October 1, 2009
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, October 1, 2009
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Lee
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1:38 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Tara Sullivan, Corey Teague, Mary Woods, Sophie Hayward, 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.
1. 2008.0787T (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)
Amendments relating to Planning Code Section 209.1(m) to amend the requirements for double density housing [Board File No. 09-0906] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Chiu amending Planning Code Section by adding Section 102.6.1 to create a definition related to housing for seniors; amending 209.1(m) related to the uses permitted in Residential Districts to update the requirements for obtaining double density for providing senior housing and, adding Section 209.1(o) to require, in certain circumstances, a conditional use authorization; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to October 8, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
2. 2009.0639C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
1969 California Street - south side between Octavia and Gough Streets, Lot 016, in Assessor's Block 0649 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.9(e) and 303, to allow an art gallery and associated offices in a designated City Landmark, Landmark # 260, the Tobin House, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to October 8, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
3. 2009.0747C: (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)
2233 Union Street - south side between Steiner and Fillmore Streets, Lot 032, in Assessor's Block 0539 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303, 317 and 725.53 to allow a Business/Professional Service use on the third floor of the subject building where a dwelling unit currently exists in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to October 8, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
4. 2009.0424C (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
565 GREEN STREET - between Columbus and Grant Avenues, Lot 020 of Assessor's Block 0131 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add live entertainment to an existing restaurant and wine bar (dba "dell'uva") at 565 Green Street, within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, the 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the North Beach Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
B. 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.
5. Consideration of Adoption:
- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 14, 2008.
- Draft Minutes of Joint Meeting with Recreation and Park Commission of December 4, 2008.
- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 4, 2008.
- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008.
- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 18, 2008.
- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009
- Draft Minutes of Joint Hearing with Health Commission of September 17, 2009.
- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved.
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore, and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
6. 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 Moore:
I'd like to briefly report on attending last night's community workshop on the Northeast Embarcadero study. The format of that study was well organized. Director Rahaim gave an overview and conducted a very tight meeting. I was pleased to see an obviously more consistent outcome than the previous meetings which were quite cantankerous and not producing any results at all. With a format in which eight principles were discussed, there was a sounding board for people to break into groups. There were 120 people present, and from my perspective, it was a very well organized meeting with tangible results. This will require a lot more work, but I am glad to say that it was a step in the right direction; to organize the community with their many contrary opinions about what should be done.
Commissioner Antonini:
I have a few items. Briefly, I wish to attend the funeral of a close friend who has passed away. I'll have to leave today at 4:00 if we haven't finished our hearing. I wanted to let the public know ahead of time that that is why I'm leaving.
Next week we are going to have the President's cup at Harding Park and I think it's a huge honor for San Francisco this. This golf tournament is a worldwide golf tournament and has previously been held at a private golf course on the East Coast. It is the first time it's been held on the West Coast at a public golf course. I think the planning issue here is that we have to be very appreciative of what generations have done before us in creating places like that and be very careful as we look to possibly change them or in any way alter them.
I also want to just briefly comment with sadness on the passing of Don Fisher. There were some things about Mr. Fisher I felt were extraordinary. The first was, unlike many people who are very wealthy and become wealthy; he continued to live here his entire life as did his family. He continued to not only keep his business here but moved more of his business here as time went on as recently as a couple of years ago, situating all of the Old Navy employees at a complex in Mission Bay. And thirdly, he remained engaged politically. Whether you agree with his political feelings or not, I think it's really important that those are some things that I find very admirable.
Finally, I just wanted to point to an article in today's Examiner regarding traffic at the 49re stadium, at Candlestick. It's kind of an error, because my understanding is we will be beginning a draft EIR on transit improvements that are going to move forward regardless to any contingencies that may have been spoken to in the article. And also this article alludes to some traffic superiorities in Santa Clara, which I think is the result of a recent DEIR there. It is not the case. They don't have a freeway near that stadium site, not do they have any transit other than a rather small light rail system. They don't have BART. They don't have MUNI. They only have about 2,700 dedicated parking places down there as opposed to 22,000 in Candlestick or Hunters Point. I guess the point of this comment is when you see something in the press that is not accurate about a land use issue, I think it is important that, and I'm not being critical of anyone, but I think the public has to know if some of the things are not entirely correct.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Could we put something more on the Action List? Could we get the Department of the Environment or the Mayor's Office to send us a memo, or give us a briefing or something on this wind power thing that was in the paper - unless you already have information & .
