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

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

August 4, 2005

August 4, 2005

 

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

  Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, August 4, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  S. Lee; Alexander Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:      Antonini and Bradford-Bell

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:45 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Jim Miller; Daniel Sirois; Jonathan Purvis; Carol Roos; Mathew Snyder; Dan Sider; 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.              

 

SPEAKERS:

            Sue Hestor

-  Requested a continuance for 3350 20th Street to September 22, 2005.

            Michael Ferrera

            -  Requested a continuance for 1102 Taraval Street.

            Marilyn Amini

  1. Requested that Better Neighborhoods be continue because a page was missing on the finalized calendar.
  2. Board of Supervisors voted to continue this matter an additional 34 days pass the suggested or proposed 8/12 date.
  3. Inquired about a letter that the Planning Commission Secretary was going to draft regarding a request for an extension to the Board of Supervisors.          

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

            1.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

                                 Commissioner W. Lee

Re: Moratorium in the Mission District

-  Would like to schedule a meeting in the Mission late on the fall, to get public testimony.

         Amit Ghosh responded:

                 -  This has already been contemplated.  Several meetings have been scheduled.

          Commissioner W. Lee

  1.      Requested a report on the First Source Hiring process with Home Depot regarding Supervisor Sophie Maxwell’s ordinance.

Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator responded:

  1. Supervisor Maxwell asked about implementation of the amendments to the First Source Hearing Program and not specifically about Home Depot.
  2. There has been a report prepared.  We will keep the Commission informed.

     Commissioner Hughes

  1. Had a question for Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacey.  It is a process question that has been raised regarding sections 304 and the timing of the 90 days period.
  2. How is ‘received by the Commission’ interpreted? Does it means:  Received by the Commission Secretary, Received by the seated Commission during a calendared meeting, or whatever?  What is the definition of or the interpretation of that language by your office?

Kathe Stacey – Deputy City Attorney responded:

  1. Normally it is the Zoning Administrator who makes interpretation of the Planning Code.

       Commisioner Hughes:

  1. If that is the case then the Zoning Administrator is the one who makes that call.  Could you please give us a clarification about that language?

            Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator responded:

  1. His recollection is 90 days from the Department’s receipt.

                 Commissioner S. Lee

  1. How timely are we in responding to legislation initiated by the Board of Supervisors?
  2. We get a copy of the legislation in our correspondence but we don’t actually get an analysis or review by staff until much later,
  3. Is there a more efficient way of providing us an analysis?

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

2.         Director’s Announcements

  1. Director Macris is out of the office for a week.

 

3.         Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

BOS

  1. Board of Supervisors granted an extension to the Better Neighborhoods as Director Macris requested per the Commission’s request to September 15, 2005.
  2. At the Land Use Committee there were three items of importance to this Commission:
  3. Executive Park – Commission recommended general plan amendments, approved unanimously.  Supervisor Maxwell wants design or concerned resoloves before they move along and work with the project sponsor.  She would also like the First Source issues to be resolved prior to it. The item was continued to August 10, 2005.  Requested a presentation on the impact on all pipeline projects in the area.
  4. Tourist Hotel Conversion -- Supervisor Peskin introduced this.  There was an amendment to the Administrative Code adopting an 18 months moratorium
  5. 1110 Taylor Street – Landmarking.  There was no controversy.  It was approved by the Land Use Committee and forward to the full Board.

Amit Ghosh

  1. Gave a report on the Board’s approval of the Rincon Hill Plan at its first reading.

Susan Cleveland – Deputy City Attorney

-   Reported on the approval to the amendments to the fee packages

 

 

 

 

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:

John Nulty

  1. Procedures to follow when approving a Liquor License.

 

E.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

 

4.         2005.0433C                                                                           (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1339 POLK STREET (a.k.a. 1331 Polk Street) - west side between Austin and Pine Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0667 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for a massage establishment (Planning Code Section 723.54) as a principal retail use, dba “Traditional Massage Therapy”. The massage business would occupy a vacant ground floor commercial space, and no expansion of that existing space or building is proposed. The site is in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

                        SPEAKERS:    

                        Sunny Sangkasup, Project Sponsor

                        -  Just wants her permit to be approved.

