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

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

September 24, 2009

September 24, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 24, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1:40 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Diego Sanchez, Elizabeth Watty, Kevin Guy, Sharon Young, Lily Langlois, Craig Nikitas, Aaron Starr, Corey Teague, Jonas Ionin, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

Unless otherwise noted, items in this category are acted on by a single roll-call vote of the Commission.

1. 2009.0750D (C. Teague: (415) 575-9081)

70 Linda Street - west side, between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 049K in Assessor's Block 3588Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.04.21.6791 to add a 677 square foot 3rd story addition to the existing 2-story single-family home in a RTO-M (Residential Transit-Oriented - Mission Neighborhood District) Zoning District and 45-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.

(Proposed for Continuance to October 1, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

2a. 2009.0684D (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2008.12.01.7545 to demolish an existing single family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 6, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 8, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

2b. 2008.1379DDDDDV (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 Pennsylvania Avenue - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.12.01.7550 to construct a two family dwelling unit as the replacement structure to the proposed demolition of an existing single family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. Four separate neighbor initiated Discretionary Review requests regarding the replacement structure have also been filed and will be considered at this hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 6, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 8, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

2c. 2008.1379DDDDDV (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 Pennsylvania Avenue - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 - Request for Front Setback and Rear Yard Variances pursuant to Planning Code Section 132 and 134 for the construction of a new two family dwelling unit as the replacement structure to the proposed demolition of an existing single family dwelling within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. These Variance requests will be heard and considered by the Zoning Administrator. Two requests for Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, and four separate neighbor initiated Discretionary Review requests, regarding the replacement structure, have also been filed and will be considered at this hearing.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 6, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 8, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

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. 2009.0688C (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)

990 Polk Street - southeast corner at Geary Street, Lot 280 of Assessor's Block 0716:

Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a large fast-food restaurant (ice cream and coffee shop) in an existing vacant commercial storefront located at 990 Polk Street, within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, the 130-E Height and Bulk District, and the Automotive Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Project Sponsor; John Nulty; Abdul Dukay (?); a representative from Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation (TNDC); Chris Schulman – Office of Economic and Workforce Development

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17952

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 August 14, 2008
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 4, 2008.
  • Draft Minutes of Joint Hearing w/Recreation and Park Commission of December 4, 2008.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Commissioners were provided with documents that only had every other page. The item was therefore continued to 10/1/09. Electronic copies will be sent to commissioners by email.

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

5. 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.

Commission Secretary Avery:

Commissioners if I can take just one moment of your time. Let me just state for the public and you: As the Commission Secretary I have established a procedural policy that I use all the time. When I am here at these meetings, it is very difficult for me to handle processing of mail or material that does not relate to the meeting that we are engaged in at that time. For the public, [the policy] is stated on the front of our calendars under Meeting Procedures, it is very important that they not give me material for you (the commission) that is for next week's packet or some other meeting three months down the road. It needs to go to the Department so it can be processed. And if you give it to me here, I consider that correspondence. I did accept material today and only did so because I was told copies were delivered at the Department so they will be processed there. But it is just so difficult for me to try to handle this hearing and next week and the week after and others down the road. So I'm asking the public to look at the front of the calendar under Meeting Procedures and please, don't bring your material here for me to process [if it does not relate to matters on that day's calendar]. Thank you.

Commissioner Miguel:

Thank you for that explanation. I'm sure it's possible that people don't necessarily read the front of the calendar. I do understand the situation because if that continues, you would have a pile of papers with no relationship to when it should be processed. They should come to the office without question.

On Commissioner's Comments, I would like to publicly thank the Housing Action Coalition for presenting yesterday evening to the Planning Commission their annual Housing Hero Award. It was a very nice affair. It was very well attended by a large segment of the involved community in San Francisco – involved in housing and land use affairs. And although I was asked if I would, I did not wear the Superman style red satin cape they presented me to this hearing. I felt it might be a touch inappropriate, but it was greatly appreciated.

Commissioner Moore:

I'd like to acknowledge Dan Sider and staff for the de-brief on proposition D. I think that is a really good piece of work which prompted me to ask Secretary Avery to have all special requests, which are part of our Action Agenda, in an on-going binder or electronic file where we can retrieve and other people over time can go back. It's a very through work which the Planning Department is doing impromptu without it having been scheduled in their regular work schedule. It is a good piece of work and I think everybody should read that.

