tv [untitled] September 7, 2012 8:00pm-8:30pm PDT
and check a map on -- check them out on facebook. take a peek at the stuff we have cut. to get our -- check out our blog. i will have >> here. [ indiscernie ] >> commissioners, the first category are items proposed for continuance. item 1 is an intent to initiate sponsor planning code amendments to fixer -- fix errors to the planning code continued to 2012. item 2 is public outreach and engagement. item is proposed for continuance to october
25th, 2012. commissioners, further on your calendar, item 13a and b, case 20012.001c, d for 2175 market street, request for conditioning use authorization and variances. the item is me posed for continuance to september 20th, 2012. the preliminary mitigated negative delegation was yesterday, so you cannot hear it at this time. as you continue the 13a on the administrative, we will take action to continue the variances. >> thank you. >> i'm not aware of any other item on the calendar proposed for continuance. >> public comment on the items for continuance? >> can you speak into the microphone and state your name for the record, please?
>> sorry. good afternoon, martin brezak. resident on 15th street. and it sounds like there might be an extension or another date proposed for 2175 for comments on that. i just wanted to make sure that i had my concerns brought in front of the board. if at at later date i decide to take it to a court matter that i can do that. do i need to wait until september 20th or wait until today? >> september 20th. >> same time? or i will look up the notification. >> yes, will it be on the calendar. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> president fong, members of the commission, i beg your indulgence. i brought a board packet for next week's hearing. if it could be distributed i would appreciate it greatly, thank you. >> and who are you? >> any other public comment on these for continuance?
okay, commissioners. commissioner antonini. >> move to carry 1 and 2 on dates specified on 13a and b to september 20th. >> second. >> for the record, item 13a. >> only a. >> administrative -- take action on 13b. motion on floor is continuance of items 1 and 2 as on calendar and 13a to september 20th. on that motion, commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> hill lis. >> aye. >> moore. >> s*eg. >> aye. >> woo. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> continued as proposed. 13b. plaintiff variance for 2175 market street, continued to september 20th, 2012 as well. >> thank you. commissioners, you are now on your consent calendar. items 3, 4 and 5 make up
the calendar this week. those are considered to be routine and acted upon by single roll call vote. there will be no discussion unless a member of this commission, the staff or public so requests. that will be removed from consent and consider the separate item at this or future hearing. items are 3 as case 2012, 0497t. amendment to san francisco planning code section 725.1. reinstate controls to prohibit liquor license types 47 and 49. then union street neighborhood commercial district and too requiring conditional use for restaurants and making environmental finding and consistency with the general plan. item 4, case 2012-0716c for 3121 geary, request for conditional use authorization to convert
vacant commercial space into a massage establishment. on the ground floor of the three-story building within a neighborhood commercial moderate scale zoning district. 5 in this case is 2012, 40c for 38th, request for conditional use authorization to allow establishment of 24 space temporary surface parking lot for period of time not to exceed two years within downtown general zoning district. commissioners, following public comment, which would automatically remove these from the consent calendar, these matters are before you for your consideration. >> public comment on these items? seeing none, commissioner shugaya. >> remove 3. >> 3 has been removed. i assume it will be taken
before the regular calendar. for consideration on consent would be items 4 and 5. >> commissioner moore. >> pull item 5, having communicated about a couple of comments which i would like to be made into record. * >> three and five have been removed from consent, four is on consent. >> public comment on item four? if not commissioner antonini? >> move to approve item four. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. motion is for approval of item 4, 3121 geary boulevard. >> commissioners? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners.
that has been approved as proposed. commissioners you are on commissioner questions and matters. item 6 is consideration of adoption, draft minutes from regular meetings of june 28th, 2012, august 9 and august 16, 2012. following public comment and corrections or modifications that you have, we would ask you adopt the draft minutes. >> public comment on the draft minutes? commissioners? commissioner sugaya? >> move to approve 29th and august 16th of june 2012. >> second. >> commissioner, motion is for approval of draft minutes from your regular meetings of june 28th, august 9 and august 16, 2012. on that commissioner antonini. >> aye.
