New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, January
20, 2011
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: Miguel,
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE PRESIDENT OLAGUE
AT 1:40 PM
STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director; Sara Vellve, Tom Disanto, Diane
Sokolove, Ilaria Salvadori, Rick Crawford, Michael Smith, Mary Woods, Elizabeth
Watty, Shelley Caltagirone, 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.
1.
2009.0912C (G.
CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
1268 LOMBARD
STREET
- north side between Polk and Larkin Streets; Lot 015 of Assessor’s
Block 0500 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to
Planning Code Sections 209.1 and 303, to allow the construction of four dwelling
units on the subject lot at a dwelling unit density ratio up to one unit per
each 1,000 square feet of lot area within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three
Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project includes
new construction of a four-story, four-unit building on a vacant lot
approximately 4,700 square feet in area.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to
February 3, 2011
February 17, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as amended
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
2a. 2010.0001D
(G. CABREROS:
(415) 558-6169)
45 GRATTAN
STREET
- south side between Cole and Belvedere Streets; Lot 028 in
Assessor’s Block 1280 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to
Planning Code Section 317(d), of Demolition Permit Application No.
2010.01.08.4446, proposing to demolish a two-story, single-family residence
within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height
and Bulk District.
Staff
Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
(Proposed for Continuance to February 17, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
2b. 2010.1152DDDD
(G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
45 GRATTAN
STREET
- south side between Cole and Belvedere Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor’s Block
1280 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section
317(d), of Building Permit Application No. 2010.01.08.4443, proposing to
construct a new four-story, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential,
House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. Three
separate requests for Discretionary Review have also been filed by members of
the public against the replacement project.
Staff
Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications
(Proposed for
Continuance to February 17, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
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
3.
2010.0912C
(S. Vellve: (415)
558-6263)
813 – 815 COLE STREET -
west side between
Frederick and Carl Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 1267 - Request for
Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 186, 303
and 719.42 to convert a vacant commercial space (previously occupied by Cole
Foods) to a Full-Service Restaurant (a soda fountain, dba The Ice Cream Bar)
within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and 40-X Height and
Bulk District. The site is within a ¼ mile radius of the Haight Street
Neighborhood Commercial District, and the commercial space is designated as a
Limited Commercial Use (LCU) and is subject to Planning Code Section 186.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
MOTION: 18256
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.
4.
Consideration of Adoption:
·
Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 18, 2010
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2011)
·
Draft Minutes of Regular Special Meeting of October 21, 2010
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2011)
·
Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 9, 2010
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore
NAYES: Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
5.
Consideration of Adoption: 2011 Planning Commission hearing schedule
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
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 wanted to express my
appreciation for a different way of organizing this presentation. The fact that
you really are laying out the basic elements of how the department of works is
helpful to me and I also appreciate the zoning administration becomes more
clearly delineated for us and I am sure in your communication with the public it
will be significantly easier to understand what that entails. So I made several
question marks during the course of the presentation that we cannot take in
everything, I would like to ask the Director, is there a time and it might not
be today, where we would get an overview of the nature of plans, and how they
were originated and what the product are which are expected when obviously they
are not just additional ways to deliver something? I'm kind of curious how you
are threading that into your programs and a very innovative way of getting
grants and I would love to hear what we can expect as the next side benefit out
of keeping the department at full strength and also seeing creative work which
May not occur.
Planning Director:
We have a spread sheet
that outlines the grants that we have received and that can be updated. Why
don't we plan to attach that to the next memo as well. Most of the grants, not
all of them, but urban design and public works on the projects and we can go
over that with you.
Commissioner Moore:
Thank you, director. That would be very helpful. My second point is directed
towards to Mr. Alubaugh, is there any room and you are commanding a reasonably
large number of people, to see the city design that we are spending a little bit
more time on residential design guidelines? I think the nature of some of the
curiosity that we really need to expand and elevate the discussion on the design
guidelines might find very good place in your department under this particular
item. I am proposing to express that to see the department take on a
neighborhood, to be determined, and perhaps through a hybrid form base of code
set up guidelines by which we test new ways of helping particularly strong
neighborhoods to be more clear about changes can and shouldn't be and help with
streamlining that process, I don't know, but I would like to see some
experimentation in that direction.
