SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, February 11, 2010
2:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Borden
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 4:08 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Edgar Oropeza, Elizabeth Watty, Elaine Forbes, Alicia John-Baptiste, David Alumbaugh, Kelley Amdur, Bill Wycko, Tina Tam, 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. 2009.1067D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
2006-08 Pierce Street - east side between California and Sacramento Streets; Lot 015A in Assessor’s Block 0634 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.10.04.4615S, proposing to merge four dwelling units into two dwelling units within a two-story over basement building, 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 application
(Proposed for Continuance to March 11, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
2. 2008.1072C (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1111 California Street - southwest corner at Taylor Street, Lot 020 of Assessor’s Block 0253 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to change the existing nonconforming entertainment use of the "Nob Hill Masonic Center" to a conditionally permitted Other Entertainment use pursuant to Planning Code Sections 182(b)(1), 303, and 723.48 within the RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District, and the 65-A Height and Bulk District. The requested Conditional Use Authorization would also authorize alterations to the main floor of the Masonic Auditorium to remove the existing fixed seats and provide a flexible range of audience configurations (tables and chairs, fixed seating or general admission) which would increase the maximum capacity of the Auditorium from 3,282 persons to 3,500 persons during general admission events (the fixed seats in the balcony would be retained). The requested Conditional Use Authorization would also add permanent food and beverage service for patrons of entertainment and assembly events, pursuant to Planning Code Section 238(d). No exterior modifications are proposed by this project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to February 18, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
3. 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 14, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to February 18, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to February 25, 2010
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
4. 2008.0992CESV (S. Hayward: (415) 558-6372)
200 DOLORES STREET - on the southwest corner of Dolores and 15th Streets; Lot 063 in Assessor’s Block 3557 in an RTO (Residential, Transit-Oriented) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District – Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 151.1, 157, and 303 for a proposal to construct thirteen dwelling units with thirteen off-street parking spaces, and to replace three parking spaces for the adjacent property (Lot 062, Assessor’s Block 3557) that would be lost as a result of the proposed project. A Variance is also requested of the Zoning Administrator to construct a new building in the required rear yard and within the required front set back. A Variance from the Planning Code's open space requirement is requested of the Zoning Administrator by the adjacent parcel as a result of the lot line adjustment associated with the proposed project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
NOTE: On January 28, 2010, following testimony the Commission closed public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove the Conditional Use Authorization for a parking proposal by a vote +4 -3. Commissioners Antonini, Lee, and Miguel voted against the motion. At the public hearing, the item was continued to February 11, 2010 for final action.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 28, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to February 18 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 11, 2010
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
5. 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 January 14 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
6. 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 January 14 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to April 22, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
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
7. 2009.1139C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)
3111 24th Street - south side between Folsom and Shotwell Streets; Lot 039 in Assessor’s Block 6520 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 727.42 and 790.92, to establish a Full-Service Restaurant (dba Local), in the 24th Street Mission Neighborhood Commercial Transit District and a 45-X Height and Bulk District. The project is also within the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
MOTION: 18030
8. 2009.1142C (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)
4675 MISSION STREET - east side between Brazil and Persia Avenues; Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 6083 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 712.43, and 790.90, to allow a large fast-food restaurant (DBA Aroma Coffee House) to operate within the NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
MOTION: 18031
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 January 28, 2010.
· Draft Minutes of Joint Hearing of January 28, 2010.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Antonini and Borden
10. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Olague:
I feel that I need to defend the integrity of a few of us on the Commission because of the way insinuations were made at the previous hearing. To set the record straight, 555 Washington was an item that we heard previously and it was an item that we had already continued twice. This is the third time we had set a date for it. One of the commissioners was unable to attend. Previously we had continued an item because there was a desire to see a full commission at that hearing. But I just felt like we had already continued it three times and it wouldn’t be good for the public to continue to continue this item. Also, I didn’t want to give the public the impression that we were continuing an item to favor a project sponsor and I thought that it could be interpreted that way because I believe that there was at least an insinuation somehow that we were trying to make a move to not continue it in order to somehow disfavor or favor the project sponsor. I just felt that it was long over due and that we needed to hear it. Also, the reason it was being proposed for continuance was because one of the commissioners was unable to attend the hearing. That commissioner in none of my communications with her ever indicated that she was interested in hearing the item continued. The only things we did converse about were her own personal situation that made her unable to attend the hearing. I felt that I really didn’t appreciate the insinuation that we were somehow insensitive to the other commissioner who never indicated to me in any of my conversations that she wanted to see the item continued. I don’t think that was ever the case. In fact I did at one point before the hearing suggest that we might continue the item given that she wasn’t going to be able to attend and we decided no, that the item would just be heard and we take that vote for the public record. I think the Chair did make the right call in deciding to move ahead and schedule that hearing and wait to the call of the item to vote on the continuance. Again, I don’t remember seeing anything in writing or hearing anything from that commissioner requesting that that item be continued until they were able to hear it. Also, I just thought it was uncomfortable that a commissioner who when the vote was not to their liking decided to leave the hearing. I just think that frequently we are up here and just because a vote appears to be going in our favor or against our favor, I don’t think we should then abdicate our role as a commissioner and just walk because something is going our way or not going our way. I think that is inappropriate. I think it is our responsibility as commissioners to weigh in on all projects and to continue and vote on a project whether or not we feel that we are going to get our way. I find it inappropriate behavior. To each his own. I’m sure there are several times here I’ve wanted to walk, but I don’t because I don’t think it’s appropriate. Again, I didn’t appreciate the insinuations that we were somehow being insensitive and I wanted to set the record strait that I too had suggested that we might continue it before hand and we decided instead to bring it to the public and to vote it on the record so that the public wouldn’t be once again given a reason to suspect that everything that goes on as it relates to planning decisions in the city goes on behind closed doors. To the extent that we can promote transparency, we try to do that here.
Commissioner Miguel:
I’d like to mention that in the past week I have met with some people regarding planning of parks in the Eastern Neighborhoods – a very long-range concept. I met with some of the Board and management of St. Mary’s Medical Center regarding their upcoming Institutional Master Plan. I can assure people it will be much simpler than the last medical Institutional Master Plan we heard.
And just a personal announcement that probably has no particular bearing on the Planning Commission, but I have a new title. I am now as of Tuesday night a Great Grandparent. [Laughter and applause]
D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
11. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
I will be out of the office starting next Friday, 2/26 through the first week of March for a family gathering in Florida
12. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
No Report
BOARD OF APPEALS:
No Report
Historic Preservation Commission:
No Report
E. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKERS: None
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
13. (E. FORBES: (415) 558-6417)
FY2010-11 Budget Development: Review and recommendation of a balanced FY2011 budget for submission to the Mayor's Office. (Potential Action Item)
SPEAKERS: Charles Chase – President, Historic Preservation Commission representing the HPC recommendations to cut back the Sustainability Initiative in response to SB375, adopt a combination of strategies for solving the budget deficit (do not raise fees above 4.65% or not at all), and making SFGTV coverage of HPC meetings a long-term rather than short-term goal at this time; Tom Radulovich – Livable Cities; Sarah Jones – Joint Labor Management Committee (JLMC) of the Planning Department representing a combination of strategies to address the current budget situation; Adam Gubser – Local 21 voicing support for the recommendations of JLMC
ACTION: Informational/discussion – no action was taken
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: 5:32 p.m.
Adopted: April 1, 2010
