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

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

January 21, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, January 21, 2010
11:00 AM
Regular Meeting

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

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 11:10 A.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Edgar Oropeza, Sharon Young, Alicia John-Baptiste, Kelley Amdur, David Alumbaugh, Bill Wycko, Brett Becker, Adrian Putra, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. 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. 2009.0583D (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

251 ARKANSAS STREET - east side between 18th Street and Mariposa Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 4004, Mandatory Discretionary Review for Building Permit No. 2009.05.20.8829 and 2009.05.20.8827 to demolish the existing single-family home in a RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to February 4, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Lee

1b. 2009.1165D (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

251 ARKANSAS STREET - east side between 18th Street and Mariposa Street; Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 4004 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for Building Permit No. and 2009.05.20.8827 to construct a 4-story, 3-unit residential building with 3 off-street parking spaces provided in a ground floor garage as a replacement to the home proposed for demolition under Case No. 2009.0583D in a RH-3 (Residential, House Districts, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to February 4, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Lee

2. 2009.0378C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

224 Townsend Street - between Ritch and Clyde Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 3787 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a “Public Automobile Parking Garage” use per Planning Code Sections 817.30 and 890.12 all within the Service Light Industrial Use District, and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 17, 2009)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 8, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Lee

3. 2009.0288C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

235 O’Farrell Street - south side between Powell and Mason Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 0326 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to convert an existing tourist/residential hotel containing 68 tourist rooms and 23 residential rooms to a full tourist hotel containing approximately 59 tourist hotel rooms within the subject building. The residential hotel rooms are proposed to be relocated to a site located at 374 5th Street. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. This site is within a C-3-G, Downtown General Commercial, Use District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Lee

4. 2009.0765V (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

374 5th Street - west side between Clara and Harrison Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3753 - Request for a Rear Yard, Open Space, and Bicycle Parking Variance to convert the existing 47 tourist hotel rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors to 47 Single-Room-Occupancy (SRO) group housing units with no physical expansion of the existing building in a MUR (Mixed Use Residential) and 85-X Height and Bulk District. This conversion is in tandem with Case No. 2009.0288C to convert 23 residential hotel rooms at 235 O’Farrell Street to tourist hotel rooms. The 23 residential hotel rooms must be replaced per the Residential Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (Administrative Code, Chapter 41).

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: The Zoning Administrator continued this item as proposed

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

5. 2009.1001C (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

3168 22nd Street - between Mission and Capp Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 3615 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a Small Self Service Restaurant Use dba “Mission Minis,” per Planning Code Section 736.44 and 790.91 all within the Mission Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District, and a 55-X Height and Bulk District. The project is also within the Mission Fast Food and Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict. The proposed eating establishment is not identified as a formula retail use.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Lee

MOTION: 18013

6. 2009.1048C (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

555 IRVING STREET - southeast corner of Irving Street and 7th Avenue; Lot 041 in Assessor’s Block 1761 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 730.41 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert a vacant commercial tenant space with approximately 900 square feet in floor area (previously occupied by a retail clothing store dba Crossroads Trading Co.) into a wine bar dba InnerFog within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Lee

MOTION: 18014

C. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved Ron Miguel as President and Christina Olague as Vice President

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

ABSENT: Lee

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.



8. Consideration of Adoption:



· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 17, 2009

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Lee



9. Proposed adoption of Planning Commission’s hearing schedule for 2010.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 14, 2010)



SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved the draft schedule with the following modifications: Canceled 9/2/10 and converted 9/30 to a Regular Meeting

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

ABSENT: Lee

10. 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 Moore:

I attended a press conference held by Chief Gascon in the Northern Station to disclose the Department’s moves relative to prostitution and criminal activities in the Mid-Polk neighborhood. The meeting was attended by District Attorney, Kamala Harris, Supervisor Chiu, and the entire senior staff of the Police Department. After I heard the presentation, I felt quite strongly that it would be of advantage to us to have a land use and public safety discussion with some of the commanders in the different districts to have our own decisions relative to land use decisions being more informed. Since many of these decisions come to us in a very fragmented manner I can understand that we don’t always have the full set of other arguments. I personally would appreciate that the commissioners agree to schedule such a meeting and really get a more positive discussion about the correlation between land use and public safety. I encourage and ask your support to have such a meeting and put on our Action Item.