On another note: I attended the Mission Street neighborhood meeting on Tuesday evening in the Mission. The meeting was quite good and well organized. Staff was very strong in handling the meeting with input from a variety of people – property owners, residents, etc. There was a slight absence of the Spanish speaking community. I'm not sure why. I meant to talk with Commissioner Olague as to whether or not that requires special organization and/or a special kind of outreach. At least I believe the project is having a healthy discussion, but I do believe that the local community needs to be brought into the discussion and have a voice one way or the other.

I'm not sure if everybody is aware of this, but we will have the opportunity for $20 a shot to get the inspiration for luxury, high-rise living by visiting Rincon One, which is open between September 19 and November 1st, for people who are interested to see this project. I found it amusing to see a $20 fee, but I will not further comment on it; let that stand on its own; at least we can get an inspiration of luxury high-rise living.

Commissioner Antonini:

First of all, my thanks also to the Housing Action Coalition for last night's event. It was very nice. They certainly are the proverbial big tent of housing I think and I really appreciate their recognition.

Also, today I attended Governor Schwarzenegger's Green Initiatives speech and Q & A at the Commonwealth Club in regards to the environmental movement in California. It sort of ties into a Letter to the Editor I had in the Examiner today, which actually I compared and contrasted the conditions at Candlestick Park last Sunday with what it would have been if the game had been played in Santa Clara. Interestingly enough the temperature in San Francisco was about 79º with a gentle breeze and clean air and the conditions would have been 93º in Santa Clara and still unhealthy air, which is quite typical for that area in the fall. I went to school down there from1964 to 1968 and I don't think it has gotten any better as far as the conditions. Also, the other thing is public transit. I would think well over 20% of the people at that game took public transit, which I did. We took the T back and we saw all these people getting off at BART because they've learned, as they do for games at AT&T, they can do the same thing if they come to Candlestick if they are coming from the Eastbay. Those options won't exist in Santa Clara because there aren't those transit agencies close by that site. So what does this have to do with planning? It does have to do with the fact that they're finishing up a DEIR on the Santa Clara Stadium. The comment period is ending on Monday I believe. I happened to get a copy of it and there are some glaring errors when they talk about alternatives being the San Francisco Stadium alternative. One of them is that they claim that Prop G precludes a retrofit of Candlestick; and they also talk about the $100 million dollars out of revenue rather than as a pre-condition for development. My question hypothetically is when another area analysis something in your county or city and they do it in error, is it something that we should answer? Just as if we were doing something and analyzing an alternative in some other county or city, I would expect they would have some comment on it. I don't know what or how this is. I'm going to talk to Bill Wycko or somebody. Mr. Badiner said that might be a good idea, just to find out how these things should be handled in the future if there are errors that involve your jurisdiction.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Just to follow up on Proposition D and the memo – I thought it was very good. Can we have any kind of presentation or anything like that? I know that we can't take a position on it because it's a Proposition and it's political.

Director Rahaim:

My understanding is that we can have a presentation and talk about [it] objectively, but we or you can not take a position.

Commissioner Sugaya:

I'd like to have the Commission consider that because it seems to me that it's an extremely important topic.

Commissioner Moore:

That, and informing the public & ...

Commissioner Sugaya:

Yes, I think that on the face of it, it sounds great. When I first heard about it I thought this will liven up [ ] and everything. But then reading through the analysis and reading the text I think it's much broader than I thought it was going to be. I have some concerns about it, but maybe we can have a presentation and talk objectively. That's what we do. Ms. Stacy do you have any & .

Deputy City Attorney Kate Stacy:

Commissioner Sugaya I will check in with our Fair Political Practices Act experts. I think that as the Director has indicated, certainly there could be an informational presentation, but at this point the Commission needs to be careful about using City resources to take positions on the item. But I'll get back to the Director and the President with our FPPC expert [opinion].

Commissioner Sugaya:

I just believe something like an informational presentation would be good, especially for the public because I know that this issue has been taken for example to the San Francisco Architectural Heritage for endorsement among other groups.