                        Ken Raley

  1. Opposed to any granting of these conditional use permits for anymore massage establishments in our neighborhood.

 

                        ACTION:           Approved

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Alexander, Antonini, and Bradford-Bell

                        MOTION:           17073

 

F          REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

            5.         2005.0459T                                                                          (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Planning Code Section 260 Amendments - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending section 260 to increase the height exemption for elevator penthouses from 10 to 16 feet, to allow the Zoning Administrator to grant further exemptions for buildings with height limits of more than 65 feet where such an exemption is required to meet state or federal laws or regulations; and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Modifications

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 28,  2005)

NOTE: On June 16, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing, and continued the matter to June 23, 2005 by vote +6 –0.  Commissioner William Lee was absent.  Public hearing remains open for any new information.

                       

                        SPEAKERS:

                        Zack Stewart

  1. Urged the Commission to keep the limit at 40 feet.

            Nann Roth

  1. Does not oppose providing handicap roof top access, when rooftop access is required.

      Stan Teng

  1.   Does not think this is an issue about height limits versus accessibility.  We all want    accessibility and should comply with the code.

            Edward Evans

                        No name stated

  1. In support for the legislation

                        Bob Planthold

  1. .

                        Leslie Blake

                        - Asked the Commission to pass the legislation.

Judith  Duffy

  1. .

   Joan Woods

  1. Requested that the height limits be left in place and not give in to pressure by the developers.

Gerry Crowley

  1. We should be looking to perhaps reduce the height of the building to below 40 feet.
  2.   Perhaps we should explore other means of providing disability access at levels below the roof.

Brad Willmore

  1. .
  2.   Right now rooftop exceptions in the code are out of control, we have exceptions for mechanical, skylights, windbreaks, all kind of things.
  3. The most preferred location for open space should be immediately adjacent to the unit or on the ground floor.
  4. Allowing this legislation only ensure that he most preferred location will be routinely ignore by developers.
  5.   Save San Francisco for one more opportunity for bad design.

Peter Winkelstein

-  I cannot believe any developer will build a 16-foot elevator shaft when he can build a 10-foot elevator shaft.

  1. The concerns are misplaced because it simple won’t happen in the 40-foot height districts of the City.

Gary Yacko, Elevator Engineeer

  1. Responded to some technical questions regarding this legislation.

Ellen Chan

-  The size of the elevator is related to the size and the building itself.

  1. If we talk about a bigger building then you can put some in setback requirements for the 16-foot elevator shaft.  That would eliminate a lot of our concerns.

Gary Gee

  1. Supports the legislation.

Joe Cassidy

  1. Supports legislation

Alice Barkeley

- This legislation addresses the kind of open space requirement that meets the needs of everyone.

  1. Urged the Commission to pass this legislation.

Sue Hestor

-  If this legislation passes, you should say that the elevator should pull back from the back to reduce the profile against the people that live on the other side that have light-well.

Joe O’Donoghue

- Supports the legislation.

Marilyn Amini

  1. We need open space in San Francisco, rather than building up to the max, which is what the developers are looking for.

 

                        ACTION:           Approved as amended:

 

  1. The proposed amendments to Planning Code Section 260(b)(1)(B) be amended such that a new sentence is added at the end of the Section which would read “The placement and/or architectural treatment of any elevator penthouse in a residential district which would be exempted from height limits under this Section shall be reviewed for compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and any other related policies or design guidelines adopted by the Planning Commission.”
  2. Neighborhood Notification. The proposed amendments to Planning Code Section 260(b)(1)(B) be amended such that a new sentence is added at the end of the Section, immediately following the sentence in Number 1, above,  which would read “In districts where the height limit is 65 feet or less and in areas where neighborhood notification is required under Planning Code Sections 311 or 312, proposed elevator penthouses which exceed the applicable height limit by more than 10 feet shall be subject to the notification requirements of Section 311 or 312, as appropriate.”
  3. Penthouse Footprint Moderation. The proposed amendments to Planning Code Section 260(b)(1)(B) be amended such that immediately following the sentence which reads “However, for elevator penthouses, the exemption shall be limited to the top 16 feet regardless of the height limit of the building,” a new passage should be added which would read “and shall be limited to the footprint of the elevator shaft.” This amendment was offered by the office of Supervisor Alioto-Pier in the interest of minimizing any potential adverse affect of an elevator penthouse on neighboring properties.

