot 014 of Assessor's Block 0837 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a medical service use within the ground floor of an existing building, within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial Transit District and the 50-X Height and Bulk District. Interior tenant improvements are proposed for the space; however, the exterior of the building will not be altered.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Justin MartinKovic – Project Architect

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

MOTION: 17931

5. 2009.0322C (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

617 SANSOME STREET - between Jackson and Washington Streets, Assessor's Block 0196; Lot 002. Request for a Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 249.25 and 303 of the Planning Code to change the legal use of the property from retail use to office use. The subject property is within a C-2 (Community Business) District with a 65-A Height and Bulk District, the Jackson Square Special Use District, and within the Jackson Square Historic District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Dennis Fisco – Representing the Project Sponsor, Steven Kodama - Architect, Eduardo Caceres – Architect, Keith McCullan, Sarah Stocking

ACTION: Continued to September 17, 2009. The public hearing remains open

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

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

6. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 16, 2009.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 23, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

7. Commission Comments/Questions

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

Commissioner Olague:

I'd like to begin this moment. Many of us were friends of Debra Stein. She passed away this last week. There were calls from the public and other commissioners wanted to set a time during Commissioners' Matters to acknowledge her.

Commissioner Lee:

First I want to adjourn this meeting today in honor of Debra Stein. I've known Debra over 20 years. In fact, I met Debra when I was working for the Health Department regarding possible radiation emissions off of Sutro Tower and I had a great opportunity to go up the tower. This was back in the late eighties.

Then I got to know Debra quite well when we both spoke at an EPA training for risk assessment and risk management.

But more important about Debra is that Debra wrote four books. What made her change her views about NIMBYism was that at one of her first hearings some person in the audience came up and actually spit at her. She decided to take a different approach saying that changed her mind about NIMBYism and [her focus became] how do you get neighborhood support. What she really came out with was people could always be against a project but why not get the people who are for the project to come out for the project.

Debra as many of you know graduated from Berkeley and then got her law degree. Even when she was taking her law degree at USF she was always been very different. She did well on exams but didn't show up in class. She actually told her professors that she could pass all the exams. Being the way Debra was, she did graduate and did very well. She became a very fast learning attorney. EPA hired her to do risk assessment training throughout the United States. She was well known at the Urban Land Institute. More importantly, no matter what side of the development spectrum you are &

I know she was very close to past Planning Commissioner Lisa Feldstein. Debra supported affordable housing. Lisa and I always had differences of opinions in development, but we were very close friends along with Debra. I will sorely miss Debra because I felt that I may disagree with her, or Lisa may disagree with her, but Debra was very human and very up front with you.

She was a good colleague of Bob McCarthy. Debra and her husband Jeff Heller actually met at a Planning Commission hearing. When they met they were actually on opposing sides is my understanding. They made a great couple. I'm going to miss Debra.

I think on the 19th of this month there is going to be a reception down in the North Light Court. We feel that it is well deserved and we are going to miss her.

Finally, to let you know how Debra was very good hearted, when we had the issue with the Peoples Republic of China's expansion to their private residence off of Monterey Avenue there was a lot of neighborhood opposition – [Supervisor] Elsbernd got involved. Debra actually volunteered her time to work with the Chinese Government to make sure they listened to the neighbors. After a couple of meetings and hearings, Debra became an expert on State Department regulations and rules and the State Department came here on behalf of Debra and the Chinese Government where if we had denied the permit for the expansion of the private residence of the Peoples Republic of China, the American Embassy, which is the largest in Beijing, they would have blocked that expansion. So we have to give Debra a lot of credit. She learned how to use chopsticks well. She got to know a lot of Chinese there.

I'm going to miss Debra more as a friend than as a professional.

Commissioner Borden:

I was a 25 year old girl living in Washington D.C. and I wanted to come to San Francisco and Debra Stein hired me for my first job and relocated me here. I owe her a great debt because she taught me most of what I know about planning. She introduced me to San Francisco politics. I had the privilege of working on Capital Hill and working for Senator Boxer and had a great experience in Federal Government. And she gave me the opportunity to work the first time in local government.

She saw me, a young person, eager for a new opportunity and wanted to learn and she really took me in. She was a friend. She was a mentor. She was a confidant. She's always been there with me from day one. I had a friend from college who had just come out to San Francisco that had finished her Masters in Public Policy and Debra gave her a job too to get her feet wet in public policy.

Throughout my entire career in San Francisco, Debra has been there. She was supportive of me through difficult times personally. She was advisor and friend to me that celebrated when I had great things that happened for me. Whether it was being a recommendation for a new job or just being there to listen. When I was given the privilege to serve on this commission, which I completely owe Debra for that, she sat down with me because I hadn't been working recently in planning and wanted to give me a refresher of all the different planning codes and procedures and things like that.