In the Examiner of the 22nd [9/22/09],  Barriers to New Business – I was just curious about the headline and actually it turned out to be again about Mr. Sider's report on the neighborhood commercial history of the city. It doesn't seem like it was the same presentation that I heard or the same document that I read. They tried to attribute a quote to him which says that  piecemeal changes to the Zoning Code are outdated and prevent desirable businesses from moving into neighborhoods, etc. according to Mr. Sider. That doesn't sound like him to me.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I talked to Mr. Sider this morning about this report and interestingly enough, he was not interviewed for this report. He indicated to me that the reporting had been done probably from either that side of the podium or viewing it on line, which is possible. So he does not deny that those quotes were made, but they may have been in the context of a much larger report.

Commissioner Sugaya:

We don't want to give any more credence to it than that. Lastly, it was today's paper [that] had an editorial in it regarding the potential closure – I couldn't quite understand exactly what they were going to do in the Presidio. Were they going to be restricting traffic? The paper had some good points and perhaps we could have somebody contact the Presidio and see exactly what they are going to be doing. It's in the quise of trying to accommodate traffic and change driving habits because of the changes at Doyle Drive is what the Presidio Trust said. Apparently they are going to prevent traffic coming through either Arguello or Presidio Blvd. Mr. Antonini, do you know?

Commissioner Antonini:

The way I read it, it sounded like it's going to be Presidio Blvd. which is one of the major ways in and out. I'm not quite sure.

Director Rahaim:

I'll get you more information on that. My impression was that it was some of the smaller streets that did not include for example bus routes, but we'll get you more information on that.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Thank you.

Commissioner Olague:

I'd like to have a hearing on that Prop D. And I loved the report. It was really very well done by Mr. Sider. I think I remember reading the latest FPPC kind of guidelines for election periods that was sent to us by the City Attorney's Office. I remember reading in there that we could have objective hearings but we as a commission can't endorse a proposition. So maybe we can have an objective hearing here. I'm not sure if anyone at the HPC would be interested in reading this document, but it might be something that they might find interesting too. You may want to forward it to them in their packets.

About a week ago or so we mentioned – we were talking about two bedrooms v three bedrooms and someone mentioned that they had some units that were two bedrooms plus. I just wanted to mention that two bedrooms plus doesn't really count as three bedrooms because the plus doesn't include windows frequently and other Code issues that are required in three bedrooms. I just don't think it's fair to say that we have two bedrooms plus. I just wanted to mention that because there is a huge difference in the Code at least, and in the quality of life of a two bedroom v a three bedroom. I'm glad they have two bedrooms plus, but I think there is a huge difference.

I was wondering too if the CAC of the Eastern Neighborhoods would be involved at all in some of these discussions of the Mission heights. I'm just curious. I know they just formed.

Director Rahaim:

We are formulating that first agenda, but yeah, I would assume they would be involved

Commissioner Olague:

That would be great. I would be interested in having their input before we start deliberating on that here.

I heard similar concerns as Commissioner Moore mentioned on the Mission. We can talk about that more about some outreach strategies.

I believe there is a $20 fee being charged for the One Rincon tour. Is that going to an in-lieu fee? I know the economy is bad, but I think it might be nice to do that tour – (I'm just being silly).

I think that's it really. I think the main thing I was distracted by was the three bedroom discussion a few weeks ago.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioner, if I recall correctly, the Project Sponsor acknowledged that there weren't three bedrooms and had said they could look at converting the two bedrooms with dens into three bedrooms. My recollection was that the condition was that they examine that, but I don't think they made the equivalent that a two bedroom plus was three bedrooms.

Commissioner Olague:

Okay, that is good to know. It was a good discussion.

Commissioner Sugaya:

If I might, also there has been some relaxation in the Codes as of January in certain situations where rooms that couldn't be considered habitable are now considered to be habitable.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I have been told, as ridicules as it may be, the new Code may not require any windows for a bedroom. I can't swear to that, but that's a bedroom I wouldn't want to particularly sleep in. But I do believe as Commissioner mentioned, they have been liberalized greatly. I think it's called the New IBC that was adopted January 1st, which I think is a National Code. Again, I'm not speaking from my expertise. It is a Building Code issue.

Commissioner Miguel:

It would be interesting if we could get something definitive on that.

Commissioner Sugaya:

The one small thing I do know is that if you had a situation previously where you had a totally enclosed room without any light or ventilation, you couldn't have it enclosed, you had to have it open. Now it is permitted to have an internal wall with a door on it.