Commissioner Antonini:

I too would be very supportive of that because I think there is a nexus between public safety issues and land use decisions and I think we can go a long ways towards helping with that by some of the decisions we make in the future and some of our policies.

Commissioner Moore:

I’m not finished. I was just looking for support.

Commissioner Olague:

In relation to your request, my only request would be that we some representatives from citizens groups who represent sex workers or other organizations – that type of thing. I want it to be a balanced discussion where we’re not just getting one perspective but a full community perspective of the issues.

Commissioner Moore:

We have spent a lot of time in the last three or four weeks preparing for an item on our calendar today which has been continued. I’d like to bring to whoever’s attention that the architect set of drawings I was working with was very difficult to read. There is a convention among architects to put the north arrow in the upper side of the page. In this particular set – and I understand why 11 x 17 is a difficult format – this has been turned around and upside down, and with no street names on the perimeter of the block, it is very difficult to understand the set. I ask that this be considered even if the drawings are given to us in a smaller format, I would like to see a consistent depiction of the site and the context in which this project occurs [555 Washington].

The last point I’d like to make – this was a very positive and upbeat meeting – the other night I wandered into the SPUR lobby just as a meeting was starting and I crashed the meeting. Their meeting was on the interim use of C-3 large vacant parcels, some of which we have identified as being close to eyesores, dilapidation and places of unsafe and unsightly activity. There was a group of young architects (Rebar) whose work you’ve seen. They came forward with larger ideas for these large parcels. They will be continuing to discuss this at SPUR and I think it would be exciting to have a presentation. It was a very illuminating discussion.

Commissioner Antonini:

The Director can take this up if he so chooses, but we have had questions from the public about the continuance of 555 Washington Street, which as I understand it we have no control over because Rec and Park has canceled the joint meeting and with their joint meeting, we can’t meet.

Also, among the many comments and responses we received in relation to the Candlestick Point Hunters Point Shipyard project, there is a letter from the National Football League supporting it and basically asking that the infrastructure improvements – they are very much in support of those. I’d like to see if I could get a copy of that earlier than the release to the Response to Comments document. I’d like to see that.

Commissioner Olague:

In the Mayor’s Address to the City he mentioned Market Street (Mid-Market). At some point – I made the request at previous hearings about wanting to here some kind of overall sense of what the Planning Department has in mind for that area and maybe you could include the Mayor’s comments. I want to know how they relate to what we discussed in the past.

Commissioner Sugaya:

On that note I have a procedural question: Commissioner Olague just requested something. Do we have to second it six times before it …?

Director Rahaim:

It is helpful for us and I think you have your own policy that more than one commissioner weigh in so that we can be sure that there is consensus that we should work on something.

Commissioner Sugaya:

On that note, I agree with Commissioner Olague and with Commissioner Moore.

I note that in last Friday’s paper, the School Board has some new rules, one of which is starting meetings on time. I’d just like to put that into the hopper for 2010.

Commissioner Miguel:

I would like to second Commissioner Moore’s request and the others that were made. I think we will have time for them and they are areas that come up constantly on individual agenda items to this commission. I think it is better for us if we have overall view of these particular pictures before we start doing it piecemeal, particularly public safety and those types of areas because what happens in one particular neighborhood either overlaps with or pushes out into an adjoining neighborhood. It’s not just one problem. I think having a better overall view is much better for this commission.

Last Friday I had the pleasure of being a panelist in Berkeley at the Bay Area Social Equity Caucus on SB-375 – the interface between housing and transportation. It was quite interesting; an excellent group of people over there; and I was able to give a little different perspective because of what we have been doing in San Francisco and contrasting that with many representatives from the more suburban and even rural areas. It ended up in a very good discussion.