Throughout my entire career in San Francisco she has been an anchor. She has been a key person that I have always trusted and believed in. Even if we didn't agree on the issues, we always had a great conversation about the issues because she was always fair.

She was one of the most hard working people I ever knew. The time that I worked for her I was so impressed because a lot of times you know the people that you work for who are important and they run their own agency – they don't actually do the work – she did the work. She knew the Planning Code. She wrote her own memos. She had her own thoughts. I remember actually being really frustrated sometimes. When I first started I'd write a memo and then she'd completely write a brand new memo like my memo didn't even matter. But a lot of times that was what helped her think through the issues as she was seeing them. She taught me so much about hard work and how to think as it pertains to public policy in general and I owe her a lot for that skill and for that knowledge. Some people might have known that Debra could be very gruff or appear very gruff. I remember the first days working for her and she'd call you in her office and she would tell you really fast all the stuff she needed and then she would like – BY. And I remember thinking that I didn't get to ask a question. I don't really know what I'm supposed to do. But it was through those lessons that I learned how to think better, work smarter and get things done.

So I can not tell you what a great loss it is to me to see someone of such great integrity – and we don't really see that a lot of times here at the commission. There are lots of people that come before us, and a lot of people that work on the issues, but I always felt she was honest and fair. She would even try to represent, if you would ask her, what does the opposition or the other side think on this issue, she would even try to fairly represent what she thought they may believe.

For that I want to say THANK YOU for having her in my life. I'm so devastated that she will not be here any longer with us, but she will always live in my heart. Jeff, I want to say that my heart goes out to you. She meant so much to me and so many others. She was just really very generous with her time in general. I remember when I was at the Chamber and I had questions about a public policy related to planning and she would write me a memo. I mean nobody was paying her, but she would write me a memo to outline the issue. There are such rare times that you find somebody that has such generosity of spirit and I want to celebrate that today and thank her for all that she's done for me.

Commissioner Antonini:

During my time on the Planning Commission I've met a lot of people and developed some very good friendships. Many of these are people that would not necessarily agree with me on issues. But I think at the very top of that list would have to be Debra Stein and her husband Jeff Heller.

I was not on the commission very long when I was very surprised to get a cell phone call from Colorado. I think Debra was on vacation and she was very concerned about an issue. And it was an issue that really wasn't one that she was representing. It was some sort of generic city issue. But I was really impressed by the fact that she was so engaged and that her interest went far beyond just the issues that she was representing but rather a real concern for San Francisco and a concern for its improvement.

In fact she and her husband had recently established their permanent residence in San Francisco, or their primary residence, and she was very happy to have done that. In fact she asked me if I could help her register to vote, but she said that she probably would be registering for a different political party than I was in. And I said that I can probably understand that. I thought that was nice.

I was very happy that I was able to share dinner with her less than a month ago. We had a wonderful dinner and I'll always remember that.

I think that it is a great loss for San Francisco because there was an article – and I'm not going to go into detail now – in Insight. It was about a holiday magazine article in 1961 and the author basically lamented what appeared to be the disappearance of business and civic leaders from San Francisco. We don't have the people that allegedly we had in 1961 that were the subject of Herb Cain and other columnist, but I think we really do and did in Debra Stein. [She was a] bigger than life person who was very very engaged and involved in San Francisco and I will miss her greatly.

Commissioner Moore:

When somebody like Debra leaves in unexpected a way as she did, it leaves a void and I've been noticing that void since last Friday. I just speak into that void and say Debra, you are sorely missed.

Commissioner Olague:

At first I was a little nervous about meeting Debra because we were frequently on different sides of the issues. A mutual friend thought we should sit down and talk. They said that you probably have more in common than you realize. I think in terms of temperament sometimes we did. I think sometimes strong women, regardless of where you are in the political spectrum, will either clash more or will find that commonality and a certain kind of support that you give each other. So even though sometimes I'd pick up the phone and it was her voice on the other line I'd be oh geezz, I should have recognized the number. Then we'd start talking and what is interesting sometimes is if you can get beyond the surface things, the political issues or the projects or whatever, you find that there are other aspects of a person that are really rich. She had a lot of rich qualities.

Frequently we would talk about Jane Austen or the role of women in society or honor and what does that mean for women v men. We would get into these really fascinating conversations.

Even though on the surface you can have disagreements with people &

And there were times even with issues we were able to talk through the concerns and get to some kind of rational conclusion on things.

This was really shocking and really very sad. She was a huge resource for so many. Like I said, it wasn't always exclusively about being sold on something or being lobbied on all that other stuff. It wasn't always so mundane. There was also I think genuineness to her rapport with a lot of people. I'm glad that I got past my own concerns or fears and enjoyed a really nice friendship and moved forward with her. We will all miss her dearly. I want to thank Mr. Heller for being here. We all enjoyed knowing her.

