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

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

January 14, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, January 14, 2010
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting

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

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

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Rick Crawford, Glenn Cabreros, Tom Wang, Elaine Forbes, Alicia John-Baptiste, Tara Sullivan, Tim Frye, Sara Vellve, Pilar LaValley, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2009.1065T (A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Development Stimulus and Fee Reform - The Planning Commission will consider three proposed Ordinances introduced by the Mayor as described below. In addition to these three Ordinances the Commission may consider related amendments to the existing City Codes governing planning fees and processes. The three ordinances introduced by the Mayor are:

091251-2 [Development Fee Collection Procedure; Administrative Fee] - This Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 107A.13 to establish a procedure for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to collect development impact and in-lieu fees, to provide that the fees are payable prior to issuance of the first building permit or other document authorizing construction of the project, with an option for the project sponsor to defer payment to prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy upon agreeing to pay a deferral surcharge on the amount owed that would be deposited into the same fund that receives the development fees, to require that any in-kind public benefits required in-lieu of payment of development fees are implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, to require DBI to generate a Project Development Fee Report prior to issuance of the building or site permit for the project listing all fees due with the opportunity for an appeal of technical errors to the Board of Appeals, to establish a Development Fee Collection Unit within DBI and a fee for administering the program; adopting findings, including environmental findings.

091252 [Affordable Housing Transfer Fee Restriction Alternative for Inclusionary and Jobs Housing Linkage Programs] -This Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 313.4 and 315.5 and by adding Section 313.16 to add an alternative for compliance with the Jobs Housing Linkage Program and the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program by allowing a project sponsor to defer 33% of its obligation under either Program in exchange for recording an Affordable Housing Transfer Fee Restriction on the affected property providing that 1% of the value of the property be paid to the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund at every future transfer of the Property.

091275-2 [Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees] - This Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by creating Article 4 for development impact fees and development impact requirements that authorize the payment of in-lieu fees; by adding Section 402 to provide that all Planning Code development impact and in-lieu fees will be collected by the Department of Building Inspection prior to issuance of the first building permit or other document authorizing construction of the project, with an option for the project sponsor to defer payment to prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy upon agreeing to pay a deferral surcharge on the amount owed that would be deposited into the same fund that receives the fees; by requiring that any in-kind public improvements required in-lieu of payment of development fees are implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project; by moving Planning Code Sections 139, a portion of 249.33, 313-313.15, 314-314.8, 315-315.9, 318-318.9, 319-319.7, 326-326.8, 327-327.6, and 331-331.6 and Chapter 38 of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Transit Impact Development Fee) to Article 4 and renumbering and amending the sections; adding introductory sections for standard definitions, payment and collection procedures, conditions of approval, dispute resolution and appeal procedures, waivers, reductions, and refunds, notice, lien procedures, annual Citywide development fee reports and fee adjustments, and development fee evaluations every five years; by providing for an appeal of technical fee calculation issues to the Board of Appeals rather than the Planning Commission; requiring the Controller to issue an annual Citywide Development Fee Report; deleting duplicative code provisions and using consistent definitions, language and organization throughout; adopting findings, including Section 302 and environmental findings; providing that the ordinance's operative date is March 15, 2010; and instructing the publisher to put a note at the original location of the renumbered sections stating that the text of those sections has been moved and providing the new section number.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 10, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to January 21, 2010)



SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2008.0395E (I. NISHIMURA: (415) 575-9041)

2130 Fulton Street - University of San Francisco Center for Science and Innovation - north side, between Golden Gate, Masonic, and Parker Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 114 - Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The approximately 80,000-square-foot project site is on the Main Campus of the University of San Francisco, in the existing Harney Green and Harney Plaza area. The proposed project includes removal of Harney Green and Plaza; site excavation; and construction of a three-story with a partial fourth floor, 53-foot high building with a partial basement, which would connect on all floors to the south end of the existing Harney Science Building, and a below-grade, two-level structure, which is also a component of the proposed project. The roof of this building would serve as a new plaza and pedestrian area. Together, the new structures would have approximately 60,000 square feet of classrooms, laboratories, instrumentation rooms, and building mechanical/support spaces. The project site is within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would require Conditional Use Authorization for a post-secondary institutional use in an RH-2 District, and for exceeding a building height of 40 feet in an R District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 3, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 11, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2008.0395C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

