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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

October 8, 2009

October 8, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 8, 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: Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Edgar Oropeza, Craig Nikitas, Aaron Starr, Tara Sullivan, 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.

1a. 2008.0719D (S. CALTAGIRONE: (415) 558-6381)

2626 LARKIN STREET - east side between Chestnut and Lombard Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0069 - Mandatory Discretionary Review per Section 317 of the Planning Code of Building Permit Application No. 2008.0926.2736, proposing to demolish a three-story, two-unit residential building on a property located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to October 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

1b. 2009.0907D (S. Caltagirone: (415) 558-6381)

2626 Larkin Street - east side between Chestnut and Lombard Streets; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 0069 - Mandatory Discretionary Review per Section 317 of the Planning Code of Building Permit Application No. 2008.0926.2740, proposing to construct a four-story, two-unit residential building on a property located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to October 22, 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

2. 2009.0358C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

854 FOLSOM STREET - west side between 4th and 5th Streets, Lot 020A in Assessor's Block 3733 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 815.34A and 890.60, to allow a Massage Establishment in conjunction with a personal service use dba,  The Barber Lounge, all within the Residential/Service Mixed Use District (RSD), the Western SOMA Special Use District, and a 40-X / 85-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS (for continuance request only): Greg Griffin, Sam Alicia Duke, Jim Meko

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17958

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.

3. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 24, 2009.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 2, 2008.

SPEAKERS: Marilyn Amini

ACTION: The draft minutes in the public review folder at the Department for 9/24/09 only has every other page. As a result, the Commission continued consideration of those minutes to 10/15/09 and approved the minutes for 10/2/08

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

4. 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 Antonini:

I've had the pleasure of attending some of the President's Cup. I think it's a wonderful post card of San Francisco that's going out to probably a billion people world wide and it's only appropriate as the Mayor said yesterday that we are the birth place of the United Nations. It's a great event. But there is a land use issue that a lot of people aren't aware of and that is the fact one of the added benefits of this tournament is the fact that we have been able to established the first tee in an inner-city area, in the Visitacion Valley area, which will be a great [or] give access to a lot of young people in San Francisco and throughout the Bay Area to develop skills for golf. This is a wonderful program and I think it is something that has often in the attention we give to the more glamorous aspect of the tournament, this is one that a lot of people don't know about but it was pointed out yesterday and I think it was a great benefit. I was very happy to see that happen.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Two things: One, I did enquire with the City Attorney's Office about a legal case in Los Angeles that addresses affordable housing regulations in the State or at least in Los Angeles. It's somewhat alarming. The Superior Court has concluded that as applied to a proposed project, the city of Los Angeles Affordable Housing Ordinance conflicts with and is pre-empted by the vacancy de-control provisions of the [Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act]. This I believe, according to the City Attorney's Office, is being [rather] they have requested that the California Supreme Court to hear it. Ms. Susan Cleveland-Knowles has informed us that that took place around the first of September but the Supreme Court has not rendered its decision. It's probably a little too complicated to go into here and it is requested to be heard by a higher court. I think the City Attorney's Office will keep us informed on this and what affect it might have on the city's affordable housing regulations.

The second thing is last week there was a discussion, which I kind of missed because I got confused on whether it was Proposition D or whether it was the report done on the Neighborhood Commercial Districts, so I didn't say anything. But I'd just like to say that I think that the Commission should have an informational hearing on the memorandum that was crafted by staff with respect to this particular Proposition. I say that simply because there is no other public forum for this particular memo to come forth I suppose unless somebody wants to write an [op-ed] piece or something like that. If commissioners feel that they can't make objective comments, they can just not say anything and we can just have a hearing and that would be it. But it would at least give some public airing to I think a memorandum that was very well crafted and objectively looks at the implications of the ordinance back on existing sign ordinances and the way it would be administered, presumably not by the city, I think is the way it was written, but I haven't completely read it. That's just my opinion.

Commissioner Olague:

I would like the information that is out so far on the affordable housing case in Los Angeles. Susan Cleveland-Knowles – if she can forward it to me because I thought it was going to be something that was going to be raised here today. But obviously not, so I would like whatever information you have on it.

Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland-Knowles:

There are several published summaries of the case that I can send to you from different perspectives and I can send you the case itself. Again, it's not a final decision at this point. We'll update you as soon as we hear from the California Supreme Court about whether they have accepted review or declined review of the case.

Commissioner Olague:

Thank you because I think it's important, and thank you Commissioner Sugaya for pointing it out.

I also thought we should have a Prop D discussion here. I know there was some concern that we never brought these issues before this commission, but Prop 98, we had a discussion. That was a statewide measure and then there were a couple of other local measures that we discussed here objectively. I would support having a public [hearing]. Again, I agree with Commissioner Sugaya's comments on that, but it's up to the rest of the commission.

Finally, I meant to get here sooner because someone who did a lot of community work in the South of Market area, particularly around housing, he was an activist. Frequently activist – flags aren't flown at half mast for them, but without their presence and their involvement the city wouldn't be what it is. There was a gentleman, John Malone who was very active in the South of Market community. Me and Mr. Meko both worked with him and I would ask that we close the meeting in his honor today. He was very active in SOM PAC and other South of Market planning issues.

Commissioner Borden:

I have a question for the Zoning Administrator. I was attending the Marina Merchants Association meeting this week and there was a space on Chestnut Street that T-Mobil has gotten building permits to actually do work to a building space but they have not filed for a conditional use formula retail. I was wondering how that could happen.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Well, let me speculate. They didn't tell us they were a formula retail? If you would give me the address we will look into it. It is they could be taking a risk. If the facts are that, that they decided that they wanted to go ahead and do improvements and were going to come in soon for a formula retail, perhaps they did not understand that they should do formula retail, or perhaps there are some mitigating circumstances that I don't understand.

Commissioner Borden:

I was wondering because it is my understanding that when someone comes in, they get a building permit and they get asked that question or questions similar to it and then at that point they would get an application. Are they then still able to get their building permit even though they have a conditional use?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

No. They are actually asked to self-identify. There is a questionnaire that I think is given out to almost every building permit application that is a retail occupancy change. They should have filled that out and we should have looked it. I can't begin to speculate on whether the permit may not have been referred to us by DBI, I'm not blaming DBI.

Commissioner Borden:

But you're just saying they wouldn't be able to get a permit if they had & .

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I don't think they should have gotten a permit if they were identified as a formula retail use. If you would give me the address, we will pursue it.

Commissioner Miguel:

Thank you Commissioner Borden. Hopefully that is part of what the new computer system will solve in the future, although it should be taken care of now.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

It really depends on self-identification. Someone has to understand and agree with us that we believe that they are formula retail. It doesn't always happen. We've seen a number of cases recently where you've got subsidiaries. The question becomes is that subsidiary the Ralph Lauren something? Ultimately, I would determine that was formula retail. There is a similar thing going on with Brooks Brothers where I've ultimately determined they're formula retail. They are actually coming in. They didn't agree, but they are coming in as a formula retail. It's not crystal clear and we said it wasn't and there would be errors. I don't want to disparage anyone. We just don't know what happened yet. I'm not blaming DBI in the slightest, or even the project sponsor.

Commissioner Antonini:

A couple of things: I guess I would also like to have more information on that Los Angeles decision. One would assume that whatever form it arrives at in its final version it would have statewide application, is that correct? Because it would be a president setting decision, is that what we are hearing on this?

Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland-Knowles:

If the Court of Appeal decision is left to stand in that district Court of Appeals – it's one district out of several districts so if another Appellant Court were to make a different decision then there would be a split of authority. Obviously if the California Supreme Court hears the case, then that decision would apply statewide. And generally until there is another Court of Appeal case, the Second District Court of Appeal case would stand and apply statewide.

Commissioner Antonini:

Thank you. It is valuable to have that presentation so we know how decisions – they're jurisdiction are applies.

In regards to the discussion on Prop D: I do remember the Prop 98 discussion that was already on the ballot. I believe, if memory serves me right, most of the other measures we've discussed here at the Planning Commission have been in the crafting stages and the stage where they weren't the final versions that were on the ballot. I think that is an area where we have to be very careful if we do have any public hearing on a measure that is already there, that it informational only and that it be an objective presentation that deals with land use concerns regarding a particular issue. That would be my feeling on it. I don't know that we need to have a discussion on it, but I wanted to weigh in.