Commissioner Borden:

I do want to thank the HAC for recognizing the Commission. I felt it was very kind of them to acknowledge us in that way.

I actually want to talk about another item. I know we have two cases on calendar today related to massage establishments and one of the issues or questions that came up is the process in which notification to the Police Department [is made] on a site. One of the challenges that Ms. Vaughey actually looked into is that of a location of a massage parlor but the ownership changes. Then the records kind of get re-set within the Police Department. So if you had five family members, or cousins, or even unrelated people all operating a massage establishment in some location, when that new location would go in there wouldn't be any violations listed because there was a new owner and it kind of resets the clock. So in looking at the policy around massage parlors, how we as staff when we talk to the police, do investigations into whether or not there are any issues - especially if they own any other locations within the city; and also how to deal with repeat offenders on a location – not necessarily specific to the owner. That is just something I wanted to bring up. It is not specific to either case we have on calendar today but it is related.

Commissioner Antonini:

In regards to a possible hearing regarding Prop D, I would ask the City Attorney if public comment would be allowed and would commissioners be allowed to comment informationally on anything they may find that they don't agree with – although I haven't read it in detail, I'm sure Mr. Sider's report is very through and complete.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

6. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Good afternoon everyone. Let me add my congratulations to all of you for your Housing Hero Awards yesterday. It was a very nice event and very kind of the Housing Action Coalition.

As a reminder, I will be missing the next two meetings. I will be back east on a speaking engagement and some vacation time.

I want to remind you and the public as well that on September 30, that is next Wednesday evening at 6 p.m., we have the latest public meeting coming up on the Northeast Waterfront work that we are doing. This will take place at 6 p.m. in the Port Commission room in the Ferry Building. At this meeting staff will present our initial recommendations for the direction of the parking lot sites along that part of the waterfront.

Finally, I just wanted to mention that there had been a lot of discussion the last couple of weeks and some media attention paid to this proposal or this concept that had been in the Department about providing additional support to the Environmental Review staff. We have had several discussions with the staff about it and I wanted to let you know that the decision that I made this week was move ahead with that program with the use of temporary staff on an as-needed basis. The idea is to set up a system whereby certain types of projects with the agreement of the Environmental Review Officer could pay an expedited fee to have additional support provided to a project. We would use that fee to then hire temporary staff to help with that project. We will give that a try for the next year or so to see how that works. We will develop some protocols and criteria of what types of projects may use this service and under what conditions we would decide to proceed with this. We want to give this a try and I do want to say that frankly there was a fair amount of mis-information out there about this – that it was going to eliminate staff positions and all this. It clearly was not the intent and it was not going to happen that way. But none the less, these things do tend to get a bit out of control. We are going to try it on this basis for about a year and if we feel that we can – and staff had a number of ideas of how we might use consultants on a limited fashion on this and we might try that next year, but as a first phase, we are going to try to do it with temporary staff.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioners I just wanted to add my congratulations and I'm sorry that I could not have been there, but congratulations. It was a well deserved honor.

On a different item: 1250 Missouri – I think commissioners remember that case – I think on Monday in my absence, staff reviewed the final plans as submitted with Supervisor Maxwell and her staff. We are now prepared to sign off on these plans. The plans reflect what the Commission indicated. The [ ] bars have been moved; the fireplaces have been re-moved; the appropriate plumbing has been re-moved; and the baths have been removed; and there is direct access to the mezzanines through walkway systems. So we are prepared to sign off on those plans. I believe we are just awaiting some technical details and I think it may also be subject to some fees, but we are looking into that. I wanted to let the Commission know because you wanted to be kept abreast of that wonderful project.

7. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

Land Use Committee:

  • Interim Controls for Head Shops along Polk Street – This would impose interim zoning controls to require a Conditional Use authorization (CU) for Tobacco Paraphernalia establishments as newly defined in the ordinance in this Commercial District for a one year time period. Because this was an interim control this was not referred to the Planning Department of Commission for comment. This week the Committee recommended approval to the full Board
  • SOMA Stabilization Fund – This ordinance would clarify that this stabilization fee is due before final Certificate of Occupancy or within a certain time after the issuance of a first Certificate of Occupancy, whichever comes first. It also updates references to the Mayor's Office responsible for managing the fee (The Mayor's Office of Community Investment). This Commission heard this item on July 9th. You recommended approval without modification. This week at the hearing the attorney for One Rincon requested an exemption so this project would be  grandfathered in. That modification was not accepted by the Committee. The Committee will require that all fees be paid prior to the temporary Certificate of Occupancy, not final. This item was passed to the full Board with a recommendation of approval.