Director Rahaim:

Obviously Jeffrey, she left a mark on this commission and on the staff. On behalf of the staff I offer our condolences.

I did not know Debra literally as well as all of you but I did have the good fortune a couple of months ago in Minneapolis of sharing a cab ride from the airport with her. And I learned on that cab ride about all of Debra's work with the APA – the conferences and workshops she had been giving at the APA for many years and how admired she was at the APA.

She also in her inimitable style commented on this very beat up brief case that I carry around and I can't bear to give up. I threw the brief case into the cab and she said  gee John isn't it time for a new one? I'll miss her energy and I know that staff will miss her mentorship. We are all better for having known her.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I met Debra probably in the late  80s. I was a very young planner and I think she was just starting her career also. She was obviously a regular at the Planning Commission with GCA Strategies, working with Bob McCarthy and working with Jeff on both very large projects and although some were small in size, they could have great controversy. She had I think a unique understanding of neighborhood issues and she took that to a national reputation on understanding how to understand what neighborhood concerns are, how to get people who would support your project, but also to understand what the opposition was about and where the common ground was. That is not always obvious but I think she tried very hard to find common ground and get a project people could accept – maybe not always feel happy about – but that there was a common interest in. I think she never took anything personally. Although in talking to her you might not realize that because she was very excited and very spirited about what she said and she could be out spoken. But at the end of it all it was okay this project's done and let's go out and let's have a drink or let's have lunch, or what's going on in your life? I think she was truly interested in the people she knew and their lives. She didn't tend to talk to me about women's issues and women's power, but that was an important thing. She had a connection perhaps with you; she had a different kind of connection with me. She had a broad background that she could bring that connection to a number of people.

She cared about planning tremendously and not only from a professional point of view of I'm going to be in front of the Planning Commission, but from a little bit more broad point of view. She represented a lot of public groups pro bono to make sure that they had adequate representation when they were coming before the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors.

She cared about the Planning Department. I think one story that is probably well known – in the early '90s we had the legendary breakthrough of a fax machine. But we didn't have one. The city didn't get fax machines. Businesses had fax machines. She said the city should have a fax machine. I'm going to go out and buy you a fax machine for the department. It couldn't be done. So she started the Friends of City Planning to provide technology background and technology support for things that the city could not do, or would not do, but to support the Planning Department. Staff has gone to numerous conferences that they would not have gone to. We have had numerous technical up dates of the first kind of technology that later on the city might accept – laptops (why would a city person ever need a laptop?). Well we need them a lot now. I actually got one of the first city laptops through the Friends of City Planning. I still use the same one.

She also mentored many planners. As a young planner you are kind of in this bubble. There is the Planning Code, there is what you get over the phone, there is the public and stuff like that, but there is a much broader interest. What arte the politics that are going on, not only about the project, but what are the politics going on in the city? That is an important thing. What are people concerned about? A young planner often doesn't get that opportunity to get the broader connection that a project might have to why is the Commission upset over this silly little one-idea project? Well Debra might know that and a young planner might not.

My sympathies go out to Jeff and everyone. I think we've lost a great planner.

Frank Noto, Partner, GCA Strategies:

I've been Debra's long time business partner for 15 years and we worked together for 26 years. This is a very emotional moment for Jeff so he asked me to come up and speak to you on his behalf.

First of all, all the qualities and comments that you made, Jeff feels those resonate very strongly with him. He wants to express his gratitude to you for not only your friendships but also all the things that you've said here today. That's very much appreciated.

Of the qualities you mentioned, I want to personally just take a moment to say a couple of things. Loyalty and a strong sense of ethics were what Deborah was all about.

Working with her every day and her acting as the managing partner of our firm, I saw that constantly, constantly. And she cared about her friends and she cared about -- she didn't talk about ethics, she didn't talk about integrity, she just did it.

So again I want to thank you all for everything you've said here today.

Thank you for your comments and your friendship.

On behalf of Jeff and the family and her friends, thank you.

Commissioner Olague:

I usually don't like to lead on before the other commissioners speak when I'm chairing meetings, but today I wanted to address an issue that is coming up next week, which is Hayes Valley and the Historic Survey. I spoke briefly with a member of the CAC yesterday, Peter Cohen, and he has to leave. Peter if you don't mind coming up and we can chat about it briefly and you can just mention your concerns.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Because you said the word  chat, let me just remind you that if it's not on calendar you can't have a discussion. He can bring it up, but &

Commissioner Olague:

He could do general public comment, but he's got to leave. That's the problem.

Peter Cohen:

I would ask respectfully that Dennis Richards also be able to address you at some point about the same issue.