Commissioner Olague:

I think a couple of weeks ago Commissioner Moore raised the issue of having an update on the Academy of Art because we had all been receiving these emails. I was wondering if that is ever going to come up. Is it going to be calendared?

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I did have some discussions with staff about that and I thought that we were aiming for late October, but I doubt that Ms. Avery knows that and I really need to follow up again. I know after you asked, I followed up on it and I don't remember when we had decided to schedule to schedule it. I'm sorry.

Commissioner Moore:

Commissioner Olague I appreciate you bringing that up because I would like to bring that discussion into the examination as to whether or not the east bound closing of Market Street really works and how the excessive impact of Academy buses of all kinds of sizes further impedes the neighborhood streets, which were brought to our attention 10/8, 6, & 4. Mr. Badiner I'm not sure if you've gotten any progress report, I go down Market Street frequently. I still see people in private cars driving on the east side in the direction of the Ferry Building, so I'm not sure as to whether or not the implementation of this experimental measure is really working.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I honestly haven't been tracking it. As I said, I believe after 90 days – it was a trial period and we were going to provide you with the report that MTA had come up with. We have not been monitoring it on a daily basis. I'm sure MTA has, but we haven't.

Commissioner Moore:

The street feels good with fewer cars, but I think if people would be fined there would be a great resource for revenue because there are still quite a few people doing it.

Commissioner Miguel:

I'd just like to mention that I have had during the last week discussions regarding Articles 10 & 11 as to the Historic Preservation Commission. I have had discussions on the Hope SF Program regarding both Presidio Terrace and Sunnydale Housing – both of which are in progress; with Sutter regarding CPMC; as well as people on projects Lombard and California Streets. I've also been following, as obviously several of the commissioners have, the legal action down south on inclusionary housing. It will be interesting to see how far that goes – whether it stays with the Appeals Court down there, just in that jurisdiction – or it goes up to the State Supreme Court to cover everybody. At least we'll know for sure pretty soon whether or not they are going to take the case and go further with it. My information is that they probably will take the case.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

5. Director's Announcements

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

Commissioners, I have two items that I'd like to bring to your attention. Director Rahaim is on a well deserved vacation and will be back next week and the first [item] is variances. Commissioners, as you are aware, most variances are heard by me in a separate hearing. But sometimes when there is a hearing before you, often DR or sometimes CU, we hold the variance hearing here for the convenience of the public and project sponsors and staff because frankly so we don't have two duplicative hearings. It is my practice when I hold the individual variance hearings to make an announcement and say that there is a sign-up sheet over on the left and please sign up if you are interested in receiving the Variance Hearing Decision Letter so you can preserve your rights of appeal. I haven't done that in the past here because there are so many different appeal processes and often people who are here on projects are somewhat more sophisticated than purely on variance hearings. It has been raised that that is something I should do and I think it is a good idea. So in the future if we were hearing for example today the 448 Pennsylvania Avenue case, prior to the hearing I would say,  There is a sign-up sheet over there on the left of the room. Please sign up if you want to preserve your rights of appeal. After the Decision Letter if crafted, you will be mailed a copy of the Decision Letter and will have ten (10) days to appeal to the Board of Appeals. I will do that in the future.

The second point I would like to make is I issued an unusual emergency alteration permit today. Usually they are emergency demolition permits. As you are aware, residential buildings and preservations buildings need to go through a complete process including neighborhood notification and often discretionary review before you commissioners. But there is an exception where the Department of Building Inspection has determined there is imminent safety hazard. Those imminent safety hazards, in every case that I am aware of, has resulted in a demolition permit being issued. But in this case, on Saturday, there were high winds and this building was under construction. The ground floor had been re-habed and highly strengthened. The building was open above that. The wind came in and essentially blew the top off. Today I issued the emergency authorization permit. It probably would characterize as tantamount to demolition under our things. I hope commissioners, although it's not necessary, that you would agree with me that that is a valid permit to issue in this case. The project sponsor, I understand from Director Day, wanted a demolition permit. But she said that no you can keep the bottom and rebuild the top and please don't exceed the scope of the permit again. That was an editorial comment. Director Day didn't say that.

Commissioner Miguel:

Thank you regarding the variance sign-up Mr. Badiner. I have been copied on most of that email correspondence and I think it complies with the intent of being able to be on the list in order to make an appeal. I think it's very consistent.