Introductions:

  • 0991137 – Mills Act Contract Procedures – Supervisor Alioto-Pier introduced an ordinance that would amend the Administrative Code to codify changes to Mills Act procedures related to the new Charter changes that created the Historic Preservation Commission. Specifically, this ordinance would establish process deadlines for Mills Act applications; it would require Budget Analyst review of Mills Act applications; and it would clarify the definition of qualified historical properties as well as make other  technical changes. This will come to you in the future.

BOARD OF APPEALS:

None

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISISON:

None

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:

Patricia Vaughey

Re: Massage Parlor legislation

Jim Meko

Re: Environmental Impact Report process for Western SOMA

Zack Stewart

Re: Health safety and welfare of the public

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

8. 2009.0629C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

723 TARAVAL STREET - south side between 17th and 18th Avenues; Lot 052 in Assessor's Block 2408 – Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 711.54 and 790.60, to convert a vacant commercial space (formerly Wells Fargo Home Mortgage) with approximately 1,470 square feet of gross floor area into a massage establishment (dba Perfect Foot Massage Center) within the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Tony Lee – Project Designer

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Lee, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Moore

MOTION: 17953

9. 2009.0530C (D. Sánchez: (415).575.9082)

2884 24th Street - northeast corner of Florida Street; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 4208 - Request for Conditional Use authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 727.24, 727.26 and 727.44 to establish an outdoor activity area, a walk up facility and a small self service restaurant (dba La Palma Market) within the 24th Street – Mission Neighborhood Commercial Transit District and a 45-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Sandra Jeminez – Representing the Project Sponsor, Patricia Vaughey

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17954

10. 2009.0580C (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)

2443 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Divisadero and Scott Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 0937 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 303, 712.54, and 790.60 of the Planning Code to convert vacant commercial space (formerly occupied by dba Fish Fish & More Fish) with approximately 1,000 square feet of floor area into a massage establishment (dba Perfect Health Center), within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale) Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: Tony Fong – Project Designer, Patricia Vaughey

ACTION: Approved as amended to remove an interior wall; hours of operation will go from 10 to 10 seven days a week to 10 to 7 M-F and 10 to 6 Saturdays and Sundays at the end of one year unless otherwise determined by the Zoning Administrator

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

MOTION: 17955

11. 2009.0379Z (L. Langlois: 415)-575-9083)

Bayview Technical Map Amendments – This Map amendment addresses miscellaneous parcels throughout the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood, an area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez to the north, Bayshore Boulevard to the west, San Mateo County line to the South and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The purpose of this map amendment is two fold: to make technical revisions to the Bayview Hunters Point PDR rezone completed in June 2008, and to rezone some parcels that are still zoned M-1 to zoning designations that match existing land uses with the long term intent to maintain the existing uses. The Planning Commission will consider Planning Code Map Amendments pursuant to Planning Code Section 302 and 306.3 that would amend Sectional Maps ZN08, ZN10, and SU10 of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco. This amendment would: 1) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Bayshore Boulevard, Kirkwood Avenue, and Third Street from M-1 (Light Industrial) or M-2 (Heavy Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair).; 2) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Newcomb Avenue, Rankin Street, Elmira Street and Industrial Street from C-M (Heavy Commercial), M-1 (Light Industrial), PDR-1-B/PDR-2 (Light Industrial Buffer/ Production, Distribution and Repair) to PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer) or PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair); 3) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by McKinnon Avenue, Phelps Street, Oakdale Avenue, and Quint Street from M-1(Light Industrial) or RH-2 (Residential) to P (Public); 4) reclassify certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Williams Ave, Kalmanovitz Street, Egbert Avenue, and Newhall Street from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer), PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) or RH-1 (Residential); 5) reclassify certain the parcels within the area generally bounded by Revere Avenue, Mendell Street, Egbert Avenue and Hawes Street from M-1 (Light Industrial), PDR-1-B/PDR-2 (Light Industrial Buffer/ Production, Distribution and Repair, PDR-1-B (Light Industrial Buffer), or PDR-2 (Production, Distribution and Repair) to PDR-1-B, PDR-2, RH-1(Residential) or RH-2 (Residential); 6) apply the Design and Development Special Use to certain parcels within the area generally bounded by Donner Avenue, Jennings Street Egbert Avenue, and Third Street. The proposed Ordinance is before the Commission so that it may recommend adoption, rejection, or adoption with modifications to the Board of Supervisors and adopt findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: Wayne Yee – a neighborhood property owner