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, W. Lee, Olague

                        NAYES:            Hughes

                        ABSENT:          Antonini and Bradford-Bell

                        MOTION:           17074

 

            6a.        2005.0626D                                                                         (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

3350 20th STREET - northwest corner of 20th and Shotwell Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 3594 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.11.19.9724 to demolish a one-story Quonset hut used as a artist’s live-work studio, and replace it with a mixed-use building with six dwelling units over garage and commercial space in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve the Demolition.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 28, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:      None

                        ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to September 22, 2005.

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Alexander, Antonini and Bradford-Bell

 

                       

            6b.        2004.1022D                                                                           (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

3350 20th STREET - northwest corner of 20th and Shotwell Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 3594 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.11.19.9736 to build a five-story building with six dwelling units over garage and commercial space following demolition of a commercial live/work studio in an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve the New Construction.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 28, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:      None

                        ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to September 22, 2005.

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Alexander, Antonini and Bradford-Bell

 

            7.         2004.0136D                                                                            (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

1725 LAKE STREET - south side between 18th and 19th Avenues; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 1378 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.26.3995, proposing to construct a third story and a mezzanine (partial fourth story within a sloped roof) addition to an existing two-story single-family house 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 project as submitted.

                        DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WITHDRAWN

 

8a.        2005.0071D                                                                               (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

                        179 SADOWA STREET - south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 7138 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application Nos. 2003.12.29.3124, 2003.12.29.3125 and 2003.12.29.3124 proposing to demolish a single-family dwelling, an independent garage structure and a greenhouse in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition permits.

 

SPEAKERS:      None

                        ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to September 8, 2005.

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Alexander, Antonini and Bradford-Bell

 

8b.        2005.0072D                                                                             (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

179 SADOWA STREET- south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 7138 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of the replacement structures in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.29.3123, proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a  two-story, single-family dwelling on one of the two lots in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:      None

                        ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to September 8, 2005.

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Alexander, Antonini and Bradford-Bell

 

8c.        2005.0073D                                                                                (T.WANG: (415) 558-6335)

183 SADOWA STREET - south side between Capitol and Plymouth Avenues; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block 7138 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of the replacement structures in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.12.29.3131 proposing to subdivide the lot into two lots and construct a two-story, single-family dwelling on one of the two lots in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

 

SPEAKERS:      None

                        ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to September 8, 2005.

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Alexander, Antonini and Bradford-Bell

 

G.         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.

 

None

 

                       

9.         2003.0029E                                                                           (C. Roos: (415) 558-5981)

ONE RINCON HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (425 FIRST STREET) - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report - The project proposes demolition of a building complex, consisting of a three-story office building, a clock tower, and a two-story parking garage, and construction of a 720-unit residential development as follows: a 450-ft.-tall, 45-story north tower with about 312 units; a 550-ft.-tall. 54-story south tower with 354 units; about 14 stacked townhouses, 45-ft.-tall fronting Harrison Street and First Street; lobbies, management office, fitness center; about 3, 220- gross square feet (gsf) of convenience retail; 720 parking spaces in two partial above grade and five partial basement levels, with attendants and mechanical lifts, accessible on First Street; four loading spaces accessible on Harrison Street; about 49,000- sq.-ft. of common and private open space; and an additional 19,000sq. ft. publicly accessible open space including a widened sidewalk and landscaping along Harrison Street and in the First Street public right-of-way.  The project would total about 1,217,315 gsf, a net increase on the site of about 1,133,399 gsf.  The site includes Lots 1, 9, and 15, in Assessor’s Block 3765, on the block bounded by Harrison, First and Fremont Streets and the Bay Bridge West approach. Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on April 19, 2005.   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.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:      None

                        ACTION:           Environmental Impact Report Certified.

