SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice of Meeting
&
Calendar
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, February 4, 2010
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, and Sugaya
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moore
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1:33 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Rick Crawford, Glenn Cabreros, Corey Teague, and Jonas Ionin – Acting 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.
1a. 2009.0583D (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)
251 ARKANSAS STREET - east side between 18th Street and Mariposa Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 4004, Mandatory Discretionary Review for Building Permit No. 2009.05.20.8829 and 2009.05.20.8827 to demolish the existing single-family home in a RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Projects as Proposed
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 21, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to February 18, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Antonini, Lee, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Borden and Moore
1b. 2009.1165D (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)
251 ARKANSAS STREET - east side between 18th Street and Mariposa Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 4004 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for Building Permit No. and 2009.05.20.8827 to construct a 4-story, 3-unit residential building with 3 off-street parking spaces provided in a ground floor garage as a replacement to the home proposed for demolition under Case No. 2009.0583D in a RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Projects as Proposed
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 21, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to February 18, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Antonini, Lee, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Borden and Moore
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.
2. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 14, 2010.
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 21, 2010.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Lee, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Borden and Moore
3. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
There are a couple of items in the press today that I want to comment on: (1) I was happy to hear that the proposed ballot measure regarding shadow impacts might not come up in June as originally thought. And since we are in the process of considering whether the present system properly addresses Prop K, I think it would be inappropriate for the voters to see that before we have had a chance to weigh in on it. (2) The other issue was hybrid elections. I’ve been through the situation with the Board of Supervisors being elected at large and twice by districts and I think both times have not been successful. I think they are too vulcanized balkanized and I think this has a lot of implications in land use because we are seeing increasingly more and more land use decisions being made by the Board of Supervisors and less power at the Planning Commission. Some of these ideas should be discussed because I think there is a happy medium that might provide for representation of the neighborhoods while still having people have a say city wide. Ideally, I think it would be great if we had a situation where there were five at large and six by districts. Then each voter would be properly represented because they would have a vote from for a majority of those being elected.
Commissioner Miguel:
I had an interesting situation on Monday. The President of the Planning Commission is automatically an ex-officio member of the Arts Commission and I get there on a somewhat regular basis. They were going over their five-year Strategic Plan. One of the things that they have down is partnerships and involvements with other city departments. One of the things that came up – and when I mentioned that, they seemed receptive and that the Department might take note of it – is the fact that we are currently encouraging on large building sites that are sitting fallow because of the economy, that they do a greening; that they clean them up; and everything. This would be an ideal situation for the Arts Commission to put in some temporary public art. The cooperation between the two departments in coordinating that seemed to resonate with them. If we could do a little follow up on that, it might work out quite well.
Yesterday, SPUR did one of their noon time forums which three of the Department’s staff presented on the public realm. It was extremely well presented and extremely well received by SPUR.
I had a chance to speak with Supervisor Dufty this week on a number of Planning Department current situations and that went quite well. Yesterday there was another in the series of DR Reform meetings. Several neighborhood association representatives were there. I thought the meeting went quite well. It was a small meeting but the representations were varied city wide. The explanations worked out quite well. I think we are getting a great deal of buy in from neighborhood organizations that we did not have before.
Commissioner Antonini:
I too participated in one of those meetings on DR and I want to compliment Elaine Forbes and Elizabeth Watty and Craig Nikitas – I don’t know if anyone else from staff was present that night. I thought it was extremely useful and a very good cross section of a lot of neighborhood groups and some good comments. I thought a lot of good progress was made.
Commissioner Lee:
I have just one item as an administrative process. We need to do Secretary Linda Avery’s job performance review.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
4. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
I have a couple of things: Last night I sent to all of you and the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor our analysis on that proposed shadow initiative that Commissioner Antonini mentioned. We did attend the hearing this morning, and as I’m sure you’ve probably heard by now the Supervisors who proposed that initiative have withdrawn it from the ballot for June and have proposed a more robust public process around some of these issues, including the technical updates that we have been working on that you heard from Craig Nikitas on. So we will be engaged in that. This has just happened so as we get that process nailed down, we will come back to you with more information. I want to take a moment to thank Craig Nikitas for all his work on this. That memo you received last night was primarily his work. He has spent a lot of time on that this week to understand the full implications of that measure.
Second, I will be out of the office tomorrow attending a Park Design charrette in San Jose at the invitation of the Arts Administrator in San Jose who is an old friend and colleague. We’ll be working down there for the afternoon on a riverfront park project that they are proposing. That should be interesting.
Finally, I did attend the Historic Preservation Commission yesterday and talked about our budget and got some more feedback from them as well. Their recommendations to you were similar to what you heard last week. They did discuss the possibility of writing a memo and decided in the end to have the President come to speak to you in person next week during your budget meeting. I know that Commissioner Sugaya is interested in getting something from them in writing so I’ll talk to them about that. Just to remind you of the schedule: it is before you next week on the 11th and if necessary, before them on the 17th, and for your final action on the 18th and is due to the Mayor’s Budget Office on Monday, the 22nd. We need to keep to that schedule as well.
5. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Land Use Committee:
· Interim Controls related to the Inclusionary Housing Requirements – This resolution was introduced by the Mayor and Board President Chiu in light of the recent court decision “Palmer/6th ST Properties vs. City of Los Angeles.” The interim controls would ensure that projects currently moving through the entitlement process will conform to the requirements of the draft permanent controls in that it would modify Section 315 to a fee-based Affordable Housing Program requiring all projects to pay an affordable housing fee to the Mayor’s Office of Housing. This week the Committee recommended approval to the Full Board and the Full Board adopted the item the next day.
