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

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

March 8, 2012 - Regular Meeting

New Page 1





Meeting Minutes

Board of Supervisors Chamber - Room 250

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 8, 2012

4:00 PM

Regular Meeting


COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya




STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez - Zoning Administrator, Thomas Wang, Jon Swae, David Lindsay, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.




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


1.         2011.0189D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6189)

721 BEACH STREET - south side between Hyde and Larkin Streets, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0025 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to a request by the Planning Commission, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2010.11.29.5727 and Building Permit Application No. 2010.11.29.5645 proposing demolition of an existing, one-story commercial building and new construction of a four-story, mixed-use building with one dwelling unit in the C-2 (Community Business) District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2 and the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 9, 2012)

(Proposed for Continuance to March 22, 2012)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

AYES:             Fong, Wu, Antonini, Miguel, Moore, Borden, Sugaya



2a.        2011.0304DV                                                                            (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

147 ANDOVER STREET - east side between Powhattan and Eugenia Avenues; Lots 024 in Assessor’s Block 5647 - Request of Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.10.21.3547, proposing to (1) remodel the interior, (2) raise the roof at the rear by 3’-0” in height, (3) legalize the reconstruction of the rear most 8’-0” of the existing building, and (4) construct a new rear deck and stair on the existing single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House – One-Family) District and the Bernal Heights Special Use District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Staff Analysis:  Abbreviated Discretionary Review

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 26, 2012)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 5, 2012)

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

AYES:             Fong, Wu, Antonini, Miguel, Moore, Borden, Sugaya


2b.       2011.0304DV                                                                              (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

147 Andover Street - east side between Powhattan and Eugenia Avenues; Lots 024 in Assessor’s Block 5647 - Request for Rear Yard Variance pursuant to Planning Code Section 242(e)(2) , proposing to raise the roof at the rear by 3’-0” in height and construct a new rear deck and stair on the existing single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House–One-Family) District and the Bernal Heights Special Use District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 26, 2012)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 5, 2012)


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

AYES:             Fong, Wu, Antonini, Miguel, Moore, Borden, Sugaya




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.         2011.1283C                                                                           (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)

4028 24TH STREET - on the north side of 24th Street between Noe and Castro streets; Lot 011 in Assessor’s Block 3656 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 728.44 to allow a small self-service restaurant (d.b.a. Easy Breezy) within the 24th Street – Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Fong, Wu, Antonini, Miguel, Moore, Borden, Sugaya

            MOTION:           18555




4.            Consideration of Adoption:

            - Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 26, 2012

            - Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 2, 2012

            - Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 9, 2012

- Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 16, 2012


SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Fong, Wu, Antonini, Miguel, Moore, Borden, Sugaya


                5.                                                                                                                                      (J. SWAE: (415) 575-9069)

Eastern Neighborhoods Transportation Implementation Planning Study (EN TRIPS) Informational Presentation - Informational presentation by Planning Department and SFMTA staff on the recently completed EN TRIPS Final Report. The Report is the result of a planning process aimed at developing transportation improvements to support land use change in the Eastern Neighborhoods.  The Report prioritizes three major corridors (Folsom/Howard Streets, 7th/8th Streets and 16th Street) for improvement.  The presentation will include a discussion of conceptual designs for these streets. 

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Informational presentation, no action requested


SPEAKERS:     Tim – MTA staff

ACTION:           Information only. No action required


6.         2012.0068D                                                                 (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)

55 Jordan AveNUE - west side between California Street and Euclid Avenue; Lot 010 in Assessor's Block 1039 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2011.09.28.5663, proposing to construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear of the two-story-over-garage, single-family dwelling within the RH-1(D) [Residential, House, One-Family (Detached)] Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis:  Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation:    Do not take Discretionary Review and approve


SPEAKERS:     Greg, Yakuh Askew, Taylor Walker

ACTION:           The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project

AYES:             Fong, Wu, Antonini, Miguel, Moore, Borden, Sugaya

            DRA #:             0264




7.         Commission Comments/Questions

·         Inquiries/Announcements.  Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

·         Future Meetings/Agendas.  At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.


Commissioner Antonini:

With the risk of stretching out this hearing, I wanted to mention a couple of things we did. I took the advantage of the hearing that was held by Commissioners Farrell and Avalos in regards to families leaving San Francisco. They brought up some good points about the schools and the fact that it was noted that the population of children from ages 1 to 5 has increased in the last 10 years and the ages from 5 to 17 has gone down significantly. My experience in 40 years of dental practice is that when people have school age children, a lot of them leave San Francisco. Concern about schools is probably the biggest issue. People are afraid of having a child be in the school where they live, and they don't like the fact that there is no community building if their kids are not in the neighborhood schools. They brought these points out and it was a very useful dialogue. We know that housing is very expensive but it is also nonfunctional but it is not impossible to raise a family of five in a Victorian with a split bath. Unfortunately, only 21% of our housing stock has three or four bedrooms and we have a lot of barriers for people who are trying to enlarge the space they have. Anything we can do to encourage that would be helpful.  It was clear in that discussion that people are recognizing the fact that we need larger housing types to keep families in San Francisco and anything we can do to make that a reality is important. Most of you saw "The Chronicle" about the appeals process. Specifically, it dealt with the environmental part of it, I have pointed this out before and this is something I would like to get to and perhaps I can get something from counsel. This requires that the appeals for environmental documents be referred to the elected body, the Board of Supervisors, but it does not dictate the margin by which an appeal can be done; whereas, to overturn the approval, they need a majority.  That is one reason why we see so many environmental appeals because it is low hanging fruit. If we make it a higher-level – after years of discussions and hearings, to repeat the whole thing at the Board of Supervisors, it should be recognized as an extraordinary case; they should have a high standard to be unable to overturn what we do. I will look into that because I think that might help to expedite things a little bit and allow for the proper process and appeals where they are appropriate.