David Alumbaugh:
Before I answer that one,
I wanted to point out that the mission streetscape plan you see today is funded
by the State and that is an example of some of the products we get from our
grant and some of the exciting work we're doing. In terms of the questions you
have asked, there are two. One the design guidelines and residential guidelines
in particular and the Department as part of the reorganization has or the of
solidified this design review process, and we are depending on those person who
is help us with all kinds of guidelines including residential guidelines as an
important portion of that work and you will see that included in the city wide
section. It certainly is work that happens throughout all the Department and as
well in terms of creative thought for certain neighborhoods, that was the idea
behind what we are calling the better neighborhoods, and the existing
neighborhoods program is really going out to some neighborhoods to see if
there's some things we can do to make things work better for folks. I don't
think we know how that will be articulated. It will further come about as we
start this discussion, but certainly that is one of the interests that we have
as well.
Commissioner Moore:
I appreciate your explaining that to us, next one is Mr. Wycko and item 2b and
negative declarations and is the E.I.R. Under that item or is that fully funded?
Planning Director:
As I said, we have about a
quarter million dollars of actual money that comes for general fund money and
things that don't have dedicated funds. That is roughly 2.4 of that item and the
other 4 F.T.E.
Commissioner Moore:
That doesn't get you far
if I remember the cost of the E.I.R., is that correct? $450,000 doesn't get you
very far.
Planning Director:
This is staff time, not
counting -- this is over and above all that. We show in our budget the staff
time, not showing the consultant time. We are not the only city department that
has those costs and we are showing it currently as an unfunded project not
because we don't think it will be funded but because we currently don't know the
funding source but there is a whole program for the city to raise funds through
the private sector to fund the city's costs. The E.I.R. Consultants will be
provided by the core budget and we don't have to show the consultant for the
E.I.R. In the budget.
Commissioner Moore:
I'm not trying to put you on the spot. i just wanted to understand how you
line that item and this is item three that you answered is communications and
who communicates, who is it, and about what?
Planning Director:
This was an item that was
approved in last year's budget and we have not yet been able to fill this
position. But the idea was that the Department, we felt, and I have felt
particularly strongly that the Department needs a Communications Manager that
covers a whole series of activities including conduct public meetings, the
website, how we have connection with the media, all those various functions that
come under the rubric of communication and we have never had an information
officer and we have never had that in the Department. I think it's long overdue
and I think there's inconsistent messages that go from the Department that is
very important for us to correct.
Commissioner Moore:
I think. I appreciate all
answers by everybody.
Commissioner Borden:
I have a few questions and
we are told we're adding money back for -- we're not going to be able to do
that?, it looks like we're not getting the money for japan town?
Planning Director:
Commissioner, you are
talking about the chart on the front page?
Commissioner Borden:
correct.
Planning Director:
Japantown 50 grand was an
add back and that is well on time and that will be stripped out of our budget. I
show that as coming out both on the revenue and on the expenditure side.
Commissioner Borden:
I wasn't aware, did we
work on Japantown? I wasn't aware -- we hadn't heard about that in a while. I
guess I wasn't aware of that. I had a question, and we talked about this planner
technician, but I am not sure what that is, so maybe you could tell me how
that's different – the Planner Technician is something that was kind of
conceived by the Support Staff, by the Administrative staff of the Department to
reflect that many of them do work beyond the normal administrative functions and
promote the opportunity for the administrative staff. So it's both between the
position that is between administrative staff and a planner I. and it
essentially some of what will happen -- it has little budget impact because the
administrative staff will be converted into that position.