D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT



11. Director’s Announcements



Director Rahaim:

I was going to bring up the continuance of 555 Washington. I want to be clear; the decision to continue was mine. Rec and Park canceled their meeting at my request. It is because there were a number of delays in getting materials to you and to the public and because of some inaccuracies in the reports. For that reason I felt it was important that we move this.

I think I mentioned last week: there are two upcoming public meetings on our Discretionary Review Reform. One is January 27 and the other is February 2nd. They are both at the Department at 6 p.m. The public is welcome and commissioners as well.

We are looking at Mid Market at the Mayor’s request. He announced it. We are looking at the previous [Redevelopment] Plan that had been adopted by this commission but was not adopted by the Board [of Supervisors]. We are looking to see how that should change; what the environmental review process needs to be – we are kind of re-scoping it to see what needs to be done to see if we want to bring a new Redevelopment Plan forward or not. We are just in the very early stages right now. I’m happy to give you a memo in more detail as we scope out what we are doing in the future. The interesting thing about Mid Market is that many of the sites that had been identified in the Redevelopment Plan have entitled projects on them now. So it is a different landscape than it was.

Commissioner Olague:

I think we actually voted here for a hearing on this subject as a commission. We voted for a hearing where we discuss the vision that the Planning Department and the city has for Market Street including Yerba Buena. It was prompted by ..… Commissioner Moore requested this about a year ago. We’ve all requested to have a more comprehensive look at what the city is thinking in terms of the entire area of Market Street. I don’t think a memo would be sufficient. We actually wanted a hearing.

Director Rahaim:

We will get something organized. Relative to SB-375 and the region, I will be sitting in on a CEO level regional advisory panel that ABAG is organizing with MTC on the implementation of SB-375. We haven’t had a meeting yet, but I think the first meeting will be in the first quarter of this year. I will be participating on a regular basis. As we talked about here, I think it is very important for the city to participate in these matters. As you’ll see in our budget discussion today, we have allocated some staff time to work on this as well.

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



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

No report

BOARD OF APPEALS:

Commissioner Peterson was elected President and Commissioner Goh was elected Vice President by unanimous vote.

Historic Preservation Commission:

Commissioner Charles Chase was elected President and Commissioner Courtney Damkroger was elected Vice President by unanimous vote.

The Commission had their first budget hearing and they overwhelmingly expressed their desire for the work that had been started under the Landmarks Board be completed before starting anything new or reallocating funds or staff.

The Filbert Street Cottages item was continued without hearing to February 17, to allow the opportunity for commissioners that had to leave the ability to participate.

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:

Ernestine Weiss

Re: Asked the Commission and the Director to make sure all reference to Sue Bierman Park is deleted and corrected to Ferry Park

Tom Radulovich – Executive Director of Livable City

Re: Climate change

Marc Salomon – North Mission

Re: - Public Safety and design

- Transit oriented development

- Move forward the LOSATG transition

Marilyn Amini

Re: The Department’s activities with the Board of Supervisors and new legislation. The Commission is mis-advised that there is a deadline on legislation. The Planning Code says that the Commission has 90 days after referral to the Commission.

F. REGULAR CALENDAR



13. 2009.1065T (A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Development Stimulus and Fee Reform - The Planning Commission will consider three proposed Ordinances introduced by the Mayor as described below. In addition to these three Ordinances the Commission may consider related amendments to the existing City Codes governing planning fees and processes. The three ordinances introduced by the Mayor are:

(a) 091251-2 [Development Fee Collection Procedure; Administrative Fee] - This Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Building Code by adding Section 107A.13 to establish a procedure for the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) to collect development impact and in-lieu fees, to provide that the fees are payable prior to issuance of the first building permit or other document authorizing construction of the project, with an option for the project sponsor to defer payment to prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy upon agreeing to pay a deferral surcharge on the amount owed that would be deposited into the same fund that receives the development fees, to require that any in-kind public benefits required in-lieu of payment of development fees are implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, to require DBI to generate a Project Development Fee Report prior to issuance of the building or site permit for the project listing all fees due with the opportunity for an appeal of technical errors to the Board of Appeals, to establish a Development Fee Collection Unit within DBI and a fee for administering the program; adopting findings, including environmental findings.