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I'm sure there is a report that someone did and issued and we will get you that.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Great! Thanks.
Speaking of the Action List, I'd like to pat myself on the back for having only two out of the numerous frivolous requests that the Commission has made.
Commission Secretary Avery:
Commissioner Sugaya, I thank you also.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
Me too
Commissioner Borden:
I thought it was really interesting last week that the Chronicle had a little series talking about San Francisco neighborhoods. It was really nice where they talked about some of the history and the view of how the city looked in the past and how it is in the future and I welcome them to do more stories in depth when they are talking about those sorts of topics.
Another thing, I just want to let everyone know that I'm being tossed in the pool on Monday for TNDC Celebrity Pool Toss. I want to welcome everyone who is listening. If you haven't heard of the TNDC Celebrity Pool Toss, it is a great event where it raised money for TNDC, which is the largest developer for affordable housing here in San Francisco. The Pool Toss actually benefits their after school programs. They just do an amazing and phenomenal job making the Tenderloin a wonderful place for families and I want to be part of that. If you want to support the Pool Toss you can go onto TNDC.org and support me as a tossee or any other tossee. I just wanted to make sure you knew.
Commissioner Olague:
I don't know which category this falls under, but I've been spending some time on 6th Street lately and there is some concern there because I guess they are re-routing the traffic. Are we going to get some kind of report back? Is it a trial period that they are re-routing the traffic on to 6th Street somehow? Is it the MTA, or do you know who is behind it?
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I'm certainly not an expert on it. I believe the Mayor's Office is taking the lead. It's the MTA, DPW, obviously the Police are involved for routing and the Planning Department has certainly been involved in it. My understanding is that it is a trial period for six weeks. We are a government and we write reports. I presume there will be a report available afterwards and I will make sure you get that.
Commissioner Olague:
Great! Then I guess you can add me to another item on the Action List because I'd like to see the report on that.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
We can do that because someone else will be doing that report and we can forward it to you.
Commissioner Olague:
Fantastic!
The other thing is, maybe this isn't in our jurisdiction, but maybe it is – a rec center on 6th Street where they are closing the rec center for two hours a day – the Gene Friend Recreation Center on 6th Street, which has long been a free rec center where seniors and youth in the neighborhood have long attended those activities there. Apparently they are going to be closing it a couple of hours a day to accommodate a program. The program seems to be very costly to me, about $300 / $600 for youth to attend, which seems cost prohibitive to many of the youth whose families have been in that neighborhood for many years. I know that we are meeting with Rec/Park on the 19th (11/19/09), but I'm not sure. Is this something that I can get more information on somehow? Like what was the genesis of this decision to charge these exorbitant amounts of money to youth for a program that really seems to me to be cost prohibitive to many of the people that live in that neighborhood. What is a good source of information for that? Should I go to the Supervisor, or Park/Rec?
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I would suggest Park and Rec
Commissioner Olague:
Thank you.
Commissioner Moore:
Follow up to what Commissioner Olague was mentioning regarding 6th Street, there were some people who talked about the first day and a half of this new program ant that it was total chaos because it was not enforced. Those were public voices, I have not witnessed it myself, but people were laughing.
Commissioner Borden:
Just a follow up on Commissioner Olague – I actually attended a meeting a couple of months ago that Rec and Park held at one of the community centers in the Marina. I know what they're doing is privatizing basically a number of the community centers that they can't afford to keep in place. And one of the conversations that we had was if you are going to rent out the space to other non-profit organizations, which is what they are doing, at market rate, that those organizations must provide free services to our citizens. I can give you the name of the person at Rec and Park that was at that meeting because it is a real concern that we had because basically it is a loss of services to residents that they now have to pay for services they used to get for free.
Commissioner Olague:
I think the scholarships were just a limited number.
Commissioner Borden:
Another thing that is outside of our jurisdiction but that has come up a lot is the Presidio Blvd. Traffic study that the Presidio is doing right now. I know that there are a lot of people pretty upset about that. I know that we don't have any jurisdiction over the Presidio, but I just would love to know how MTA is working with the Presidio as they look at what matters to them for the traffic inside the park v the traffic outside for the rest of the city. Maybe MTA at some point can give us some updates on that and Doyle Drive and other things.