Commissioner Borden:
and I was really interested in hearing about the better neighborhoods program
strengthening the existing neighborhoods program. When is that -- when do we
think we're going to be doing workshops on that? The better neighborhoods
program strengthening neighborhoods in community discussions in established
neighborhoods. Can you talk about the timeline for that and what you kind of
envision?
Planning Director:
I can. I also maybe as
they responded to the earlier part of the question, but in the work
program they do staff the Japantown effort. So I don't know who was around when
we started the better neighborhoods planning process some years ago, but the
real purpose of that is to go out and both to listen to communities and talk to
communities about what it is that makes them
thrive as neighborhoods. And there are elements, eight elements of a great
neighborhood and all that.
We just thought we would, having done a lot of planning and a lot of serious
growth dialogue in
several areas of the City, we have other areas functioning and could function
more strongly and better neighborhood commercial districts and all that And we
have no preconceived notion of what we try to do there and can be a dialogue to
ask them what's working and not working and what they would like to see us do
that we can have in the bag of tools. we would start that if it stays in the
budget, we'll start if t fiscal year and probably come to you once we have a few
discussions with the community about what that might mean and present it to you
and go from there.
Commissioner Borden:
would you select specific neighborhoods or public input determine the
established neighborhoods we would focus on?
Planning Director:
I don't think we know how
we'll find out does anybody want to do the first place, but have that dialogue
and are there folks that would like that kind of dialogue with planning
department.
Commissioner Borden:
My next question is about
the level of service impact analysis and I know you have mentioned we're getting
closer. I wanted to find out where we were with that analysis.
Planning Director:
The task force set up with
other agencies and consultants that were hired that worked last
year and are now starting at the second date. It culminated in the development
fee and set the plate for that level of service, but I think there's some
misdirection going around that I think we have learned differently after this
year and the expectation is that the work is starting now will culminate in a
recommendation by the summer and there would be an ordinance that would
basically, the concept, not the specifics, because the specifics still need to
be worked out, that there would be a fee and whereby you would pay into a fund
for transportation improvements that would offset affects of development and
that would serve as a fully mitigated substitute for the level of service
analysis. That's the concept. and subsequent to the ordinance, there would be
environment reviews, so not this calendar year for the change that puts
everything in place so there is really not just we're going to get doing it, but
a legally defensible avenue to deal with the impacts.
Commissioner Borden:
Maybe when it gets closer
to the time of having hearings on it and I know a lot of people in the public
have been worried about where we are. So another hearing at another time maybe
closer to the time where there are recommendations would be great.
Planning Director:
I would think that
probably would be sometime this summer.
Commissioner Olague:
A quick question for staff that has to do with the cultural survey. Just
wondering and I guess it could be the Historic Preservation Commission that
would be looking at that and a lot of question about cultural surveys and
Japantown and Manila and that area.
Planning Director:
The E.I.R. Process is
still well underway and those -- the question about the nature of the survey and
what is the coastal resource survey.
Commissioner Olague:
That work program it belongs in there and we are distinguishing between it and
the historic, pure traditional work that goes on.
Commissioner Olague:
There is something obviously allocated to that.
Commissioner Antonini:
This has to do with
Citywide Planning and one of the things mentioned was the Cesar Chavez
improvements east and I assume that this is done with coordination between the
State because that interchange happened to take it going northbound off Cesar
Chavez and I am assuming sometime in the future they plan to make that a clover
leaf and I would expect they're going to do our beautification in keeping with
the future changes that ay be taking place with that roadway which is probably
going to be changed a lot especially with developments occurring to the east of
there.
Commissioner Moore:
Director, I have one quick question and you can tell me we can talk about this
some other time. The functional organizational chart which was in our packet
here here, does that talk about work flow and communication?
Planning Director:
It really is just a chart
to show reporting structure and how the Department is organized relative to
reporting. For example, that I report to the Commission and then who reports to
me and so on.
That is really all it's suppose to show. A very broad organizational structure,
not really about work load.