SPEAKERS: Jim Lazarus – SF Chamber of Commerce; David Kriozere – One Rincon Development; Lydia Tan – BRIDGE Housing Corp.; Eastern Neighborhoods Working Group: Fernando Marti, Calvin Welch, and Peter Cohen; Andrew Bush; Eric Foster; Sarah Karlinsky – SPUR; Tom Radulovich – Livable City; Jazzie Collins; Joel Koppel – SF Electrical Construction Industry; Michael Theriault – SF Building Trades; Dan Murphy; Tim Colen – Executive Director, SF Housing Action Coalition; Danny Campbell – Sheet metal Workers Local Union 104; Malcolm Young – Chinatown Community Development Center; Kevin Kitchingham – Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center; Lucio Sanchez – Carpenters Local 22; Marc Salomon; Brian Cochran – Carpenters Local 22; Adrian Simi – Carpenters Local 22; Jim Hewitt – Carpenters Local 22; Carl Shannon; Oz Erickson – Emerald Fund; Joe Boss; Jamie Whitaker – Rincon Hill Neighborhood Asssociation; Debra Walker; Sue Hestor; Marilyn Amini; Leo Robano; Brian McGee; Leo Cassidy; Grace Shannahan – Residential Builders Association; Herera Duffy; David Sternberg; Angus McCarthy – Residential Builders Association; Shawn Keagin – Residential Builders Association; Gary Gee - Architect

ACTION: Approved per staff recommendations and Commission modifications as follows: (1) Clarify that this new ability to defer fees is offered only to those projects that have not yet paid development impact fees; (2) Correct the ordinance to ensure that each of the effective dates for individual impact fee programs are the original date of those programs and not the effective date of this new ordinance; (3) Maintain SFMTA’s role as “implementer” of the TIDF. While the fee is moving into the Planning Code and the ZA may need to “interpret” the Code, in general the Department and MTA expect that the MTA will be primarily responsible with answering questions about this fee; (4) Ensure that in-kind contributions have been vetted with the agencies responsible for monitoring each in-kind contribution; (5) Include all fee requirements in the new process. Currently the proposal does not include the two alternative means of satisfying the open space requirement in South of Market and Eastern Neighborhoods. Section 143, Street Tree Requirements, requires a type of physical improvement that according to Article 16 of the Public Works Code can be satisfied as a fee payment when utilities or other barriers prevent planting of trees. DBI’s Fee Unit should be made aware of the street tree requirement at submittal for inclusion in the “Project Development Fee Report;” (6) Provide further consolidation of fee “definitions”. The Department has provided suggestions for this consolidation in Exhibit B which was delivered to you 1 week after the original packet. I have extra copies here and can go over this with you in more detail if you like; and (7) finally, include a legislative end-date for fee deferrals. As this legislative package is intended to counter the difficult economic times, an end-date should be added where the City would no longer allow the deferral of fees.

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, & Miguel

NAYES: Moore, Sugaya & Olague

RESOLUTION: 18015

(b) 091252 [Affordable Housing Transfer Fee Restriction Alternative for Inclusionary and Jobs Housing Linkage Programs] -This Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 313.4 and 315.5 and by adding Section 313.16 to add an alternative for compliance with the Jobs Housing Linkage Program and the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program by allowing a project sponsor to defer 33% of its obligation under either Program in exchange for recording an Affordable Housing Transfer Fee Restriction on the affected property providing that 1% of the value of the property be paid to the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund at every future transfer of the Property.