2130 Fulton Street - north side, between Fulton Street, Golden Gate, Masonic, and Parker Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 1145 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3 253, 303 and 304 for the University of San Francisco to construct the Center for Science and Innovation in an approximately 40,000 square-foot building approximately 53 feet in height in the location of Harney Green, and a two-story 20,000 square-foot below-grade educational building below Harney Plaza for a project that will include classrooms, laboratories, instrumentation rooms, building mechanical/support spaces and up to two off-street loading spaces within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 3, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to February 11, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

* 2005.0963E (B. BECKER: (415) 575-9045)

CRYSTAL SPRINGS PIPELINE NO. 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT - Informational Presentation and Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 (CSPL2) Replacement Project. The Project proposes to upgrade and replace portions of the CSPL2, which extends (south to north) from the Crystal Springs Pump Station at the base of Lower Crystal Springs Dam in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County, through the Town of Hillsborough and the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Daly City, and into the City and County of San Francisco, terminating at the University Mound Reservoir in southeastern San Francisco. The SFPUC has identified 19 sites along the 19-mile CSPL2 alignment where improvements are proposed to meet seismic reliability level-of-service goals. The improvements include pipeline rehabilitation and seismic retrofit activities at 15 sites and general improvements to protect the pipeline from corrosion and exposure at 4 sites. In addition to these improvements, the SFPUC proposes to install new cathodic protection equipment at 9 locations and insulated flange joints (referred to as electrical isolation) at 31 locations along the CSPL2 alignment to further protect the pipeline from corrosion. Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department’s offices until the close of business on January 25, 2010.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

NOTE: Due to inadvertent omission from the agenda this item is proposed for continuance to January 21, 2010).

*This item was taken from an addendum that was posted after the 72-hour notice deadline

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without Commission consideration, this item was moved to 1/21/10

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

4. 2009.0423C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

672 Sacramento Street - north side between Kearny and Montgomery Streets Lot 016, of Assessor’s Block 0227 - Request under Planning Code Section 810.55, Tourist Hotel and a Mandatory Discretionary Review for proposed reduction in size of dwelling units - The project would develop a hostel (tourist hotel) on the third and fourth floors of the existing building and would relocate a dwelling unit on the fourth and fifth floors to the fifth floor only. This project lies within the Chinatown Community Business District and within the 50-N Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Devon Overby – Representing the Project Sponsor

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 18008

5. 2009.0798C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

659 Columbus Avenue - at the southwest corner of Columbus Avenue and Filbert Street Lot 003, of Assessor’s Block 0101 - Request under Planning Code Sections 722.21, and 722.42 nonresidential use size greater than 1,999 square feet and expansion of a Full Service Restaurant - The project would legalize the placement of a 124 square foot “cable car” trailer in the parking lot for the take-out portion of the restaurant’s business. The project would also include the development of a 540 square foot patio for the placement of tables and chairs for restaurant customers. This project lies within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Marsha Garland – Representing the Project Sponsor; Joan Wood speaking in support

ACTION: Following hearing, continued to 2/4/10 – Public hearing remains open

AYES: Moore, Sugaya, Olague & Miguel

NAYES: Antonini, Borden & Lee

6. 2009.1056C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

1400 California Street - northwest corner of California and Hyde Streets Lot 007, of Assessor’s Block 0249. Request under Planning Code Sections 723.42, Full Service Restaurant and 723.27, Hours of Operation. The project would convert the existing nonconforming Large Fast Food Restaurant to a Full Service Restaurant and provide extended hours of operation until 3 am on Friday and Saturday nights. This project lies within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial and within the 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Chiawat Law-Pattanapong – Project Sponsor spoke in support; Robert Garcia – Save Our Streets, Linda Chapman, and Dawn Trennert – Middle Polk Neighborhood Association spoke in opposition

ACTION: Approved with amendments to allow the hours of operation to 3 a.m. to sunset in 6 months with a review by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) who may schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission who may authorize the ZA to continue the 3 a.m. time.