                        AYES:              Alexander, S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Antonini and Bradford-Bell

             MOTION:           17075

 

10.        2003.0029EX                                                                          (C. ROOS: (415) 558-5981)

ONE RINCON HILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (425 FIRST STREET) -  Motion to Adopt CEQA Findings.  The project proposes demolition of a building complex, consisting of a three-story office building, a clock tower, and a two-story parking garage, and construction of a 720-unit residential development as follows: a 450-ft.-tall, 45-story north tower with about 312 units; a 550-ft.-tall. 54-story south tower with 354 units; about 14 stacked townhouses, 45-ft.-tall fronting Harrison Street and First Street; lobbies, management office, fitness center; about 3, 220- gross square feet (gsf) of convenience retail; 720 parking spaces in two partial above grade and five partial basement levels, with attendants and mechanical lifts, accessible on First Street; four loading spaces accessible on Harrison Street; about 49,000- sq.-ft. of common and private open space; and an additional 19,000 sq. ft. publicly accessible open space including a widened sidewalk and landscaping along Harrison Street and in the First Street public right-of-way.  The project would total about 1,217,315 gsf, a net increase on the site of about 1,133,399 gsf.  The site includes Lots 1, 9, and 15, in Assessor’s Block 3765, on the block bounded by Harrison, First and Fremont Streets and the Bay Bridge West approach.  The Commission will consider a Motion to Adopt CEQA Findings the proposed project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Draft Motion

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:     

                        Steve Vettel, Project Sponsor

  1. This project is 100 percent in compliance with the Rincon Hill Plan that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors two days ago.
  2. We expressed our great appreciation for the staff for working so closely with us to make sure that this project developed in conformance with the plan.

Gary Klompmaker, Architect for the project

  1. Gave a general overview and review of the project.

Robert Pender

  1. Asked the Commission to provide them with a written document regarding all that is going on.

Kate White

  1. Supports the project.

                        Peter Winkelstein

  1. Very much in favor of this project.

Unclear name

  1. It will provide jobs for a lot of people in the South of Market.

Theodore Brown

  1. This is a very important development for Rincon Hill.  It will add to the housing stock that is very much needed in this City.

 

                        ACTION:           CEQA findings adopted.

                        AYES:              Alexander, S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Antonini and Bradford-Bell

             MOTION:           17076

 

             11.       2003.0029EX                                                                     (M. SNYDER; (415) 575-6891)

ONE RINCON HILL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (425 First Street)  - southeast corner of First Street and Harrison Street, currently occupied by the Bank of America Office Building and Clock Tower, Lot 1, 9, and 15 in Assessor’s Block 3765 - Request under (proposed) Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and an exception to allow greater than one parking space for every two units, as well as to allow a portion of the parking garage above grade.    The project is to demolish the existing office building, the Bank of America Office Building and Clock Tower, and construct a residential project that would consist of two towers reaching 550-feet and 450-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouses) and townhouses that would align Harrison Street and First Street.    The project would include approximately 709 dwelling units, 3,200 square feet of convenience retail, and 709 parking spaces (non-independently accessible). The subject property is located in the (proposed) Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and a (proposed) 45/550-R and a (proposed) 45/450-R Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

  

SPEAKERS:      Same as those listed in item 10.

                        ACTION:           Approved (Found to be in compliance)

                        AYES:              Alexander, S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Antonini and Bradford-Bell

             MOTION:           17077

 

12.        2005.0569C                                                                           (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1337-39 GRANT AVENUE  - west side between Green and Vallejo Streets, Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 0131 - Request for Conditional Use authorization for the addition of a Bar to an existing vacant Full-Service Restaurant, dba "Mojito," (Planning Code Section 722.41) to obtain an ABC license for on-sale liquor sales in an eating establishment (Type 47). No expansion of the existing space or building is proposed. The site was previously occupied by "La Bodega" and is in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     

                        Carl Riccitelli

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the project

Robert Kowal, Applicant

  1. Our business analysis shows that we need to have a little cash flow from the sale of our liquor in order to upgrade the property.
  2. The North Beach Neighborhood supports our project.

Alistair Monroe, Applicant

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the application.

Stephano Cassolato,

  1. Hopes the Commission support this project in its entirety.

Wayne Deerman

  1. Supports the project.

            Hugo Riverso

            -  Supports the project.