Commission Secretary Avery:
Commissioner Borden, if I could just & . That was brought up last week by Commissioner Sugaya and I believe President Rahaim said that he would look into it and get back to him on that.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I think actually last week we forwarded you the maps which is what the request was last week if I recall correctly, which you should have gotten by email the links to those maps.
Commissioner Sugaya in the background:
Right
Commissioner Miguel:
During the intervening week I have met with people regarding Lombard Street, Randall Street, and De Haro Street. I was also at the workshop last night that Commissioner Moore mentioned on the Northeast Embarcadero. It was the luck of the draw which workshop table you were at and I ended up at the same table with Commissioner Moore who took all the notes at our table in an extremely efficient fashion, which I envy greatly because I'm a terrible note taker. It was not only well attended; it was more than well attended. They had it at the Port's Commission offices. They didn't have enough tables, chairs, or anything else really, but it work out very well. They kept to their time. The Department staff handled it extremely efficiently and you could tell by the murmurs around the tables and by the discussions as people were breaking up and leaving that there was a great deal more consensus coming than had been seen before in that process.
I'd also like to thank Commissioner Antonini about his remarks on Don Fisher. I've been on the other side of issues with Mr. Fisher, particularly as regards to the Museum and the Presidio. I had the pleasure of working with some of his people on that – his PR person, his legal consul. I judge a lot of individuals who are in major positions, whether they be political or in the world of commerce by their staffs and how they hire to do their work and their attitude toward the general public. I have found the people that he used to be extremely sensitive to the public even though they were expressing different view points. It's very gratifying to be able to work with someone grew up, went to school in the city, who really loved San Francisco, who kept his business here and hopefully, all things going well, will have kept his fabulous art collection here.
There is another matter, and it leads directly in because of a couple of comments of the other commissioners, I have been in discussion with the Planning Staff – Director Rahaim, Mr. Badiner, Linda Avery and others, and that has to do with that list you all have been talking about of our requests for information, joint hearings and a great deal of other things. There is no question that this Commission needs information in many areas that affect the city in order to be fully informed when we are making land use decisions. It's not always on a particular project, but even when it is, there are other factors that are involved – business, economic issues, transportation, recreation, meet and comparisons with other municipalities. We have had some excellent reports out of the Department, and actually quite recently. Certainly the twenty year report on neighborhood commercial zoning was tremendous. Dan Sider's analysis of the Prop D legislation as to the Department's analysis of it I thought was extremely informative and very well researched. The problem occurs, particularly at the present time, with budget. We're not broke, but we sure don't have any extra money and we don't have any extra people and that means we don't have any extra time for additional work to be done. [Perhaps] if it can be done in a lesser manner than a full blown informational hearing and all the research that goes into it. There are instances where the work is being done by other departments of the city, such as Rec and Park or MTA, we can make sure that the Commission understands that and individual commissioners and put on the distribution list for their report. What I'm going to request and have talked to Director Rahaim and Zoning Administrator Badiner about is that when there is a request from the commissioners, first of all specify what would satisfy your request – whether its just a phone call with a piece of information, whether its put on the distribution list as something that is being done by a different city department or even a commercial enterprise, whether it's a written memo to an individual commissioner, something that may come out of the City Attorney's Office since we pay for those services out of our budget, it's a memo distributed to the entire Commission, or if it's an actual informational hearing, let alone the difficulty Ms. Avery has putting together joint hearings unless there are specific items that come up. Certainly the joint hearing with the Health Commission was an absolute necessity because of a very major issue that was and will be before the two commissions. So, I'm asking now of the commissioners that when they make their requests, and I'm asking of the Department through Mr. Badiner and Mr. Rahaim, that when a request is made, if they try and give us, if they can do it right then an off hand estimate – what's it going to cost to do that if it's to be a major thing other than a memo or a phone call or something like that. How much FTE (Full Time Employee) time it's going to take? So that we have some idea of the impacts these requests have on the Commission's budget. I mention Dan Sider's analysis of the Prop D legislation [because] there was a call for an actual informational presentation. After that analysis, is an informational presentation really necessary? I think we have to take due diligence in how we frame our requests – not that we shouldn't make them, and not that the information is not valuable to us – but I think we have to be very careful of the time and the expense to the Department because if you start doing full informational hearings and full research projects on every one of these it's going to be impossible to keep within our budget. I do not at all mean this as a chastisement or push back against any commissioner or against the Commission as a whole; it's just that we tend to do these without realizing that what we really want to know can be done in a phone call or a memo perhaps so I'm requesting that if at all possible.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Just to clarify on the Presidio's actions to experiment on traffic control, I assume just like the Market Street program, it's experimental and that there will be an assessment at the end. Theirs is longer I think. Just so the Department can kind of stay on top of any evaluation reports that come out and forward them to us.