I will first begin by wearing my Duboce Triangle hat and I also am the chair of the Market Octavia CAC. The proposal by staff to come back with increased heights for the upper Market area from Church west up to Noe is something that we knew was going to happen at some point when the historic survey was completed. Honestly it's come very quickly and has taken many folks by surprise. What we're here to ask respectively is that the Commission postpone the initiation hearing that is scheduled for next week to allow us a minimal amount of time to sit down with staff, look at the proposal, sort it out, get it right if you will and raise a consensus in the community and come back so the initiation and adoption of the ordinance process goes that much more smoothly. There is a perception in the community that once you initiate a process it's a clock ticking and it tends to create a pressure that frankly makes people not think as kind of clearly and calmly as I think the Commission would like. We feel really confident that if there is this window of time, let's say of 4 to 6 weeks, that with the Duboce Triangle as the lead organization, we can create a real constructive dialog with staff and community folks; find the right type of proposal; get the consensus and then be prepared to have a smooth adoption process.

Then quickly with my CAC hat on – I know it's not the CACs formal purview to be looking at either projects or policy proposals, but at the same time I think it is a responsibility of the CAC to know what is going on so that we have a broad field of view as the plan area changes over time and this was not something that was put on our radar. This sort of came up as a sort of footnote to a briefing at our last meeting a couple of weeks ago. Thank you.

Commissioner Moore:

I'm not sure if everybody listened to the Board of Supervisors hearing on Tuesday, July 28, but there was one event that I was very happy about and that was the approval by the Board of the Greater Union Square BID. I think that is an extremely important move. The BID itself has been an interesting phenomenon much observed by cities around the world. Now to expand at this particular time in that area is interesting to me and I'm very happy that has happened.

Commissioner Antonini:

I mentioned earlier the article in Insight by Richard Rappaport. There is also a response which talks about unintended consequences of some policy issues. I think it's a good read.

Also, I wanted to comment on an article in the San Francisco Business Times that mentioned that condos are in fact selling; that prices have fallen a lot, which is good for buyers and probably bad for sellers; and that residents, at least in one condo surveyed, live and work in San Francisco. They pointed out in particular that 128 Hayes has sold out; 74 New Montgomery only has 9 units left; & the Infinity has had 12 straight weeks of 9 or more units sold. Speaking in particular about the Infinity, I have learned that in a survey of their buyers, phase one, which is the first tower, is 97% sold and phase two, the second tower, is 50% sold. 75% of the buyers work in San Francisco and of those owners, 10% of the units are being rented; about 12% would be categorized as pieta errs; and 78% are the primary residence of the people who live there. While you can't judge all these projects, this is some information on one particular project which I think answers a lot of the questions and it would be helpful if we were able to get the information on all these other projects that seem to be selling, admittedly at a lower price than anticipated, but quite well.

Commissioner Borden:

I wanted to follow up on Mr. Cohen's request regarding the initiation process. Will staff be able to address that issue? It hasn't been adequately discussed at the CAC it sounds like, or &

Director Rahaim:

What is proposed for the calendar is simply initiation. There is no deadline. This is simply the start of the process. This is really the Commission's call if you would like us to delay the initiation and have more time to discuss with the community that is your call. But the actual action is only to start the process.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Initiation, for the public, is essentially the staff applying for the Planning Commission to do something. To say we think this is a good idea, we need to advertise it for you to have a public hearing. Staff can't do that on their own; it's the Commission that says it. I'm certainly not saying whether you should or shouldn't ask for it to be continued or not, but there is no action involved. You can't take action. It's just to say can we advertise for a public hearing sometime in the future. There is no timeline, but it just allows that to happen.

Commissioner Borden:

Initiation allows us to start drafting legislation? What is it specifically that &

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

It allows us to advertise for a public hearing. For example Commissioners, we could say we are going to have a hearing on September 17th. You could say we don't think we should have a hearing until the following things have happened, or we don't think we should have a hearing before October something, or whatever. But it just allows staff to move the process forward to advertise for a hearing for you to consider the amendments to the code.

Commissioner Borden:

So the hearing would be on the existing suggestions for heights and everything that is included in the Plan, or is the hearing on deciding &

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

The later hearing is on the proposal, and of course there are often multiple hearings. The first hearing is often very Performa. Yes, this is an issue we need to discuss. You are allowed to advertise it for a public hearing. If it raised concerns in the public, that certainly is a concern but initiation doesn't mean we can't go out to the neighborhood and discuss it. That's the whole point of it.

Commissioner Borden:

I guess it just sounds like we might have a hearing in a month or 6 weeks, and it sounds like we might not be ready to have a hearing in 6 weeks is the issue I guess.