                        Bill Baker

  1. I never met a group of people that are more committed at what they do.  And through it all they promote responsibility with the music and funds.

                        Stacey DePolo

- Wholeheartedly urged the Commission for their support              

Mo Kai

  1. It will be a great addition to the neighborhood.  And what they plan to do will be a great attraction to tourists and local people as well.

Bill Schwalb

  1. I feel confident that the applicants will run a fine establishment in North Beach.

Megan Mulligan

  1. Supports the project.

Peter Glikstern

  1. Strongly supports this project.

            Brad Willmore, Telegraph Hill Dwellers

  1. Supports the project.

ACTION:           Approved based on the agreement read into the record by the Zoning    Administrator

                        AYES:              Alexander, S. Lee, Hughes, W. Lee, Olague

                        ABSENT:          Antonini and Bradford-Bell

             MOTION:           17078

 

13.        2005.0315C                                                                         (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313) 

1102 TARAVAL STREET (a.k.a. 2397 – 21st Avenue) - north side between 21 Avenue and 22 Avenue, Assessor's Block 2350, Lot 017 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 711.54/790.60 to legalize a massage establishment (Carnival Acupressure Center)  that would be limited to the ground floor of the existing commercial space located in an NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District) and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

 

  1. SPEAKERS:     

Jeff Wong, project sponsor

-  Silent partner and not really familiar with project.  Requested a continuance.

            Michael Ferrah, representing project sponsor

- Principal partner is unable to attend.  Requested continuance.

                                     Judy Terracina

                                    -  Opposed to continuance.        

            MOTION:           Continued to September 8, 2005.

                                    AYES:              Hughes and W. Lee

                                    NAYES:            Alexander, S. Lee, Olague

                                    ABSENT:          Antonini and Bradford-Bell

                         RESULT:           Motion failed

                                                                   

  1. SPEAKERS:     

Unclear name, project sponsor

-  Asked Commission to approve the application.

            Michael Ferrah, representing project sponsor

- Gave some clarifications about a police report issued on the property.

                                     Judy Terracina

  1. Opposed to project.    
  2.                   ACTION:           Disapproved.

                                    AYES:              Alexander, S. Lee, Hughes, Olague

                                    ABSENT:          Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

            MOTION:           17079

                                             

 

                                         

14.                                                                                                   (L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)

PLANNING COMMISSION RULES AND REGULATIONS - Consideration of amendment to Article IV, Sections 3 & 6 to address notice and voting; add a new Section 7 to address jurisdiction; and renumber remaining sections of Article IV.

                                                 (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

 

      SPEAKERS.

      Robert Pender

  1. Wondering why now before the election in November that these changes are been made and there has not been discussion about it.

            ACTION:           Approved as modified:

  • Article IV, Section 3 Notice, the last sentence shall read: …No matter shall be considered at any Special Meeting unless included in the Notice calling such meeting.
  • Article IV, Section 6 Voting and Section 7 Jurisdiction were amended to read as follows:

Section 6.         Voting. 

 

a.         Procedural Matters.  Pursuant to Charter Section 4.104, with respect to matters of procedure the Commission may act by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, so long as the members present constitute a quorum.

 

b.         Except as provided in “a” above, every Official Act taken by the Commission, including, but not limited to, those based on its jurisdiction derived from the Planning Code, Chapter 31 of the Administrative Code, the Subdivision Code and Discretionary Review Powers of the Commission, may be by “Motion” or Resolution adopted by a majority vote of all members of the Commission (four (4) votes).  All members present shall vote for or against each question brought to a vote unless a member is excused from voting by a conflict of interest or a motion adopted by a majority of the members present.

 

A motion that receives less than four votes is a failed motion resulting in disapproval of the action requested to be taken by the Commission unless a substitute motion for a continuance or other action is adopted.  (For example:  a request for Conditional Use requires four votes to approve; failure to receive the four votes results in denial of the conditional use.  A request for Discretionary Review requires four votes to take discretionary review and modify the project; failure to receive the four votes results in approval of the proposed project without modification.)