Commissioner Miguel:
I actually talked to the Presidio in that regard in meetings where they've been present and their entire concept on this is to put together a set of figures, and they have promised those figures to also include the impact to the city outside of their boundaries, so I'm sure that report will be available to us
Commissioner Moore:
Further on that, there is a website which very clearly in graphic form, whether PDF that you can print out, shows the temporary closures and the ideas surrounding them. We are driving through a national park and we are driving through the middle of a National Recreation Area and they are saying that there are too many people also shortcutting. That goes hand and hand obviously with ongoing improvements and the beginning of the upgrade of the roadway itself. The website is very clear and anybody who wants to find out can just Google and find it.
Commissioner Antonini:
I just want to thank a couple of the DR Requestors for 176 Randall, which has been continued, but I did take a visit out there and it was very helpful to be able to go in and to see first hand the backyards and some of the things that you couldn't see by the street. So I wanted to mention that I did do that over the weekend.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
7. Director's Announcements
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
Director Rahaim is in Toronto spreading the good word of planning and I'm sure learning stuff also. I think he'll be going on vacation afterwards.
Mr. President, I do appreciate that. The Action List is a very important thing. We understand the Commission needs information and we want to be responsive, but we also need to remain within our budget and within our staffing allocation and we will do our best to respond within that. Please be assured of that.
Last week I alerted you to an emergency demolition on Laidly Street which was thought to be an earthquake shake. It was in such bad shape that DBI did not want us to do any investigation – any pulling off of materials or anything like that. That shake was demolished this past Tuesday. The remains were examined by Woody LaBounty who is a historic preservation expert and is, as we like to say the man when it comes to earthquake shakes. He determined that this was not an earthquake shake; did not have the proper features; did not have the proper siding; the roof trusses were spaced differently so that is good news. It is unfortunately that it was allowed to deteriorate, but it was not an earthquake shake and I wanted to make sure the record reflected that.
8. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
The Board of Supervisors is on recess because of the Jewish High Holy Days
BOARD OF APPEALS:
- 6256 3rd Street – A request for jurisdiction for a medical cannabis dispensary. This was a project where the dispensary had not been very forthcoming over the years with us. We had been trying to get further information. Ultimately they had filed their MCD. We sent a notice of violation on that. Prior to that, they missed the application deadline of April 15 that existing MCDs were supposed to file for. They got notice under that. They got notice under the violation. Essentially they didn't respond very well. Ultimately, they came in and we helped them perfect an application, but ultimately discovered that they were within 1000 feet of a school. As a new medical cannabis, because they didn't get in on time, they could not open or remain open. There was then a public records request that Randal Knox, their Attorney, presented to us and unfortunately it seems like we did not provide all the information – later we found further information and that was the request for jurisdiction. The Department argued that we had given plenty of notice to the project sponsor and tried working with them and in fact there is not much they can do now because they can't apply under the old legislation and they are not allowed under the new legislation, so therefore their request for jurisdiction should not be granted not withstanding the fact we inadvertently didn't give all the information, we should have. The Board of Appeals did grant the jurisdiction (+4 -1) so they will hold a hearing.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
The Historic Preservation Commission did not meet
Commissioner Miguel:
One other comment, if I can do sort of a follow up to what I was talking earlier about, and I did mention Dan Sider's report on Prop D, in particular because there was a request for an informational hearing on that; and that is something that is coming up in the November Election and I have talked to the City Attorney Office in that regard and I'd like the City Attorney, if you would, to comment because it poses a touchy situation. We can hold an informational hearing, at least that is the advice I'm getting, however & .; and we can have public comment on it, but when public comment is closed and it's time for the commissioners to make any statements there is a chance, depending on how those statements are worded, it could be considered an infringement of the codes under which we operate if we even infer support or non support on a political action – so if you would give us a much more detailed and legal interpretation of that, I'd appreciate it.
Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne:
Actually, I think you did a pretty good job of summarizing the issue. The Planning Commission both as a body as a whole and the commissioners in their role as commissioners cannot take a position for or against a ballot measure. So if you were to hold an informational hearing on this matter, you would have to take a neutral stance, both as a Commission; any staff presentation would have to be neutral and objective and present all sides of the issue on the ballot measure. Then of course any commissioner's comments or questions during the hearing would also have to be neutral and objective. Obviously, members of the public can say what they want during their time of public comment, but those are the basic parameters of how you would hold an informational presentation.
Commissioner Miguel:
The difference as I understand it is if one of us wished to sign on as pro or con on a particular proposition, we could have Planning Commissioner with the asterisk (*) there for identification purposes only. The problem is when we are sitting as a body we have no asterisk above our heads.
Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne:
That is correct. As private citizens and not sitting up here on the dais you can take any position on ballot measures or proposition and you can identify yourselves as a member of the Planning Commission for informational purposed only so that people understand that oh yes, that's Ron Miguel, President of the Planning Commission,' however, you can't in your role as Planning Commissioners here take a position.
Commissioner Moore:
I'm thinking through as you are describing what one could do, I would find that discussion very difficult for us because even any question in its own contents raises issues which are of concern to us and with that there is indirectly an opinion rendered. Concern is opinion and I'm very kind of like almost not wanting to do it. I think Dan Sider's presentation is of great value. Perhaps it should be made, but perhaps it should be done without us in dialogue about it.
Commissioner Antonini:
I would agree. I think historically we have not done these things and it does make for a difficult situation. And while there was a presentation made by staff with some concerns about some enforcement parts of this or whatever. I mean those are things that staff would have to take up with the public individually were there questions, but I don't feel that it is something that we should be discussing here. I'm fine with not having a hearing on that.
Commissioner Moore:
Perhaps that is really the realm of SPUR who does a good pro and con, and then perhaps Dan Sider speaking with SPUR just for the clarity of the issues would help.
Commissioner Olague:
In my mind we have done that here before. We have had conversations I think on Prop H and we had conversations on 98 which was a statewide measure on rent control, so it's not out of our realm. Prop H was a local measure. We've done it here before but if people aren't in favor its fine with me. I could go either way but we've done it here before.
D. 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:
Bernie Choden
Re: [ ] and operations of the Commission's staff. The Commission should periodically evaluate and review its department's programs, processes and staff equities
Gillian Gillett
Re: Planning along Caesar Chavez: asked that the Department track three projects together: 1) a sewer replacement project of the PUC along Caesar Chavez; 2) a Mission Street study that proposes increased heights along the north side of Caesar Chavez near Valencia to 105 feet; and 3) CPMC proposed 100 foot replacement in-patient facility at St. Luks's Hospital
Sue Hestor
Re: The Commission's correspondence. You get a lot of correspondence that never gets into the public realm. You talked about a report that Dan Sider did that the public didn't know about and emails that went to you on 6th Street.
Commissioner Olague:
I never got emails about 6th Street; I just hang out there a lot. The maps Mr. Badiner was talking about were about the Presidio
Sue Hestor:
Okay, wrong one. I'm following 555 Washington St. and I'm aware of a letter that was never put in the file for that case. Other departments have ways of making the public aware of what has gone to Commissioners independently – The Board of Supervisors has a list at the bottom of every agenda; the Redevelopment Agency Commission has a folder of communications that is available at every meeting; others vary. Stop doing communications that are invisible to the public. There are easy ways to do it. I will work with staff. I'm not trying to bill up. You have to solve this problem.
Jim Meko
Re: Commissioner Borden I will see you Monday night at the Pool Toss. Thanked the Folsom Street Events folks that put on the Folsom Street Fair. They gave the Western SOMA Task Force space to preach community based planning. He talked more abut the Western SOMA Task Force that is now engaging in the initiation of the EIR and they are being pressured to include higher growth alternative
Commission Secretary Avery:
Mr. President, before we move on I just have to make a statement in response to Ms. Hestor's comments about your public records. For years for every email that I receive and for every piece of mail that I receive for this Commission, I make copies of it and give to the staff person for the case file and I keep a public records file. And every week that public record file sits here on my table and every piece of email that I send you and every piece of mail that I get in hard copy is included in this folder and it is available to the public every week. Maybe I can do a better job of making that known to the public, but the system does exist. You do have a record of everything you receive.