John Billovits, Department Staff:

I wasn't expecting to talk about this, but I'm sort of involved in it on the staff side so maybe I can elaborate. The initiation item is for a specific set of legislative amendments to the General Plan and the Planning Code responding to the integration of the historic resource surveys that were underway when the Market Octavia Plan was originally adopted. There was a legislative structure put in place codified that required us to come back and go through certain procedures when those surveys were concluded and to come back and follow up which was sort of extraordinary at the time. That's what we are proposing to do. If the initiation hearing, actually this very discussion, this would be the subject of the hearing next week, which would be your decision as to whether to initiate the item or not. I would suggest that we take up that item with you as it is calendared next week and have the discussion as to whether you feel it is ready to initiate or what time frame it might be initiated in to next week.

Commissioner Borden:

I guess one of the questions is in the amendments we are looking at that are going to be included in front of us &

Commission Secretary Avery:

Okay, the City Attorney is talking to my back to remind me to stop you; that you are engaging in discussion on an item that is not on this calendar.

Commissioner Borden:

Okay. I was just asking about the hearing process, but that's fine.

There was another article in the Business Times that was talking about student housing and how there was a student housing project that was successfully built and that there is a huge need for student housing in the city, but that our code doesn't allow it to happen – not that it doesn't allow it to happen, but does inclusionary count for student housing? I thought that student housing was treated differently in the Planning Code. If not, maybe we aught to look at that as an issue because there is a huge discrepancy in the number of students that the city has and the amount of housing units. I was actually surprised in the article that it said that CCA which is here in the city actually provides some of their housing in Oakland because there is not housing to be provided here. So I just wanted to ask that question about the Planning Code, it there is a separate category for student housing and whether it applies just like any other housing category?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Let me review it. Usually what happens, student housing – dormitories are part of an institution. If you're doing a dormitory its not necessarily considered, I don't believe but I'd have to check, housing as private housing. If it's separated from the university, I'd really have to think about that functions and whether it would be subject to section 317. Let me consult with staff and I'll get back to you by memo or discussion or if it warrants a public discussion, we'll do that too.

Commissioner Borden:

Thank you. I guess it also leads into the conversation we were having with the Academy of Arts. I don't know if they actually pay, I mean I know they make spaces available for their students, but I'm not sure if the students were paying to the university or to the location. I'm not sure.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I maybe wrong, but I don't believe the Academy of Art has built any housing. They have purchased units. They wouldn't be subject to inclusionary if they are purchasing units. They [students] pay rent to the school is my understanding.

Commissioner Moore:

I called Mr. Badiner the other day asking a question which I unfortunately noticed. It brings me to the issue about conditions of approval. What do we approve? How it is interpreted? How is it implemented? How is it enforced?

Driving on Lombard Street, I saw that the Academy of Arts – and we had lots of discussions about it – on Lombard Street using the motel we approved to be used as student housing, [they] also interpreted that approval for parking at least 4 to 6 to 8 of their vans on the weekends. So it looks more like a MUNI barn than as some form of housing. While I'm making a judgmental comment here, but it struck me as being inappropriate and I wanted to hear Mr. Badiner's interpretation as to whether or not the approval we gave included this type of use as a parking lot.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioner you did ask me that question earlier this week. Staff is looking into it. Clearly your approval made no mention of long term parking of the shuttle buses. I think the Commission was very aware that shuttle buses were going to go by there; come on site and operate. Staff is reviewing it and I believe it will end up being an enforcement issue, but I don't have any definitive response yet. We are still doing the research on it. Our initial feeling is that it probably poses some problem. I'll get back to you as soon as we have an answer.

Commissioner Moore:

It is partially a visual, a blighting issue. We can know where our MUNI barns are and where shuttles should park and I personally don't think that we discussed that as part of what we approved.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

The Academy does have a bus yard somewhere I think in the south of Market or further south than that.

Commissioner Antonini:

I too would like to hear the same answer to what Commissioner Borden had questioned about this situation where colleges or universities (institutions) are building new housing that is not specifically and exclusively for students but not necessarily on their own campuses which seems as though it would not be subject to 312

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I don't believe it is but I will check into it because student dormitories are not residential units. Although they look more like an apartment, not all students live in the same kind of dorms that we did. But I don't believe that it is subject to section 317.

Commissioner Lee:

It just occurred to me that this student housing that was converted from a tourist hotel, isn't that illegal? We had the same issue with the Academy of Art University when they took a tourist hotel and made it into dorms. From my understanding they have to get a CU to do that anyway or am I off base?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I'm not familiar with the specific one you are talking about. I haven't read the article

Commissioner Lee:

In the San Francisco Business Times he stated he took a tourist hotel and made it into student housing and I thought about the Academy of Art University. We had that hearing here. It was my understanding at that time that they made the same mistake.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Well, if you got a change of use permit, it's probably a permitted use depending on what district it's in. In the removal of a tourist hotel, presuming it's under 100 units, might not require commission approval. It might be from our point of view an allowable use that requires a building permit to change it. I'm not familiar with the specifics but perhaps they got a building permit that changed the legal use from tourist hotel to a dormitory. I can see that happening as a building permit not necessarily even coming to the Planning Commission. It might be a permitted use.