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Olague & Miguel

NAYES: Moore & Sugaya

MOTION: 18009

7. 2009.0946C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

727 41st Avenue - west side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Assessor's Block 1603, Lot 004 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 209.3 and 303 of the Planning Code to allow a residential care facility for ten persons within the existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Lucy Foronda - Owner and Leonardo Redada – Project Architect spoke in support; Rose Kelly and Daniel Grogg spoke in opposition

ACTION: Following hearing, continued to 2/4/10 – Public hearing remains open

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

8. 2005.0252C (T. Wang: (415) 558-6335)

237, 239 & 241 MINERVA STREET - on the south side of Minerva Street between Capitol and Orizaba avenues; Lots 069 and 070 in Assessor’s Block 7092 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 121(f) to subdivide a lot into two lots with each new lot having a width less than the minimum required lot width of 25 feet and Section 317(d)(2) to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in order to construct a new single-family dwelling on each of the two new lots within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 18007

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.



9. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 10, 2009.

· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of January 7, 2010.



SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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



10. Proposed adoption of Planning Commission’s hearing schedule for 2010.



SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 1/21/10

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

11. 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:

A couple of items in the paper that I thought were note worthy: The first is an article by John Nolte in the paper on January 3rd about the Duboce Park neighborhood and the changes over a span of time from 1972 to the present. A lot of times we have to look at our land use policies and make sure we are always encouraging people to renovate and improve their property to the highest amount possible. We have to be able to still take into consideration affordable housing. I think that by realizing more fees and revenue from these improvements we can build projects for affordable housing. Trying to keep places in disrepair with the idea being that these will provide for affordable housing is a disservice to everyone concerned.

The other thing I found that was interesting was part of a SPUR report that talked about contrast between transit systems in the Bay Area and in Washington DC. In the one area they said we were doing a bad job was the establishment of transit villages close to where the stops were. We haven’t done much of that in the Bay Area. We are beginning to see some of it parts of the East Bay. I think we have to look seriously in San Francisco where possible – look for more densification and transit villages in areas that are close to the transit stops – putting people closer to transit where we can. I know these issues will come up in the next year.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I have a question for Director Rahaim. Are you familiar with the Washington (DC) metro area governments at all? Do they have more of a regional system in place?

Director Rahaim:

Sort of. They have something called The National Capital Planning Commission that covers the district and Maryland and some county in Virginia. They have some jurisdiction but not as much as you would have here.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I was going toward the direction that perhaps they had more transit villages because the regional system was more coordinated in terms of land use issues where as here it is totally everyone doing their own thing.

Director Rahaim:

I think there is pretty close coordination between Metro, which is the transit system, and those counties. But it is not necessarily the coordination that is mandated or codified.

Commissioner Sugaya:

On another observation: On next week’s agenda there is a 6:00 agenda item which is 555 Washington. The calendar starts off with the certification of the final EIR, which needs to take place before we can consider the rest of the items on the agenda relative to that project. I understand then that Sue Bierman Park and the shadow issues are then calendared before our consideration of the actual project because it’s supposed to be a joint hearing with the Rec/Park Commission. But is seems a little backward to me to be having Rec/Park involved in shadowing issues and Sue Bierman Park issues when the Commission hasn’t even rendered an opinion as to whether the project can be approved.

Zoning Administrator Badiner responded:

Commissioner, in order for the project to be approved, Park/Rec and the Planning Commission must understand the shadows and consider them. They have to make findings on the parks. So without the findings made on the parks, the commission can’t approve them. You have to make a determination that the shadow that is created is acceptable before you can approve the project.

Commissioner Sugaya:

So if it is inappropriate, what happens to the project?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I think that we should probably discuss that under the calendared item.

Commissioner Lee:

Regarding the metro system in Washington DC, I happened to be going to school at that time when they started breaking ground. It is not just Montgomery County. You’ve got (other) counties. What they had was quite a bit of federal funding. They have a greater advantage in Washington DC than we do here because the feds funded most of that project.