 

A motion of intent occurs when the Commission passes a motion by a majority of all members of the Commission that is contrary to the preliminary recommendation of the Planning Department staff and does not have findings that support the intended action.  Any Commissioner absent from participation in the action of intent must be provided all relevant case material and hearing tapes for review prior to a scheduled hearing for consideration of the final motion.

 

c.         Once the Commission holds the public hearing on a permit application, receives all public testimony and declares that it is ready to consider approval or disapproval of the application, the applicant shall not be permitted to withdraw the application, except with the consent of the Commission.  In the event that the Commission passes any motion of intent to approve or disapprove a permit application before them, the applicant shall not be permitted to withdraw the application prior to the Commission’s completion of their action with passage of a written “Motion” with findings or a resolution.

 

d.         Once the Commission holds a public hearing on a matter before them, enters into deliberation and a motion for action is made and receives a second prior to the end of discussion, a request for “call the question” by any member other than the President or Chair would be addressed as follows:  The request for “call the question” is considered a motion to halt discussion and must have a second to proceed.  If the motion does not receive a second, the motion dies and discussion resumes on the matter on the floor prior to the motion to “call the question.”  If the motion receives a second then a vote must be taken immediately and passed by a majority of those present.

 

Section 7.         Jurisdiction.   Pursuant to Charter Section 4.105, the Commission has the jurisdiction to approve prior to issuance “[all] permits and licenses dependent on, or affected by, the Planning Code administered by the Planning Department.”  Acting under this section, the Commission may at its discretion by a majority vote of the Commission (four votes), request staff to bring before it for review any such permit or license that has not yet been issued even if the application has been approved by the Commission or Department staff and forwarded to the Central Permit Bureau.  The Commission loses jurisdiction upon either the City’s issuance of the permit or license, or a valid appeal has been filed to an appellant body.

                        AYES:              Alexander, S. Lee, Hughes, Olague

ABSENT:          Antonini, Bradford-Bell, W. Lee

 

15.        2005.0524T                                                                             (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS PLUS TEXT AMENDMENTS - Consideration of an Ordinance [Board of Supervisors File Number 050601] which would establish a “Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation Process” by (a) adding Chapter 36 to the Administrative Code in order to set forth uniform procedures for developing comprehensive neighborhood plans, (b) amending Administrative Code Section 3.4 to provide for integrated budget documents, and (c) adding Section 312A to the Planning Code regarding discretionary review for projects located within plan areas.

Preliminary Recommendation: Commission Holds Public Hearing

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 28, 2005)

this is for discussion only.  no action at this hearing.

 

SPEAKERS:     

      Marilyn Amini

  1. Requested a clarification on the 90 days extension

Sue Hestor

  1. Currently there is not an established citywide effort or process for long term planning.
  2. There was/is not community participation.
  3. Our intention was to make some generic workable and fair process for creating land use planning legislation for San Francisco.

Unclear name

  1. Needs to make public participation a priority.

Unclear name

  1. It seems to her that the Better Neighborhood Plan increases density through rezoning neighborhoods.  As such, this could hardly be thought as better by current residents or already fully developed neighborhoods
  2. One of the most disturbing elements in the ordinance is the arbitrary limitation based in discretionary review.

 

Robert Pender

  1. We have not had enough public participation. We have not had any participation or any kind of discussion on what should happen in the southwest corner of San Francisco.

Mary Ann Miller

  1. Her main observation is that there really appears to be no need for special legislation.  Why are we preempting parts of the code and putting them aside?
  2. What is the difference between Better Neighborhood process and the Redevelopment Agency process?

            Judy Berkowitz

  1. We would like to have more time to study this legislation and the amendments that have come in lately so we can be able to make comments on exact places in the legislation that we think needs to be looked at.

            Charles

-  We need to look into the fiscal implications.

 

ACTION:           Meeting Held. No Action by the Commission.  President Sue Lee directed that this item be calendared on every calendar up to and including September 15, 2005.  (9/1, 9/8, & 9/15/05.

 

H.         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:

                         Marilyn Amini

Requested that the Commission send notices regarding the Better Neighborhood legislation to every neighborhood organization.

 

Adjournment: 7: 16 P.M.

 

                         THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, October 27, 2005.

 

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:          Alexander

 

 

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:17 PM