Commissioner Lee:

Can you comment next week at the Commission as part of the Director's Report on that site?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I'll look at the article and get back to you.

Commissioner Olague:

Based on what staff has said, maybe the appropriate place for a discussion on initiation would be when the item is calendared which would be next week. I just want to emphasize that we do have and have always had a very productive, engaged, relationship with DTNA and HNA on not just the Market and Octavia Plan which was grueling, but now that the CAC is formed maybe we can have some &

I know that the CACs frequently are formed to [weigh in] when it comes to the community benefits and the allocation etc. But in this case I think that it may be that we want to look at ways where we can start engaging the CAC when it comes to all aspects of an Area Plan even if it is just an initiation. I know that the Commission won't be hearing about these details and about the historic survey until next week but I think to give the community a heads up is something that is respectful and just continues to build good will. There have been projects that have come up and we've had good engagement. We've ended up with better projects; better process. So I think to the extent that we can continue to extend that dialog with the community I think that is a win-win situation for all and it doesn't create unnecessary anxieties and whatever with the community that has really been awesome to work with I have to say. I think most communities are. I'm not trying to single you out, but it's been great working with those guys.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

The only thing that I was going to mention, and perhaps Linda was going to do this anyway, is we are working on a joint hearing with the Health Commission at your request to discuss the proposal for CPMC.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Basically what I've heard from the Health Commission is that they are not available for next week. The date that they offered was September 1st. I sent out an email and Commissioner Moore who is the primary requestor of this meeting is not available on that date. They came back and said that maybe the last week in August. Unfortunately that is during the time when we are in hiatus and not having meetings. I don't know what individual calendars are like, but that is as far as we've gotten. Staff is concerned that it might be as valid to have the meeting later because the item comes before you on September 17.

Director Rahaim:

The issue is that we are scheduled for September 17th as of right now for the Institutional Master Plan review. So we were hoping to have this item on your calendar before then. We will continue to work on some dates for you, but I just wanted to give you an update.

Commission Secretary Avery:

I would just say that it is very possible that we might not be able to do it on one of our Thursday hearings. We might actually have to look at another day.

Commissioner Moore:

I just want to say there is significant public interest in hearing this as a full discussion and that is why I hope we could find a Thursday to do that.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Again, if we have to have it on a different day, we actually have to find a room. If we do it on one of their hearing dates, I'm not sure if their hearings are broadcast. I just don't know. That is something I would have to find out. Again, we will do everything we can to accommodate this and get it before you as soon as we can.

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

Full Board:

  • TrinityPlaza Developer Agreement: This would update an adopted development agreement between the developer and the City for Trinity Plaza at 1167 market Street. This Commission approved and allowed the developer to build out all the parking for the entire development at the same time but mandated that it not all be available when completed. It could only become available as the corresponding buildings became available and physical barriers would be installed and removed as each building was constructed and became occupied. This Commission also did not allow the BMR units to be clustered on floors 3 – 5 but instead must be distributed throughout all the floors. You also would not allow the developer to reverse the break down of unit types from 10 1-bedroom units and 2 studio units to 10 studio units and two 1-bedroom units. Last week the Land Use Committee agreed with the Planning Commission and forwarded the ordinance to the full Board with those recommendations. This week the Full Board finally approved the ordinance with the modifications to the development agreement including the parking modifications as described and the rejection of the developer's requested changes to the 2 BMR issues.
  • Bicycle Plan Appeals: This Commission heard the draft Bicycle Plan EIR in January of this year and certified the FEIR and the related amendments to the General Plan and Planning Code on June 25th. There were two appeals on the Bicycle Plan EIR this week. The Board unanimously rejected both appeals and affirmed the certification fo the EIR. The Board also adopted the Bicycle Plan, the General Plan Amendments and the Planning Code Amendments. The Board did make one change to the Planning Code, choosing to strike the limited enforcement procedures and instead enabled the Zoning Administrator to weld the more powerful enforcement procedures outlined in Sections 176 and 176.1 for Administrative penalties.
  • 2901 California Street(aka) Drew School Appeals: The Board heard appeals on both the EIR and the CU (conditional use) on Tuesday. The appellants thought the EIR did not consider the full range of options. The Board felt the EIR was adequate and affirmed certification of the EIR unanimously. On the CU appeal, there were many questions for staff regarding the interpretation of Section 317. The Board felt that the  record did not adequately reflect the Commission's findings that the expansion of the school outweighed the loss of housing. Following a number of failed motions, Supervisor Alioto-Pier made a motion to table all items. Because that motion only needed a simple majority to pass, it did so on a 7 -4 vote (Dufty, Mirkarimi, Avalos, and Campos voted no). As a result,, the Planning Commission's decision stands.