On December 29th there was an article in the Chronicle about “What Tourist Don’t See in Chinatown.” This is an issue that they talk about affordable housing and the lack of housing. Well part of the problem is 30 years ago, some of the people that are criticizing the city now for lack of affordable housing are the ones that put in certain historical standards that you can’t demolish buildings. And the zoning is so complex in that area that you really can’t, without making major changes to the Planning Code, develop more housing. Chinatown is dying. They all know that. I think right now there is a political will to change some of the zoning on Broadway, Kearney and also Stockton. So I’d like to get a one page summation of the zoning in Chinatown – what it is right now. I’d like to speak to some of the people on the Historical Preservation Commission to see what areas we can have meetings of both commissions in maybe rezoning Chinatown so that we can have higher density for affordable housing.

Commissioner Borden:

On that Washington thing, one of the major differences also is that their transit system is designed to get people around the city as well as out of the city, where our system is designed very much to get people into and out of the city but not around the city. And also their phasing of their new metro stops all around the area including the exterior areas, they really look at where growth and development is happening and they plan to grow in those areas. I think that is a really smart thing. There is an agency that controls the Washington transit system (like BART) and looks at the growth patterns in a better way than we do.

Commissioner Moore:

I’d like to express my concerns about next week’s calendar. I believe that the severity of the issues in front of us next week starting with the Development Stimulus and Fee Reform item which is very important to give appropriate time to. Then it continues with the items Commissioner Sugaya mentioned that start at 6 p.m. I’m sorry to be so verbal about it, but I do believe it to be an abuse of our time and our capabilities to act responsible and be alert. I have to assume, knowing what the issues are including the response to an unusually long and critically Draft EIR of 555 Washington, it will take us to 2 or 3 (a.m.) at night. Since we are tasked with making very difficult decisions, not even talking about how I feel about it or whatever, I do think that it is tasking, at least my capabilities to be alert and present. These are very weighty issues and I do think it is not very well scheduled.





Commissioner Antonini:

From what I’ve heard, I haven’t seen the entire calendar yet, it seems fine with me. Remember we are starting at 10:30 I think – 11(a.m.). That gives us two and a half extra hours for some extra time depending on if we put a lunch in there. I’m fine with it, although if there is a possibility and there are some items that are not as time critical as the more important issues; if there is anything that could be moved off of there to expedite it that would be fine. But for me I think the important items are the ones that have a lot of time-critical nature should probably be kept on.

Director Rahaim:

Commissioners, the reason that we did it the way we did it was (1) because of the joint hearing needs of the Rec/Park Commission; and (2) we moved the hearing up hoping we could have a gap between the end of your regular meeting and the start of the joint hearing. Rec/Park preferred meeting late because they have their regular meeting that starts at 4 p.m. We had a number of different contingencies facing us on this issue.

Commissioner Miguel:

I would like to commend Ms. Avery on the struggle she went through trying to get this thing through – first of all scheduling it at all, let alone at a particular time. It was not easy this time.

Commissioner Moore:

I’m not debating that it was very difficult to schedule that. I am pointing out that there are other issues like the Fee Stimulus and Crystal Springs Pipeline. We are packing it on and there is no other room to give. In addition to that, the majority of us also have jobs. We work. We go to work every too. It’s not just starting here at 11 o’clock and staying here until 2 o’clock at night.

Commissioner Miguel:

Just to report in: I had meetings this past week with Supervisors David Chiu and Eric Mar on items. I’m sending a letter, not technically from the Commission, but from myself on the Commission, thanks to Sheriff Mike Hennesy for the assistance that his Deputy Sheriffs give to us. We had particular need for them a short time ago, and particularly when we have overflow rooms. They have been very capable in a cordial manner considering the handling the people who come to our meetings and are very considerate of our time, so I thought that was in order.

The question on transit in Washington DC, tomorrow I will be at a panel in Berkeley that is discussing SB-375 and the relationship between transit and housing. The Washington DC system is one of the items that is coming up on that as well as the inadequacy of what we have locally here.