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17956

12. (C. Nikitas: (415) 558-6306)

Review of Demolition Ordinance & Policies - On April 18, 2008, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed Ordinance 69-08 [BF 080210] which established Planning Code Section 317 to regulate the loss of dwelling units. Over a year after its implementation, the Ordinance will be reviewed at a public hearing. The Planning Commission will discuss the intent of the Ordinance; the efficacy of the Ordinance in general; and specific planning policies and procedures related to review for loss of dwelling units, including loss due to institutional expansion. Legislation introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi that would amend Section 317 to require replacement of sound housing will be presented and discussed, prior to action on that legislation at a future hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Only - No Action to be Taken

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Supervisor Mirkarimi

ACTION: Informational only – No action

13a. 2007.0921DD (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.09.20.3151 (demolition); proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-family dwelling, subdivide the lot and construct two, four-story, two-family buildings 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 Project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)

Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Tom Davick – DR Requestor, Rose Hillson, Cheryl Schultz, Vincent Marsh, Van Shayn _ Father of Project Sponsor, Gary Gee – Project Architect, William Abnd – Project Architect, Gene Zanchenko, Milana Targan – Projegt Sponsor, Regina Ichurin, Val shayn, Olena Sigal

ACTION: The Commission took DR and disapproved the demolition

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Lee

DRA#: 0106

13b. 2007.0921DD (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Request for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2007.09.20.3151; proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-unit 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 Project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)

Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: The Commission took DR and disapproved the demolition

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Moore, and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Lee

DRA#: 0106

13c. 2008.1155D & 2008.1156D (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.09.20.3152 and 2007.09.20.3157 (new construction); proposing to demolish the existing two-story, two-family dwelling, subdivide the lot and construct two, four-story, two-family buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify Project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)

Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: The Commission took DR and disapproved the project, but indicated that if the project was ultimately approved, they adopted the with modifications as recommended by staff

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Sugaya

NAYES: Moore and Olague

ABSENT: Lee

DRA#: 0107

13d. 2008.1213D (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

673-675 44th AVENUE - west side between Balboa and Anza Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 1587 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2007.09.20.3152 and 2007.09.20.3157; proposing to construct two new, four-story, two-unit buildings in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Modify Project

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 17, 2009)

Note: On September 10, 2009, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to September 17, 2009 by a vote of +7 -0. Public hearing remains open.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION: The Commission took DR and disapproved the project, but indicated that if the project was ultimately approved, they adopted the with modifications as recommended by staff

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Sugaya

NAYES: Moore and Olague

ABSENT: Lee

DRA#: 0107

14. 2009.0479D (C. Teague: (415) 575-9081)

772 WISCONSIN STREET - west side, between 20th and 22nd Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 4097 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.07.13.6790 to add a 3rd story to the existing 2-story single-family home, extend the rear of the building, and redesign the front façade in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 10, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Christina Lloyd – DR requestor, Emma Lloyd – DR supporter, Kathleen Boast – Project Architect, Eileen Valasquez – Project Sponsor, Laquoy Do – Project Sponsor

ACTION: The Commission did not take DR and approved the project

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Lee

DRA#: 0108

15. 2009.0642D (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

2642-2644 HYDE STREET - east side between North Point and Bay Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0027 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.11.02.8353; to legalize a balcony, in a two-unit, four-story building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project

SPEAKERS: Ellen Tsang – DR Requestor, Edgar – DR supporter, Robert Mittelstadt – Project Architect

ACTION: The Commission did not take DR and approved the project

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Lee

DRA#: 0109

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

  1. directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 6:50 p.m.

Adopted: October 15, 2009

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:40 PM