Introductions:

  • 090962 & 090963 introduced last week by Board President Chiu regarding Tobacco Paraphernalia (TP) Establishments. The first ordinance would amend the Planning Code to 1) lower the threshold for stores to be considered a TP Establishment from 15% of the sq. ft of the occupied floor area to 10% or 10 sq. ft. of display area, whichever is less; 2) to make these TP establishments  not permitted in the Polk Street NCD; and 3) would change the period of non-use for a non-conforming TP establishment to be deemed discontinued in the Polk Street NCD from the current 3 years to 18 months. The second ordinance is an interim control requiring CU for TP establishments in the Polk Street NCD for one year.
  • 090991: This week six supervisors introduced an ordinance amending the Campaign & Government Conduct Code to prohibit members of City Board and Commissions from obtaining employment with the City during their tenure and for one year after termination of their service.

Commissioner Olague:

One thing that came to me during our deliberation of the Drew School is [a concern about] the loss of or replacement of rent controlled units. That I think that is something that happens frequently whether through demolition, merger, or other ways, and that is why I think we deliberate so long here sometimes on those issues. We frequently see the loss of those units. In the past I think there was another school where that occurred and I believe that there was an attempt to impose a fee. What I'm trying to say is that there hasn't been anything that has been consistently applied. At some point I would like to have a discussion about this issue, because that is what I had a lot of grief over. We have asked questions before about moving the housing, or imposing fees, or doing something to address the loss of rent controlled housing; but I don't think we have fully vetted that issue. There certainly isn't anything on the books that would indicate that there has been a consistent way that we address this issue. At some point I would like to have a real discussion about this. What do we do in the case where a project – good or bad – forces the loss of rent controlled housing units? What do we do? Right now there really isn't anything that we can legally do. Am I right Mr. Badiner?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I'm sorry, I was taking notes, but I think your question is can we impose a fee for the loss of the housing? I would say that the best way to do that is if the Commission either had either a policy or had actual legislation to do it. In the distant past, we did that on the Urban School which the building that was built and it was imposed upon opened four years ago, do it was about six years ago that it was before the Commission. I know that we often raise the issue for the Commission's consideration, but we have not imposed it. We could take the issue up and consider whether or not we do a policy or actual legislation in consultation with the City Attorney. Something we did six years ago, I would say we shouldn't do on an ad-hoc basis.

Commissioner Olague:

The message I got from the Board is that there should be a policy in place that addresses the loss of rent controlled units. And I'd like to have a discussion about that. I don't know if other commissioners are interested. I don't know what the conclusion of that discussion will mean, but between Supervisor Daly wanting to move the units and Supervisor Campos attempting to provide three rent controlled units elsewhere, I think the message I'm hearing loud and clear is that we don't have a real substantive policy in place that would allow us to have a real discussion about how do we weigh this type of &

[Commissioners Antonini and Lee stated their support of a discussion]

Commissioner Olague:

Can we calendar something for the third week in September?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I think that gives us enough time to put something together and give you a case report that discusses the issue.

Commissioner Olague:

That would be amending Section 317 and what to do in this type of situation.

BOARD OF APPEALS:

430 Main Street: Appeal on the open space variance for the construction of an eight-story, 84 foot building with up to 113 dwelling units over a below-grade parking structure for up to 57 spaces that does not meet the dimensional and/or exposure requirements for open space. The Board voted 2-2-1 (President Fung and Commissioner Mandelman in opposition with Commissioner Goh absent) to uphold the Planning Commission exception determination and Zoning Administrator variance decision.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

No report – The Commission did not have a meeting

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:

Dennis Richards – Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association re: Initiation of Market Octavia Historic Area Plan Survey Integration

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

10a. (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT SURVEY AREA C (AKA INDIA BASIN SHORELINE) COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS - Informational Presentation on the India Basin Shoreline Community Planning Process. In August 2007, the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency began a collaborative planning process to develop new land use controls and amend the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area to include the India Basin Shoreline. This informational presentation will focus on the community planning process to date, and provide an overview of the draft Sub-Area Plan and related materials presented and distributed at the community workshop on June 25, 2009.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 23, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Jill Fox, Michael Hamman, Kristine Enea, Jerea Brown, Mori Gaffney, Pauline Peel, Courtney de Vega, Rena Acosta