Commissioner Olague:

I’d like to ask the Department if they know of any studies that look at the connection between affordability and smart growth or dense housing near transit corridors because usually the economic equity issue gets always gets left out. I want to understand that a little bit better. We have this understanding that as the building rises so does the cost of construction. So how do we reconcile the idea of providing work force housing near transit corridors if it’s not done necessarily in an equitable manner? I want to know what the breakdown is and if there are any studies that have done on economic equity issues as they relate to smart growth.

Commissioner Miguel:

Commissioner Olague, the conference I’m attending tomorrow is the Social Equity Conference and it is dealing particularly with low-income communities. So I hope I’ll get some information and be able to bring it back to you.





D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT



12. Director’s Announcements



Director Rahaim:

The Land use Committee will have its next hearing on DR Reform on February 22nd and they have asked us to have additional meetings in advance of that time. We will have meetings at the Planning Department on January 27th and February 2nd at 6 p.m. For both of those dates we have invited community members to come to hear additional information and provide feedback.



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



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Land Use Committee:

· Housing Practices of the Academy of Art University – Supervisor Mar requested a hearing on the housing practices of AAU. The Committee heard presentations by Planning Department staff, DBI, Housing Inspection, Fire Department and the SF Rent Board. The discussion centered on the various Planning Code and other municipal code violations by AAU over the last decade as well as the implication of these violations on the city’s housing stock. The Committee expressed a desire for more definitive action to rectify current violations and to prevent future violations of municipal Codes. To that end, the Zoning Administrator discussed: (1) pursuing further enforcement actions against properties that were converted to AAU use after submittal of the environmental review; (2) the production of a timeline for environmental review; and (3) the possibility of taking existing CU applications to the Planning Commission for denial if timelines were not adhered to. Other ideas discussed at the hearing include (1) potential for new impact fees on private universities (similar to existing jobs/housing linkage fees imposed upon office uses; (2) removal of signs on properties that feature use violations and legalization of signs on properties that do not have use violations, and (3) a task force of relevant city agencies to coordinate compliance with City Codes. The item was an informational hearing and closed after approximately 1.5 hours of public comment.

Full Board of Supervisors:

· 5 Foot Bonus for Active Uses in a limited area in District 11 – On November 11/11/09, this commission recommended approval of this item. The Ordinance would provide up to a f-foot height increase where the additional height is applied to an active ground floor. When you heard the item you recommended approval with two modifications: (1) that the bonus apply to NC-1 zoned parcels in the vicinity (not just those that front Broad or Randolph Streets); and (2) that the bonus only apply to development proposing commercial uses on the ground floor. At Committee, Supervisor Avalos amended the legislation to accommodate both of the Commission’s recommendations. With those amendments, the Board finally approved the ordinance this week.

· CU Appeal of 1969 California – This commission granted a CU for this property to establish a commercial use in a designated city landmark when the landmark is located within a residential district on 10/8/09. At the hearing the Board seemed to agree that the gallery was an appropriate use. The issue of concern was what constituted an “event” and what kinds of non-art gallery events could occur in the space. The Board upheld the Planning Commission and added the following conditions to the CU: (1) Deliveries related to art gallery to occur on street cleaning days; (2) valet parking for events must arrange off-street parking for all vehicles, no use of street spaces. Valet parking operations must not unreasonably obstruct driveways at any time; and (3) No residential parking permits shall be sued by gallery employees. Alternatively, the gallery must provide employees with off-street parking.

Introductions:

· The Mayor & Board President Chiu introduced two pieces of legislation in light of the recent court decision titled “Palmer/6th ST Properties vs. City of Los Angeles.” While the impact of this decision is not certain, the case may affect inclusionary requirements, especially as they relate to rental projects in San Francisco and other jurisdictions. The two pieces of legislation include: (1) a resolution establishing interim controls for Section 315 of the Planning Code: Affordable Housing Program; and (2) an ordinance amending Section 315 to change the Inclusionary Housing Requirements to an Affordable Housing Fee Program. The interim controls will ensure that projects currently moving through the entitlement process will conform to the requirements of the draft ordinance and thus will be consistent with the final ordinance/code changes when they are enacted. The permanent controls propose to modify Section 315 to a fee-based Affordable Housing Program, requiring all projects to pay an affordable housing fee to MOH: Under this proposal if a developer chooses to have the units be for sale or if they receive public assistance, then they retain the option of building the units on-site or off-site. NOTE: These amendments will not reduce or eliminate the affordable housing requirements. The proposal would also amend the Rincon Hill Area Plan affordable rental housing requirements to delete the requirement that 50% of on or off-site units be provided as rental.