- REGULAR CALENDAR
9. 2008.0911T (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)
Seismic Strengthening of Soft-Story, Wood-Frame Buildings Board File No. 080956. - Ordinance introduced by Mayor Newsom that finds a compelling public policy basis for expediting the processing and review of permits for seismic retrofit upgrades of soft-story, wood-frame buildings; amending Sections 350 and 355 of the Planning Code to waive permit-processing fees for the proportionate share of work related to such seismic retrofit upgrades; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the City's General Plan and Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.
SPEAKERS: Vivian Day – Executive Director, Department of Building Inspection
ACTION: Approved.
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore, and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
RESOLUTION: 17957
10. 2009.0750D (C. Teague: (415) 575-9081)
70 Linda Street - west side, between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 049K in Assessor's Block 3588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.04.21.6791 to add a 677 square foot 3rd story addition to the existing 2-story single-family home in a RTO-M (Residential Transit-Oriented - Mission Neighborhood) Zoning District and a 45-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 24, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Janet marble- DR Requestor, John Baron, Richard Daquioag, Tom Rodgers, Philip Rossetti, Michael Hammon, Jeremy Paul – Representing the Project Sponsor, Tim Mascheroni – Project Contractor, Cameron Laughlin – Project Sponsor, Steven Moore, [a letter was read into the record from John Paul Samaha]
ACTION: The Commission took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications: to accommodate larger windows in the proposed new space and would allow possible re-configuration of that space as long as the setbacks are respected; added a finding that the Commission would prefer tile roofing.
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore, and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
DRA: 0110
11. 2009.0631D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
3255 BALBOA STREET - southeast corner at 34th Avenue; Lot 001A in Assessor's Block 1611 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.05.15.8480, proposing to change the use from an Other Large Institutional use (formerly the Institute of Religious Science of San Francisco) to an Other Entertainment use for a banquet hall for social events (Magdalena Banquet Hall) in an existing one-story building, in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project with conditions.
SPEAKERS: Jin Lee – DR Requestor, Raymond Holland, Anna Miller, Alan Lee, Timothy Lahman, Bala Srinivas, Don Gerimonte, Arlette De Cottignies, Jean De Cottignies, Alice Clary, Grace Wong, Jeong Chin, Andrew Taylor, Mr. Lee, Greig Neilson, Beth Haddad, Mathew Azeveda, Kathryn Aparicio, Juliano Lam, Linda Wong, John Munz, Vicki Goldstone, Fabio Dalbom, Jeannie Toussaint, Gabriel Gillen, Sam Brown, Patrick O'Donnell, Haihong Lom, Angela Roe, Teresa Durling, Butenko [unable to make out spelling of last name] – Project Sponsor, Arthur, Babbi Margolin, David Heller, Brett Barron, Steve Lyon – Project Architect
ACTION: The Commission took Discretionary Review and approved the project with conditions as recommended by staff and with modifications: to obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer and abide by their findings/recommendations; continue working with the community; hours of operation on Sundays are shortened to noon to 8 p.m.; and in six (6) months there will be a report on their status. If there are no problems, they may continue to operate, if there are problems, a hearing would be scheduled before the Planning Commission at which time they would decide if there is a need to consider any further action.
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, and Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT: Antonini and Lee
DRA: 0111
12a. 2008.0069D (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
176 RANDALL STREET - north side between Whitney and Church Streets, Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 6655 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2007.12.26.1293 proposing to demolish a one-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
NOTE: Items 12a & 12b were called, considered, and acted on under category A – Consideration of Items Proposed for Continuance
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 12, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
12b. 2008.0003DDDDDDD (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
176 RANDALL STREET - north side between Whitney and Church Streets; Lot 030 in Assessor's Block 6655 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of the construction of new residential buildings in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.12.26.1296, proposing to construct a new two-family dwelling on the subject lot, located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction with modifications.
NOTE: Items 12a & 12b were called, considered, and acted on under category A – Consideration of Items Proposed for Continuance
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 12, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya
ABSENT: Lee
F. 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
- directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
SPEAKERS: None
Adjournment: 6:07 p.m.
Adopted: October 15, 2009