Commissioner Miguel:

I was in the second of three of the Central Corridor meetings this week and the Department did their usual excellent job. The third and final one will probably come along mid to late April. Anyone who is able should attend.  They are really well done; a tremendous amount of interest and tremendously well attended. This Commission does not often get kudos but you will remember that a short time back we had actually three medical cannabis dispensaries in front of us, two were in the far our Mission and I received in the mail the 5 page monthly bulletin from the Cayuga Improvement Association and the Planning Commission received a rare notice actually commending us and the entire publication is devoted to that subject. One last Gold star to the members of the Planning Commission, they are taking a good look at us and the rules we sit under and our process was explained; they were not complaining at all about it – they really commend us for the public outreach and for the actual information they received on going forward. It was very nicely done. The third thing that I wanted to mention was that Commission President Fong has asked me to be the representative to the Arts Commission. The idea came up in a discussion this week that perhaps the biggest impact that the Planning Commission could have on the Arts Commission is in the Civic Design Review Section and I met with them during the long break today and I will be going to those meetings where the actual design, not just part of the project, but the design of public buildings interacts with planning.  It was a very positive concept.




8.         Director’s Announcements


Director Rahaim:

Just a couple of announcements of public meetings this weekend: One is for the Green Connections Project. This is a project where we are sponsoring several agencies including the Parks and Recreation Department. They are having a walk this weekend. This is from 1:00 until 3:00 p.m. There is a project at 17th and Folsom Streets and we are proud of what we've done there with Rec and Park. We are reviewing the concept designs for the park. That is Sunday at 3:00 P.M. That is getting rid of a parking lot that is owned by the PUC. This is a very interesting project that was identified in the Neighborhoods Plan and is now being carried out by the Department’s Implementation Team.

I also just want to thank the Commission for your patience in this long break today and the unfortunate continuance that happened at the last moment. We're working to make sure that that does not happen in the future. It was just an unfortunate mistake that happened on this project, and has happened twice for some weird reason.  

I think that is it for my report unless there any questions.


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



There were two items on this Monday’s Land Use Committee’s Agenda.


·         Economic Impact Study of Nightlife and Entertainment in San Francisco.  This informational presentation by the Controller and the Entertainment Commission staff was requested by Supervisor Wiener.  The focus of the report was an economic impact study of nightlife and entertainment in San Francisco, including for example, the number of jobs generated by the sector, the amount of taxes paid, the number of visitors drawn to San Francisco as a result of the sector, and to assess its results and to discuss potential legislation to support this sector and to ensure that it remains a contributor to San Francisco's economic and cultural life.

·         Public Art Fee.  As AnMarie summarized for you last week, this Ordinance is sponsored by Mayor Lee and Board President Chiu.  It would amend the public art requirement to allow certain projects to pay into a new fund instead of providing on-site art.  The Planning Commission considered the ordinance on October 27.  At that time you made a number of recommendations which could be summarized into three issues: 

1.     Ensuring the continued production of permanent, monumental art is balanced with the new possibility of ephemeral art.

2.     Updating the requirement so that it applies to all large development, not just that within the C-3.

3.     Ensuring that public open spaces are activated and identified as public with physical works of art.

Since the Commission action, the Board President and the Mayor’s Office have conducted further outreach with interested parties and developers.  The Ordinance has been amended a couple of times to address the Commission’s concerns. The primary outstanding topic is how the requirement should be expanded beyond the C-3 district.  Supervisor Chiu  has introduced amendments that would apply the requirement to projects over 25,000sf in certain districts.   Due to a noticing issue, the item was continued to March 26.


·         Car-Sale or rental in NC-S District.  This Ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Elsbernd, would allow this use in the Neighborhood Commercial Shopping District by CU.  The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance, as did the Land Use Committee.   The full Board passed the Ordinance 11-0 on its first reading this week.

·         Opposing Assembly Bill 1678 - Regarding Restrictions on Food Trucks’ Proximity to Schools.  A resolution sponsored by Supervisors Wiener, Chiu, Olague, and Campos opposing Assembly Bill 1678, regarding restrictions on food trucks’ proximity to schools, sponsored by Supervisors Wiener, David Chiu, Olague, and Campos was continued to March 13.  Supervisor Wiener has introduced legislation regarding Mobile Food Facilities


No Report


No Report




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:     Katherine Howard

                        Re: Beach Chalet Athletic Fields


Adjournment: 5:20 pm


Adopted:  May 17, 2012



Last updated: 5/18/2012 1:32:58 PM