Zoning Administrator Badiner:

I think so too and I think credit should go where credit is due. Steve Williams suggested it and I think it was a good suggestion and we followed it and I appreciate that.

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

Full Board:

  • SOMA Stabilization Fund – This ordinance would clarify that the SOMA Stabilization fee is due before issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy or within a time certain after the issuance of a first Certificate of Occupancy, whichever is first. It would also update references to the Mayor's Office responsible for managing this fee. This was heard at this Commission on July 9 and you recommended approval without modification. This week, on first reading, the Board unanimously passed this with the same form as it was when you heard it.
  • Interim Controls for Head Shops on Polk Street – This would impose interim zoning controls to require a Conditional Use (CU) Authorization for Tobacco Paraphernalia Establishments as defined in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District for a one year period. As an interim control this was not referred to this Commission for comment. This week the Board adopted the interim controls unanimously.
  • Appeal Limit on Mitigated Negative Declaration for 1390 Market Street aka  Fox Plaza – This project is a residential and retail expansion that would add a new tower (an 11-story building) on the block with up to 250 new residential units and no new parking. The primary concern of the appeal was that wind impacts from the new building should be considered in combination with existing winds from the existing tower (a 29-story building). CEQA nor Planning Code Section 148, which established criteria for acceptable ground level winds, requires evaluation or mitigation for wind resulting from existing structures if those existing structures are not within the scope of the  project. This week the Board upheld the Mitigated Negative Declaration and rejected the appeal unanimously.

Introductions:

  • 091165 – Parking Requirements & Requirements for New Garages in Existing Buildings in Telegraph Hill, North Beach and Chinatown. Supervisor Chiu introduced an ordinance that would amend the Planning Code to require a CU for new garages in existing buildings in this area. The ordinance would also amend Section 151 to remove the parking minimum requirement within the Telegraph Hill, North Beach & Chinatown areas. It would also add parts of Columbus Street to the list of streets where new curb cuts are prohibited and would amend the Public Works Code to prohibit encroachment permits to facilitate new parking.

BOARD OF APPEALS:

No items to report

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

  • The Commission had a CEQA workshop/training given by Tara Sullivan of Department staff that was well received.
  • 1833 Page Street, Park Branch Library – This item was before the Commission to consider initiating for Landmark Designation. The Commission disapproved initiation at this time but required a status update in 6 months and re-initiation consideration in 13 months.
  • The Appleton & Wolfard Libraries – There were 8 libraries before the commission for consideration to initiate for Landmark Designation. Of those eight, they approved initiation for five: Marina, Eureka Valley, Excelsior, Western Addition, and the North Beach Branch Libraries (only the building is recommended for the North Beach Branch). The Commission deferred initiation of the Parkside and Merced Branch Libraries with an update report in two months and consideration of re-initiation in 13 months. The eighth library – the Ortega Branch Library – was not considered because the building was demolished prior to the hearing.
  • Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places – The Commission voted support for the nomination of four properties: 1050 Battery Street, 1 Lombard Street, 450 Sutter Street, and 557 Ashbury Street

6a. (C. Nikitas: (415) 558-6306)

Bird-Friendly Building Standards - Informational Presentation by Christine Sheppard, PhD, Bird Collisions Campaign Manager of the American Bird Conservancy, Washington, DC. The discussion is the beginning of the formulation of local building standards to minimize impacts with flying animals, and could lead to adoption of a Planning Commission policy at a future hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational -- No action to be taken

NOTE: This item is from an addendum

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational only – no action

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: Jim Meko

RE: Western SOMA Task Force Community Plan and alternatives in the EIR

Hirochi Fukuda

RE: 2004/2009 Housing Element

Sanford Garfinkle

RE: 100 32nd Avenue

Joe Butler

RE: 100 32nd Avenue

Marilyn Amini

RE: From her perception, members of the Commission violated the Sunshine Ordinance by attending a SPUR meeting as recipients of an award