>> border. >> aye. >> hill lis. >> aye. >> fong. aye. * >> thank you. that passes unanimously. any other matters? >> commissioner moore. >> there is an article which i read regarding the he and t utility boxes, which will be installed as the lawsuit failed. i would like to ask the director to give us an update how we will be dealing with 700 new utility cabinets, each six foot wide, four foot tall, two foot deep. which will be installed without any of the additional utility boxes being removed. there is an expectation they will be installed in a manner that will allow
vehicle doors to open. with narrow sidewalks in many areas, i consider that an issue. also a big challenge to our magistrate's plan. i'm seing in the and instruct of knowing where these particular utility box also be installed, but i'm saying with enough concern as the department had provided comment and push-back relative to these boxes being permitted. also i would like to get guidance as to whether or not these boxes will basically not require further rooftop installations of micro-antennas. i would like to get a technical update, as well as urban planning and design update of where we are moving with this. >> commissioner antonini. >> thank you. a few items. last thursday i took part in a meeting with mickey
calahan, head of department of resources, along with diane misuda from historical preservation and ted yamasaki and secretary, linda avery. very good meeting. basically we discussed the issues surrounding classification that will be published for the -- in the secretary's search for a new secretary. it was a very good meeting. it was very informative. we were told by dhr that they would get back to us by the end of this week. i think the 7th of september with suggestions as to this issue. so i'm happy that's moving forward. couple of other things, regretfully i have had a number of calls from a number of people that's received bogus e-mails. i've been hacked. i'm not trying to sell a big return on real estate
investments to anyone. if you happen to get one of those, please ignore it. also i'm working with my provider to see what sort of things can be done to remedy that situation. it is, you know, very disturbing. finally i thought we received a very excellent memo from sarah phillips, dennis phillips and wandy. the regional housing needs allotments and new ones proposed for the years 2014 and 2022. and san francisco actually because of the ab2853, which has been with us since 1980 and deals with the subject. now with ab375 that advocates for housing near transit and near businesses, we have allotments that are fairly high in terms of the entire
bay area. allotments for housing were 15%, which is higher than our percentages relative to the entire bay area. that is fine, it makes a lot of sense. also we are -- one of their policies is jurisdictions that are providing, you know, considerable amount of affordable housing sometimes have percentages lowered for that and areas that don't to try to provide an equal mix throughout the region have had theirs raised. so it is -- while there is a long ways to go, it shows we are doing some things right in regards to what we are doing on housing. we still have a long ways to go. it is very enlightening to see these. i really think this was a very informative report. one of the best reports we've gotten, thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> gosh, commissioner antonini, already sank my 10,000 bucks. [ laughter]
>> i had a couple meeting from japantown neighborhood planning process. i think if the director could get with staff and perhaps schedule an update status report on that process. my understanding is there is a new report by cy-fall with respect to ideas regarding the social heritage district, so it might be timely just to have an update for the commission, thanks. >> thank you. commissioners, if there are no other comments we can move on to director's report, announcements and review the past events that the board of supervisors, board of appeals and historic preservation commission. >> thank you, linda. good afternoon, commissioners. welcome back from a much-deserved break. just wanted to update you on a couple things. first what was in your written report today, just
wanted to highlight our property information map did win a government achievement award. i will say that map, the department gets many, many comments on the map and the convenience of that map and the use of that map. we get over 1,500 unique visits a day on that map, which is a very high number for a web site of that type. we are very pleased. it's become clear it's made the department's work more efficient and allowed people to get information online that they used to come to the counter. it is quite a great tool for us. the promenade, as you are aware, won a design award from architects from oakland's walter hood design studio. that is the two blocks of powell between geary and ellis. it was essentially a large series of parklets. we are pleased the department initiated that with the studio with a