· 100061 – Resolution stating that the Board opposes changes to the Prop K Park Shadow Ban that would increase shading of public parks and open space and instructing that this policy be communicated to the Rec & Park and Planning Commissions.

BOARD OF APPEALS:

· 673-675 44th Avenue – a demolition and subdivision of a very wide lot that you heard as a DR and the construction of two two-unit buildings. You did not take DR and approved the demolition and new construction. The Board did not overturn you. The voted 3 to 2 to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.

· Masonic Temple – an appeal of a letter of determination by the Zoning Administrator. The Board upheld the ZA decision on a 2 to 3 vote. 4 votes are needed to overturn the decision.

Historic Preservation Commission:

No report – The Commission did not meet this week





NOTE: Item 14 was taken out of order and followed item 17.

14. (E. FORBES: (415) 558-6417)

BUDGET FY 2010-2011: GOALS - This item is for discussion only and does not require Commission action.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational only – No action required



E. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES (taken out of order and followed item 13)

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:

Francisco Da Costa

Re: On Monday, the first people (Muwemka Ohlone) of this area met on the steps of City Hall to vocalize their concerns about the shell mounds at different locations in the city.

Espanola Jackson

Re: The Muwemka Ohlone tribe name is included in the South Bayshore Plan. The plans you have been getting for the Candlestick Point Hunters Point Shipyard project are conceptional plans from a developer. The Commission needs to be sure that the Shipyard is cleaned before it is transferred to the city. Please do not fast track this.

Chris Roberts

Re: A proposed award for an automated permit tracking system through DBI. It is my understanding that the award is to a company in Canada. My concern is that this $9 million dollar contract is not to a company in the United States where there is clearly an opportunity for local businesses to participate.

Tom Radulovich – Executive Director of Livable City

Re: I here to ask you to follow up on some unfinished business that is a few years old. In 2006 an ordinance was passed dealing with parking in downtown. The ordinance required four things as follow up that still needs to be done.

Joel Koppel – Electrical Construction Industry

Re: The Academy of Art University is still purchasing more property as you and the Board try to figure out what to do about them.

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

15. 2009.1053TZ (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code to Require a Conditional Use Authorization for the installation of a garage opening in existing buildings, reduce the parking requirements in certain Northeast Neighborhoods, and creating the Telegraph Hill-North Beach Residential Special Use District [Board File No. 09-1165] -Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Chiu amending Planning Code Sections 714.94, 722.94, 803.2, and Table 810 to require a Conditional Use Authorization to install a garage in an existing residential structure in the Broadway NCD, the North Beach NCD, and the Chinatown Mixed Use and Community Business Districts; adding Section 249.46 and amending Section SU01 of the Zoning Map to establish the Telegraph Hill-North Beach Residential Use Special Use District to include the residentially-zones areas bounded by Bay Street to the North, Sansome Street and the Embarcadero to the East, Broadway to the Sough, and Columbus Avenue to the West, and to require a conditional use to install a garage in a residential structure; amending Section 151 to reduce the minimum parking requirements in the Broadway and North Beach NCDs and the Telegraph Hill – North Beach Residential Special Use District; amending 155 to add Columbus Avenue between Washington and North Point Street to the list of streets where garage entries, driveways, or other vehicular access to off-street parking or loading are prohibited; amending the Public Works Code by amending Section 732.2 to prohibit the issuance of minor sidewalk encroachment permits that would facilitate the installation of parking in a residential structure; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101. Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 10, 2009)