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

7. 2009.0639C (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

1969 California Street - south side between Octavia and Gough Streets, Lot 016, in Assessor's Block 0649 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.9(e) and 303, to allow an art gallery and associated offices in a designated City Landmark, Landmark # 260, the Tobin House, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 1, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Celeste Meier & Family – Project Sponsors, (+) Brett Gladstone – Attorney for Project Sponsors, (+) Alice Carey – Preservation Consultant, (+) Dave Klein – Realtor, (+) Arnold Lerner – SF Architectural Heritage, (-) Owen O'Donnell, (+) Julian Ray, (-)Curt Glaser, (+) Alby MacCarone, (-) Bill Bronson, (+)Larry Matthews, (+)Thomas Christopher, (-) David Perry, (+) Sara Jelley, (+) Ken Hartley, (-) Paul Wermer, (+) Carol Brooks, (+) Stephen Jenkins, (-) Greg Scott, (+) Angus Whyte, (+) Mary Monahan [read a letter in support], (-) Terry McGuire, (+) Robin Wright, (+) Sara Cain, (-) Aleea McGuire, (+) Linda Boe, (+) Jessica Silverman, (-) David McGuire, (+) Susan Avila, (+) Marie McDougall, (-) J. Ben, (+) Jake Gleason, (+) Janet Bishop, (+) Pat Hellstrom, (+) Larry Render, (+) Neil Benezra, (+) Graham Leggat, (-) Steve Williams

ACTION: Approved staff recommendation and open hours from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Tuesday – Friday), five times during the year for five weeks at a time; and amend condition 17 per the Zoning Administrator's recommendation at the hearing

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

RECUSED: Sugaya

MOTION: 17959

8. 2009.0747C: (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

2233 Union Street - south side between Steiner and Fillmore Streets, Lot 032, in Assessor's Block 0539 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303, 317 and 725.53 to allow a Business/Professional Service use on the third floor of the subject building where a dwelling unit currently exists in the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 1, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Ms. Carney – Project Sponsor; (+) Michael Williams – Union Street Merchants Association

ACTION: Approved as amended to require corrected plans that show the accurate light wells and or old stove flues and how they are treated throughout the three floors

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

ABSENT: Lee

MOTION: 17960

9. 2008.0787T (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments relating to Planning Code Section 209.1(m) to amend the requirements for double density housing [Board File No. 09-0906] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Chiu amending Planning Code Section by adding Section 102.6.1 to create a definition related to housing for seniors; amending 209.1(m) related to the uses permitted in Residential Districts to update the requirements for obtaining double density for providing senior housing and, adding Section 209.1(o) to require, in certain circumstances, a conditional use authorization; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 1, 2009)

SPEAKERS: (+ with concerns) Sue Hestor, (-) Hiroshi Fukuda, (-) Marilyn Amini

ACTION: Approved staff recommendation and required CU outside ¼ mile of an NC

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: Lee

RESOLUTION: 17961

10. 2008.0784T (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments relating to Planning Code Section 227(v) to amend the definition of a tobacco paraphernalia establishment and to amend Section 723 – Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District to prohibit tobacco paraphernalia establishments [Board File No. 09-0962] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Chiu amending Planning Code Section 227(v) to lower the threshold for retail stores to be considered tobacco paraphernalia establishments from 15% of the square footage of the establishment to 10% of the occupied floor area, as defined in Section 102.10, or 10 linear feet of display area in total, whichever is less; amending Sections 790.123 and 890.123 to reflect this amended definition; amending 723.1 and the Table at Section 723 to make tobacco paraphernalia establishments, as defined, not permitted in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District; amending Section 186.1 to change the period of non-use for a non-conforming tobacco paraphernalia establishment to be deemed discontinued in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District from three years to eighteen months; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to October 22, 2009

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

11a. 2009.0684D (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 - 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 September 24, 2009)

SPEAKERS (for continuance request only): Michael Mugmon, Laura Spieglman, Matt Chaney – Project Owner

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 12, 2009

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

11b. 2008.1379DDDDDV (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

448 Pennsylvania Avenue - west side between 19th and 20th Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 4064 - 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 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 Public 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 September 24, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 11a

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 12, 2009

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

ABSENT: Sugaya

11c. 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 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 24, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 11a

ACTION: Without hearing, the Zoning Administrator continued to November 12, 2009

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: Marilyn Amini

Re: Requested that the Commission rescind its vote on item 9, amending requirements for double density housing

Adjournment: 6:47 p.m. in memory of John Malone

Adopted: October 22, 2009

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