grant from audi car company. lastly i wanted to reinforce what commissioner antonini was mentioning about the arena allocation, regional housing needs allocation. this is a process that of course goes on every few years. i think the region is doing better at coordinating this process, which is shorter term, with the longer term sb-375 process, the sustainable community strategy process. that bill requires us to do a 30-year plan. the arena allocation is i think 8.8 years. it is an odd number. the idea is regional agencies are doing better at coordinating those two things. the first time we did arena after sb-375 was passed they were not well-coordinated. it is getting better. it is shifting. as you know some of the preferred growth to larger cities where it transfers
to the most served. it is better allocated and coordinated than in the past. there's still work to be done on that, however. it does front-loud some of the growth. the 30-year growth. it does front-load some of that growth in this allocation. the number is still relatively high, over 3,000 units a year in san francisco, which is beyond what we've been able to produce in the past, but it is something that i think is -- reflects the demand i think in the region for new housing. we are proposing a hearing on the whole package, including the scs, so we will get you more details in the coming weeks. that concludes my presentation, unless you have questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. anne marie rogers, staff, giving you a report on the board of supervisors and their land and use activities. because of the holiday there was no land use committee hearing but there were items at the tuesday
hearing. the first was chinese hospital. the board heard two ordinances related to demolition of the existing hospital and rebuilding the office building. the new building would be a facility with 54 acute beds, 50 sealed, 110 feet. the commission approved these ordinances on july 12th. the this week the board unanimously approved on first reading. then three ordinances before the board for second reading. we have talked about them, won't go over them inasmuch detail. it was the student housing ordinance * in which your recommendations were incorporated. the mills act, which incorporated components from both hpc and the planning commission, as well as an ada legislation. all those did pass on final reading. the ada-related legislation, when you heard it, did have planning components but since amended, so there are no amendments to the planning code in that one.
there were a couple appeals to be heard tuesday. in both cases letters of withdrawal were submitted. those were submitted to get public comment but no action was determined in the ceqa determinations. lastly, 8 washington. as you were aware there were sufficient signatures to qualify the zoning map amendment for consideration by the voters through a referendum. under the referendum process, prior to a vote by the voters, the board of supervisors has an opportunity to reconsider their approval to the ordinance. in their case the vote did not change there was over an hour of public comment and comment by board members themselves were relatively brief. by a vote of 8-3, again, the board chose not to repeal the ordinance. the issue will now proceed to the next available general election, which will likely be november of 2013.
so next november. then there was one completely new ordinance introduced this week. i would like to share with you, supervisors kim and weiner introduced a bill requiring monitoring of student house conversions. this would be an annual requirement. it does amend the planning code. as such it will be scheduled for hearing before this body within the next three months. unless there's any questions, that's the report for this week. >> commissioner antonini. >> ms. rogers, thank you for your report. just a question on the number 8 washington and the election cycle. there is not necessarily a june election in next year's calendar. i can't really remember. i think we almost always have a june election virtually every year, but i'm not sure if anything's been calendared for that. >> i can look into that. in that case i'm not sure about the specifics but i can look to see if a june
election would enable it to be heard earlier than november. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim fry, department staff. the hpc met yesterday and had a very short agenda, so my comments to you will also be very brief. the hpc met in less than an hour to review and approve three certificates of appropriateness for jackson square, alamo and liberty hill *. all were approved per staff recommendations. if you have questions about the details, i'm happy to go over those with you, but that concludes my report to you. >> thank you. >> question from commissioner sugaya. >> no. a comment on anne marie's report. that is if there is a june election, 8 washington will be on the ballot.