Commissioner Moore: The work flow communications chart, I am concerned
about the Historic Preservation Commission and the dashed line and how we
communicate with them or not and you are saying it is not really.
Planning Director:
The question is not very
clear. The reason for the dash line is because I technically report to this
Commission, technically you are my boss and not the HPC, and that is the dashed
line other than the solid line. That is the only reason for that.
Commissioner moore:
We will bring that up in some other discussion.
D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
7.
Director’s Announcements
None
8.
(T.DiSanto:
(415) 575-9113)
FY 2011-2012 Planning Department Work Program and Budget
-
Informational Presentation.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Informational only – no action required
9. Review
of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and
Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
No
meeting
BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Board of Appeals did meet and there are three items that the Commission
might be interested. The first was Election of Officers. The Vice President was
elevated to the office of President and Commissioner Michael Garcia was elevated
to the position of Vice President and they wish them well in their new position.
The second item was a rehearing request for 10 Lyndall Lane. It was the subject
of a .CEQA appeal to Board of Supervisors last week and that was unanimously
upheld and the determination was unanimously upheld. Last night the Board voted
5-0 to not grant the rehearing request and that decision is now final. The final
item of notice of violation of penalty for 468 Green Street. This is a business
and service office which began operating in 1991. There were no complaints
received until 2007 when there
was also a permit application of the same building for a workshop called Honey
Do and that was for this Commission and this Commission approved it as a
conditional use. Just to note that they did go out of business eight months
after it opened.
And so this came to our attention at that time. They filed the conditional use
application to legalize the use that was subsequently in legislation that was
adopted in 2008 and that use was prohibited on the ground floor and they were
not able to pursue the C.E.U. to legalize the continued enforcement and last
year the Zoning Administrator hearing to hear their argument, we upheld the
notice of a violation and appealed to the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals
considered all the facts, including relatively new information about how they
operate, and their management firm for the building it. And they had agreed they
would not manage any other properties and only manage that building and the
Board found that that would be considered as an accessory use and therefore
allowed, so they will be allowed to maintain an operation there. However, the
business and professional service office could not go in there in the future
because they are acting as an accessory use in managing the functions of the
building itself. And there was testimony from tenants of the building expressing
their support for the business there. So the board will adopt findings on that
matter for a later date. And that is all.
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.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED
At
this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda
items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of
the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must
do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up
to three minutes.
SPEAKERS: None
G.
CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
10.
2006.1388E
(D. Sokolove:
(415) 575-9046)
Seismic Upgrade of Bay Division Pipelines Nos. 3 and 4 at the Hayward Fault
Project–City of Fremont
-
Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - The proposed
project would improve seismic and delivery reliability of Bay Division Pipelines
Nos. 3 and 4 where three fault traces of the Hayward fault bisect the pipelines
near the intersection of I-680 and Mission Boulevard in the City of Fremont. The
proposed project includes construction of a new parallel pipeline, referred to
as BDPL No. 3X, and improvements to the existing BDPL No. 4 to increase delivery
reliability where these pipelines cross the Hayward fault. The project would be
located on City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) owned right-of-way (ROW). The
project is sponsored by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
NOTE: The
public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the
Draft EIR ended on February 8, 2010. The Planning Commission does not conduct
public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be
presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the
Commission calendar.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
MOTION: 18257
H.
REGULAR CALENDAR
11.
2010.0878EMR
(I. SALVADORI: (415) 575-9086)
MISSION DISTRICT STREETSCAPE AREA PLAN -
Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Amending the
General Plan - Adopting CEQA Findings on
the Mission District Streetscape Plan and associated actions including adopting
amendments to the General Plan and Finding the Mission Streetscape Plan and
associated approval actions in conformity with the General Plan, as it is
proposed to be amended.
Preliminary recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
MOTION: 18259
12.