ACTION: Informational only – no action required

10b. 2009.0523U (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT SURVEY AREA C (AKA INDIA BASIN SHORELINE) - Approvalof the Bayview Hunters Point Survey Area C Preliminary Plan, a Redevelopment document that initiates a process to amend the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area to include India Basin Shoreline. The subject area is generally bounded by Jennings Street to the northwest, the Hunters View Housing site and Innes Avenue to the southwest, Earl Street to the southeast, and the San Francisco Bay to the northeast; and includes: Block 4580, Lot 002; Block 4596, Lot 025; Block 4596, Lot 026; Block 4597, Lot 021, 025, 026; Block 4602A, Lot 014; Block 4603A, Lot 005; Block 4604A, Lot 002; Block 4605, Lot 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019; Block 4606, Lot 025, 026, 100; Block 4607, Lot 024, 025; Block 4620, Lot 001, 002; Block 4621, Lot 016, 018, 019, 020, 021, 100, 101; Block 4622, Lot 007, 008, 012, 013, 016, 017, 018, 019; Block 4623A, Lot 002; Block 4629A, Lot 003,004, 005, 006, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013; Block 4630, Lot 002, 005, 006, 007, 100; Block 4631, Lot 001, 002; Block 4644, Lot 001, 002, 002A, 002B, 003, 003A, 003B, 004, 004A, 005, 005A, 006, 006A, 007, 008, 009, 010, 010A, 010B, 010C, 011; Block 4645, Lot 001, 002B, 003A, 004, 006, 007, 007A, 010, 010A, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 030, 031, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046; Block 4646, Lot 001, 002, 003, 003A, 005, 005A, 006,006A, 007, 009, 010, 011, 012, 019, 020, 021. According to state law, the Planning Commission must approve and submit a Preliminary Plan, containing proposed boundaries, goals, and general land uses, to the Redevelopment Agency, to initiate amending an existing Redevelopment Project Area to include an additional area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve motion to formulate the Preliminary Planfor Survey Area C and find it generally consistent with the San Francisco General Plan and submit to the Redevelopment Agency.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 23, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 10a

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

MOTION: 17932

11. 2009.0417C (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

1000 VAN NESS AVENUE - between Myrtle and O'Farrell Streets; Lots 014 - 016 in Assessor's Block 0715 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 209.8(d), 178(e), and 303 of the Planning Code to convert vacant second floor office space into a full-service restaurant with bar, cabaret, and comedy club (dba Holly's) within the AMC 1000 Van Ness Cinema building. The subject property is within the RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, 130-E Height and Bulk District, the Van Ness Special Use District and the Special Sign District for Illumination. The AMC 1000 Van Ness Cinema building is San Francisco Landmark No. 152. The proposed restaurant/cabaret would occupy approximately 5,575 square feet of the building's second floor, where the dining/bar areas and entertainment stage would be located. The second floor space would be accessed by the interior staircase located at the rear of the cinema lobby. The cabaret ticket booth, kitchen, food preparation area and offices would occupy approximately 2,600 square feet of the building's first floor, where such use is principally permitted. The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the existing commercial space. There will be no alterations to the exterior of the AMC 1000 Van Ness Cinema building or any expansion to the existing building envelope.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: Holly Horn – Project Sponsor, Stefano Cassolato, Doug Kam - Architect

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

MOTION: 17933

12. 2009.0524C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2675 GEARY BOULEVARD - southeast corner at Masonic Avenue (aka the City Center); Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 1094 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a  formula retail use (dba Marshalls and Home Goods) pursuant to Sections 303(c), 303(i) and 703.4 of the Planning Code, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X/80-D Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

MOTION: 17934

13a. 2008.0315D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

829 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue between Argent and Dixie Alleys, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 2778 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.29.9251, proposing the demolition of a single-family dwelling, located in the RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 9/3/09

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

13b. 2009.0062D (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

829 CORBETT AVENUE - east side of Corbett Avenue, between Argent and Dixie Alleys, extending through to Market Street, Lots 016 & 029 in Assessor's Block 2778 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.29.7248, proposing the construction of a new four-family dwelling, located in the RM-1 (Residential Mixed, Low-Density) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 9/3/09

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

14. 2009.0454T (E. Forbes: (415) 558-6417)

General Advertising Program Cost Recovery - Consideration of amendments to Planning Code Sections 303, 358 and 604.2, and Administrative Code Section 10.100-166 to revert the fee increase for the annual inventory fee in FY2010-2011 for cost recovery; expand the Planning Department's Code Enforcement Fund sources and uses to enforcement of all Planning Code violations; and to make clarifications to the program.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Amendments

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 9, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Anthony Leones – CBS Outdoor and Michael Burk – Clear Channel Outdoor

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Miguel and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17935

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))

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: In Memory of Debra Stein at 6:15 p.m.

Adopted: September 3, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:40 PM