>> the board of appeals, their last hearing was august 22nd but i don't believe i have been able to provide a report since that so i will give a brief update. three items. 4201juda, the beach motel. letter of determination * from 1997, continued to the call of chair for several years. the letter of determination found it was a residential hotel, not a tourist hotel. the property owner was able to provide new information to the board of appeals that demonstrated this was a tourist hotel so it is in existence legal use. they have a termination date so they need to pursue a conditional authorization to use it as a tourist hotel. that would be before this commission in the coming months. the second was 135 el camino delmar. this was discretionary view and variance denial. this was the property next to the the sinkhole on el
camino delmar and 24th. the commission had taken discretionary view and approved the project based upon plans that were submitted with the initial modifications and rebuild of the project in the late 90s. they had subsequently made many additions, which some that encroached on related properties and needed variances but the commission was clear in going back to what you approved more than a decade ago. the board of appeals upheld this unanimously. the notice of decision order was issued yesterday, so now we will pursue enforcement with department of building inspection to ensure that they come into compliance with the commission's decision. the final item was 2101 washington. actually lafayette park. this was an appeal of building permit to do alterations to the park. there was an appeal. the board of appeals unanimously upheld the permit. just on tuesday a hearing request was filed so this
will be heard again by the board of appeals september 19th, a hearing to determine whether or not they have a hearing on the item so we will keep you apprised of that as well. that is all to report. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. commissioners, if we can move forward on your calendar, you are now at 15-minute general public comment category. members of the public may address you on items of interest to the public that fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of this commission with exception of agenda items. the public may not address you on an agenda item during this category; however each member of the public may address you up to three minutes each, keeping in mind the entire category has 15-minute time limit. >> patricia voy, neighbors of merchants. a group of us from different organizations had a meeting just to catch up on what's going on in the neighborhoods. we discovered there is a
lobbyist that in north beach and on polk street both went down, formed a bogus neighborhood association in order to get their approval through. i want you to be very careful of who comes up to see you because it's happened twice. if anything comes up as a new business district of such and such, be careful on -- i discovered it after one of my merchants came to me and said they were busy in a meeting, real busy in the restaurant. people waiting until they are busy, then they say sign this piece of paper. to get rid of them they sign and find out they signed for an association that they didn't want to be a part of. and i want you to know this is happening. in the other cases the associations disappeared after the hearing. so i want you to be very well aware of what's coming
in front of you and who it is. so this is an integrity issue. thank you. >> thank you. oh, linda, i'm going to miss you. >> any other general public comment? next item, please. >> commissioners, you are ready to start your regular calendar. we will go back to item three and five on the consent calendar and consider those first. item three is case 2012.09417, amendments to san francisco planning code section 725.1. >> good afternoon, commissioners. aaron, katherine stephanie from supervisor's office is here to speak about the ordinance. i will let her speak before i do my presentation, thanks.
>> good afternoon, commissioners. katherine stephanie for supervisor mark beryl's office. * this is before you after supervisor weiner's legislation passed, consolidating many of the restaurant definitions that. inadvertently changed the liquor license controlled in the union street neighborhood commercial district, so this legislation does two things. it reinstates those controls and requires a conditional use for limited restaurants, which is a new restaurant definition. we met with the union street merchant association and golden gate valley association, which is the neighborhood association that represents most of the homeowners in the union street neighborhood commercial district. everyone agreed on both these points. we have long fought for these controls. they have been in place for quite some time. they want them to continue.
i notice that in aaron's report he mentions that it was never the intent to erase the controls that had been in the union street or various neighborhood commercial districts. also we had the support of supervisor weiner, who authored the original legislation and co-sponsored this to make sure our control stayed in place. if you have questions, i am available. >> maybe later, thank you. >> as ms. stephanie pointed out, this would reinstate liquor license controls, inadvertently left out of the restaurant ordinance you passed last year. specifically it would prohibit new license type 7 and 49 licenses in the union street neighborhood and commercial district and require conditional use for limited restaurants. prior to restaurant controls when full-service restaurants had a full liquor license the planning code considered that a restaurant use and a bar
use, so if bars were prohibited in the neighborhood commercial district then a restaurant could not obtain a full liquor license. as a result of the new restaurant controls, restaurants with full liquor licenses are no longer considered to be a restaurant and a bar so long as they operator as a bona fide eating establishment, which means 51% of gross receipts comes from sale of food. union street neighbors had banned bars not only with intention of banning new bars but banning new license type 47 and 49s from coming into the district. when the planning commission adopted the ordinance it recommended all restaurants be printed in each commercial district. this was the department's preferred option because it took the least impactful use and allowed it to be principally permitted and reduced process and allowed businesses to open without going before the planning
commission; however we also realized some neighborhood commercial districts may not want more limited restaurants. we expected that the board of supervisors would amend this in their districts, so either require conditional use or prohibit them outright when the legislation went to the board or trailing legislation, happening with this. this puts back alcohol controls inadvertently left out of the ordinance. based on community feedback it changes code to require limited use for limited restaurantings and cd. staff's recommendation is approval with modifications *, modifications very minor to remove restaurants from new prohibition on full liquor licenses. by definition, limited restaurants can't have full liquor license so this