2010.0969C
(R. Crawford: (415)
558-6358)
90 TURK STREET (aka 116 Taylor Street
- northeast corner of Turk and Taylor Streets Lot 012, of Assessor’s Block 0340
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under
Planning Code Section 249.5(d) to relocate on existing Off-Sale Liquor
Establishment (Liquor Store) at 67 Turk Street (dba Grand Liquor) to 90 Turk
Street (dba Tip-Top Market). Planning Code Section 249.5(d) requires
conditional use authorization for such a transfer within the North of Market
Residential Special Use District. This project lies within the RC-4
(Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market
Residential Special Use District and within the 80-120 T Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Disapproval
SPEAKERS: Michael Nulty, Davy Jones, Karim Rantisi, Terry Bass,
Mousa, Shannon Brookland “Rhoads”, Gilma, Joseph Brown, Ed Ivey, Illya Fee,
Dalalrantit, Walter Paulson, Rodney Crawford, Sylvester Guard Jr. Mike Williams,
Regi Meadows, Richard Price, Saseen Daniel, Mathew Zibilittt, Jeak, John Nulty,
Susan Baya, David Elliott Lewis, Glendon Hyde, Edward Evans, Hani Kailen, Dina
Hilliard, Chris Schulman, David Addington, Randy Shaw, Stephen Berezin,
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Olague, Borden, Fong, Moore
NAYES: Antonini and Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
MOTION: 18258
13.
2010.0902C
(R. Crawford: (415) 558-6358)
449 Powell Street
-
southwest corner of Powell and Sutter Streets Lot 001, of Assessor’s Block 0296
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section
219(b) and 219 (c) to convert vacant space on the second through fourth floors
of the building to approximately 20,500 square feet of general office use. The
space has been vacant for many years but had formerly been used for retail,
Place of Assembly and Tourist Hotel uses. This project lies within the C-3-R
(Downtown, Retail) District, and the 80-130 F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, and Sugaya
ABSENT:
Miguel
MOTION:
18260
14a.
2009.0906CV
(R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
34-36 PLEASANT
STREET
- north side between Taylor and Jones Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0221
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code
Sections 253 and 303 to allow to construction of a two story addition to the
existing two stories over garage dwelling. The addition will increase height of
the building to approximately 49 feet 9 inches and increase the number of
dwelling units in the building from 2 to 3. The project site is located within
the RM-3 (Residential Mixed, Medium Density) District, and the 65 A Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Steve Jarvis, Irene Faustino, Harrison Lazarus,
Christy Smith, Mike Martusello, Elsa Dixon, Austin Hills, Susan Crossley,
Jennifer Solomon, Ellen Bermingham, Deepa Thomas, Tim Culler, Timothy Collins,
Johnathan Powk, Alka Jarvis, Ellen Innis
ACTION: Continued to March 10, 2011; public hearing remains open
AYES: Olague, Borden, Fong,
Sugaya
ABSENT:
Antonini and Miguel
RECUSED:
Moore
14b.
2009.0906CV
(R. CRAWFORD:
(415) 558-6358)
34-36 PLEASANT
STREET
- north side between Taylor and Jones Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0221
- Request for Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134 to modify
the rear yard requirement in the Van Ness Special Use District, to allow an 11
foot deep rear yard where 15 feet is required. The project proposes to construct
a two story addition to the existing two stories over garage dwelling. The
addition will increase the number of dwelling units in the building from 2 to 3.
The project site is located within the RM-3 (Residential Mixed, Medium Density)
District, and the 65 A Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a
ACTION: Continued to March 10, 2011; Zoning Administrator kept public
hearing open
15.
2010.1006D
(R. Crawford: (415) 558-6358)
1 LA AVANZADA
STREET (AKA 1 PALO ALTO DRIVE), SUTRO TOWER - Assessor’s Block 2724
(Lot 003) - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code
Section 306.9 for installation of 15 antennas at various locations on Sutro
Tower for Clearwire, a wireless data service provider, to provide high speed and
mobile Internet Services at the SUTRO TOWER Broadcast Facility within the RH-1
(Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Staff
Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
SPEAKERS: Shaw-Lin Chen
ACTION: Continued to January 27, 2011; public hearing closed
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore,
Sugaya
ABSENT:
Miguel
16.