· Supervisor Chiu’s Parking Requirements and Garage Installation in Existing Residential Buildings in Telegraph Hill, North Beach and Chinatown – The Planning Commission heard this item on January 14 of this year. At that hearing the Commission recommended expanding the geographic boundaries of the SUD so that the controls would affect a larger area. The Commission recommended modifying the criteria to be considered when hearing Conditional Use applications to add new garages into existing buildings. Those eight criteria you recommended include: 1) removal of residential unit 2) decrease in habitable area; 3) adverse impact on historic resource; 4) umber of parking spaces vs. loss of 0n-street parking spaces; 5) sidewalk accessibility; 6) design guidelines; 7) n0-fault evictions; and 8) priority policies. In addition, the Commission recommended that new procedures be implemented during review of these applications to include review by DPW and MTA. The Commission recommended removing a component of the Supervisor’s proposal that would have prohibited DPW encroachment permits for new garages citywide. Further, instead of tying prohibitions strictly to street width, the Commission recommended specifying specific alleys and streets in the area where new curb cuts would be prohibited. Supervisor Chiu amended the legislation to integrate all but one of the Commission’s recommendations. The Supervisor indicated that he plans to address the remaining issue (potential expansion of the SUD) in trailing legislation. With those amendments, the Committee recommended approval of the proposed ordinance to the Full Board.
Rules Committee:
· Director Rahaim has given the report on the proposed initiative to protect park sunlight
BOARD OF APPEALS:
46 Sussex Street – This was a garage on a back alley that required a variance. Neighbors were split because it had turned into an open space. While there were garages, slowly but surely the alley space had been turned into a green space. I denied the variance. It was continued for a while at the Board of Appeals to determine whether there was a compromise to a smaller garage. The denial of the variance was upheld +2 -2.
100 32nd Avenue – You might be familiar with that project. The appellant argued that the building was above the 30 foot height limit and was out of character with the neighborhood. The Board voted +3 -2 to uphold the variance decision, but +2 -3 to uphold the Commission’s approval. (Although a minority vote, the Commission’s decision was upheld.)
2244-50 Mason Street – The appellants (two tenants in the building) argued that the project would result in their eviction and the property owner had not been maintaining the property. The item was continued to the CALL OF THE CHAIR.
Historic Preservation Commission:
Director Rahaim has given this report under Director’s Report.
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:
Sue Hestor:
Re: I have been trying to understand the 555 Washington project. It is a great frustration when project plans that are dimensioned are not in the file and are of the nature of the usual plans that we see – showing all of the things that under discussion.
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
6. 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 for Conditional Use Authorization 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 14, 2010)
SPEAKERS: Marsha Garland – Representing the Project Sponsor; Devlin Costolano – Consultant to the Project Sponsor
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18026
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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 14, 2010)
SPEAKERS: In support: Lucy Voronda – Facility Administrator; Leonardo Redada – Project Architect, Susan Matheson; In opposition: Robert Fewer
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18027
8. 2008.1332C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)
6221 GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between 26th and 27th Avenues; Lot 033 in Assessor’s Block 1518 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 712.83 (Public Use) for Verizon to install up to nine panel antennas and associated equipment cabinets on the roof of a four-story wholly commercial building. The project is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Medium-Scale) District, the Geary Boulevard Fast Food Restricted SUD, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial building in an NC-3 zoned district.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Mark Lobaugh – Project Sponsor Representative
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Sugaya, and Olague
RECUSED: Miguel
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18028
9. 2008.0020C (J .Ionin: (415) 558-6309)
1800 SUTTER STREET - northwest corner of Sutter and Buchanan Streets; Lot 033 in Assessor’s Block 0676 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 711.83 (Public Use) for Metro PCS to install up to three panel antennas and associated equipment cabinets on the roof of Hotel Tomo, an eight-story wholly commercial building. The subject lot is split zoned with NC-2/ RM-3 and 50-X/40-X zoning. The project is fully contained within the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District portion of the lot, the Japantown SUD, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to the City & County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial building in an NC-2 zoned district
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: In support: Project Design Engineer – [name was not clear] and Ryan Crowley – Project Representative; In opposition: [third floor tenant – name was not clear], Jamie Monray
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18029
10. 2009.1102D (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)
736 Valencia Street - east side between 18th Street and 19th Street; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 3588 - Request for Discretionary Review for Building Permit No. 2009.05.20.8779 to add a roof deck, elevator penthouse, and stair penthouse to a 5-story building currently under construction that will include 8 dwelling units, ground floor commercial space, and 8 parking spaces in a Valencia Street NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District and 55-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Projects as Proposed.
SPEAKERS: In support of DR: Sue Hestor – Representing the DR Requestor and Alicia Gamez – DR Requestor; In support of project: Ron Mallia, Phil Lesser, and Morning Star
ACTION: The Commission took Discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications to add an approximate 5-foot, transparent wind screen sound barrier to the 44 inch high parapet at the rear of the building and signage to respond to the neighbor’s concerns.
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Olague and Miguel
NAYES: Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
DRA No: 0137
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
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
SPEAKERS: None
Adjournment: 3:15 p.m.
Adopted: February 18, 2010