SPEAKERS: In support: Malcolm Young – Chinatown Community Development Center, Zhen Hui Wen, Kwong Choy, Wing Hoo Leung, Linda Chapman, Tom Radulovich – Livable City, Robin Levitt, Joan Wood, Gerry Crowley – Telegraph Hill Dwellers, and Andy Thornley – SF Bicycle Coalition; In opposition: Keith Wilson – North Beach Neighbors, Brent McDonald, and Chuck Thomas

ACTION: Approved with modifications as proposed by staff

AYES: Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague & Miguel

NAYES: Antonini

RESOLUTION: 18011

16. 2009.0914D (T. FRYE: (415) 575-6822)

424 FRANCISCO STREET - north side of Francisco Street between Powell and Mason Streets, Assessor’s Block 0041; Lot 010 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.01.22.4627 to insert a garage opening within the subject building to accommodate 6 off-street parking spaces. The subject property is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District with a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review

SPEAKERS: In support of DR: Deland Char – Chinatown Community Development Center, Zhen Hiu Wen, Gerry Crowley – Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Joan Wood – Telegraph Hill Dwellers, Cindy Wu; In support of the project: Jeremy Paul, Pat Buscovich, Joel Brown Joel Brown, Cecil Chan, Gwen Mui, and Wilson Yu

ACTION: Following hearing, continued to 2/11/10 – The public hearing remains open

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague & Miguel

NAYES: Sugaya

NOTE: item 17 was taken out of order and followed GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

17. 2009.1066T (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments to the Planning Code Section 728: 24 Street-Noe Valley NCD Restaurant Definitions [Board File No. 09-1208]. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Dufty amending Planning Code Sections 728.1 (Zoning Control Table), 728.42 (full-service restaurants), 728.44 (small self-service restaurants), and 728.69A (specialty food, self-service) to allow new full-service restaurants, small self-service restaurants, and self-service specialty food establishments with a Conditional Use authorization; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Eleanore Gerhardt and Jean Amos spoke in opposition; Pat Buscovich and Jeremy Paul spoke in support

ACTION: Approved

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

RESOLUTION: 18010

18. 2009.1064C (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

1345 TURK STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 017 (formerly Lot 001) in Assessor’s Block 0756 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development per Sections 712.11, 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to construct up to 32 100% affordable dwelling units to be owner occupied and 24 below-grade off-street parking spaces within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: In support: Michael – Project Developer and David Baker – Project Architect

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya & Miguel

ABSENT: Lee & Olague

MOTION: 18012

19. 2009.0440C (S. Vellve: (415) 558-6263)

1315 - 1327 7th AVENUE - west side between Irving and Judah Streets; Lot 052 in Assessor’s Block 1762 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Section 303 of the Planning Code to modify Condition No. 6 of Motion No. 17236 to allow payment of an in-lieu fee as an alternative to providing an on-site affordable dwelling unit in a recently-constructed four-story mixed-use project containing 11 dwelling units, 11 off-street parking spaces and approximately 2,500 square feet of ground floor commercial space within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

SPEAKERS: In support: Steven Hammond – Counsel for Project Sponsor and Rachel Hamilton – Project Architect

ACTION: By voice vote only, the Commission approved Option 3

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, & Miguel

NAYES: Moore, Sugaya & Olague

20. 2009.0716D (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

708 VERMONT STREETT - west side between 19th Street and 20th Street; Lot 004 in Assessor’s Block 4075 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.03.23.4661, proposing to construct a one-story, vertical addition, construct new rear deck, and alter the façade of an existing one-story over basement, single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

SPEAKERS: In support of DR: Tony Kim – Representing the DR Requestor, Don Olsen, Laura Olevo, Robin, Diana Kirsey, Devin O’Scanlan, and Alice Barkley; In support of the project: Jon Lau – Project Architect, Angela Kang, Ron Harrison, Michelle Hughes, and Anthony Kim

ACTION: The Commission did not take DR and approved the project as proposed

AYES: Borden, Moore, Olague & Miguel

NAYES: Antonini, Lee & Sugaya

DRA: 0133

G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 9:06 p.m.

Adopted: February 4, 2010

Last updated: 2/26/2010 9:36:10 AM