2009.0155DDDDDD
(M. SMITH: (415 558-6322)
3987 20TH
STREET
- south side between Sanchez and Church Streets; Lot
055A in Assessor's Block 3605 - Requests for Discretionary Review of
Building Permit Application No. 2010.07.06.6032, proposing to construct a roof
deck and a three-story horizontal addition at the rear of a single-family
dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, the
Dolores Heights Special Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff
Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
ACTION: Continued to February 3, 2011
AYES: Borden, Fong, Moore
Sugaya
NAYES: Antonini and Olague
ABSENT:
Miguel
17.
2010.0805D
(M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
1787 UNION
STREET
- south side between Octavia and Gough Streets; Lot
017 in Assessor’s Block 0544 - Request for Discretionary Review of
Building Permit Application No. 2010.06.04.3920, proposing to legalize the
removal of a sunroom enclosure and to establish an open patio (an “outdoor
activity area,” as defined in Planning Code Section 790.70) at the front of the
building for an existing full-service restaurant and bar (dba “The Brick Yard”)
in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review
and approve the project with conditions
SPEAKERS: Patricia Vaughey, Sam Landrum, Jerry Czember, Robert
Bardell, Serana Bardell, JoAnn Hamilton, Jack Branning, Donna Morrison, Melinda
Cardwell, Mark Marmowski, John Gavin, Roman Alpert, Bill Barnes, Bryan
Lichtenstein, Kevin Lyman, Josh Peterson, Kamyar Vaghar, Logan Sheed, Joshia
Speigelman, Dina Eppley, Ben Stafford, Cameron Baird, Harry Kenning, David
Spurgeon, Anne Castro, Megan Chechile, Skye Czember, Gloria Smith
ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approve the project with
conditions
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Miguel
DRA: 0186
18.
2010.0782DD
(E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)
916 ORTEGA
STREET
- north side between 16th and 17th Avenues; Lot 018 in
Assessor's Block 2053 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building
Permit Application No. 2008.08.27.0197 proposing to construct vertical addition
and horizontal rear additions, and to alter the front façade of an existing
two-story, one-unit detached dwelling within the RH-1(D) [Residential, House,
One-Family (Detached)] Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff
Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
SPEAKERS: Tracy Thompson, Lenard Pond, Francis Choy, Dominic Chan
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved
AYES: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT:
Miguel
DRA: 0187
19.
2010.0911D
(S. Caltagirone: (415) 558-6625)
2507 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side
between Pierce and Steiner Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 0586 -
Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No.
2010.0423.0985, proposing to construct a garage in the front setback area
beneath a new entry stair and to construct a rear addition at the existing
three-story, single-family house located within the RH-1 (Residential, House,
Single-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and
approve.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 18, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to February 3, 2011
AYES: Borden, Fong, Moore
Sugaya,
Antonini, Olague
ABSENT:
Miguel
20.
2010.0372DD
(M. SMITH: (415 558-6322)
479 DOUGLASS STREET
- east side between 21st and 22nd Streets; Lot 026 in
Assessor's Block 2749 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building
Permit Application No. 2010.04.20.0625 proposing to raise the building
approximately two-feet and construct a three-story addition at the rear of a
single-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as
proposed
SPEAKERS: Stephen Fowler, Arnie Lerner, Willliam Pashelinsky,
Michael Murray, Joe Marko, Rafael Acevedo, Renee Stephens
1) ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Fong,
NAYES: Borden, Moore, Sugaya, Olague
ABSENT:
Miguel
RESULT:
Motion failed
2) ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with staff
recommendations
AYES: Antonini, Fong, Borden, Moore, Sugaya, Olague
ABSENT:
Miguel
DRA: 0188
I.
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))
None
Adjournment: 11:15 pm
Adopted: April 7, 2011