SPEAKERS: Tim Colen; Sue Hestor; David Sternberg; and Angus McCarthy

ACTION: Approved per staff recommendations as follows: Clarify that this new ability to defer fees is offered only to those projects that have not yet paid housing fees; and (1) Tighten the procedures around the “Affordable Housing Transfer Fee Restriction”. The proposed Ordinance should be amended to require the Fee Unit in DBI to be presented with the required NSR at specific points such as “First Construction Permit”. In addition MOH and the Fee Collection Unit in DBI should be required to (instead of authorized to) record separate NSRs on subsequent subdivisions of the property; (2) Remove the option to pre-pay the “present value” of the restriction. The current draft of the proposed legislation allows property owners to pre-pay the “present value” of the restriction at any time to remove the NSR, although the “present value of the restriction” is not reduced through previous transfer payments. However, based on feedback received from a variety of stakeholders, the Mayor’s Office, OEWD and MOH have all agreed that this provision will be eliminated in subsequent amendments. Through an oversight, this recommendation was not included in the original motion so if the Commission supports this it would need to be added to the motion; and (3) include a legislative end-date for fee deferrals. As this legislative package is intended to counter the difficult economic times, an end-date should be added where the City would no longer allow the deferral of fees.

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

NAYES: Olague

RESOLUTION: 18017

(c) 091275-2 [Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees] - This Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by creating Article 4 for development impact fees and development impact requirements that authorize the payment of in-lieu fees; by adding Section 402 to provide that all Planning Code development impact and in-lieu fees will be collected by the Department of Building Inspection prior to issuance of the first building permit or other document authorizing construction of the project, with an option for the project sponsor to defer payment to prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy upon agreeing to pay a deferral surcharge on the amount owed that would be deposited into the same fund that receives the fees; by requiring that any in-kind public improvements required in-lieu of payment of development fees are implemented prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project; by moving Planning Code Sections 139, a portion of 249.33, 313-313.15, 314-314.8, 315-315.9, 318-318.9, 319-319.7, 326-326.8, 327-327.6, and 331-331.6 and Chapter 38 of the San Francisco Administrative Code (Transit Impact Development Fee) to Article 4 and renumbering and amending the sections; adding introductory sections for standard definitions, payment and collection procedures, conditions of approval, dispute resolution and appeal procedures, waivers, reductions, and refunds, notice, lien procedures, annual Citywide development fee reports and fee adjustments, and development fee evaluations every five years; by providing for an appeal of technical fee calculation issues to the Board of Appeals rather than the Planning Commission; requiring the Controller to issue an annual Citywide Development Fee Report; deleting duplicative code provisions and using consistent definitions, language and organization throughout; adopting findings, including Section 302 and environmental findings; providing that the ordinance's operative date is March 15, 2010; and instructing the publisher to put a note at the original location of the renumbered sections stating that the text of those sections has been moved and providing the new section number.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 14, 2009)



SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for (a).

ACTION: Same as shown for (a)

AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, and Miguel

NAYES: Moore, Sugaya & Olague

RESOLUTION: 18015

14. (E. FORBES: (415) 558-6417)
FY 2010-2011 Budget Development: Draft Work Program - Informational presentation and discussion only. No action is required by the Planning Commission.



SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational only – No action required



15. 2005.0963E (B. BECKER: (415) 575-9045)

CRYSTAL SPRINGS PIPELINE NO. 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT - Informational Presentation and Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 (CSPL2) Replacement Project. The Project proposes to upgrade and replace portions of the CSPL2, which extends (south to north) from the Crystal Springs Pump Station at the base of Lower Crystal Springs Dam in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County, through the Town of Hillsborough and the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Daly City, and into the City and County of San Francisco, terminating at the University Mound Reservoir in southeastern San Francisco. The SFPUC has identified 19 sites along the 19-mile CSPL2 alignment where improvements are proposed to meet seismic reliability level-of-service goals. The improvements include pipeline rehabilitation and seismic retrofit activities at 15 sites and general improvements to protect the pipeline from corrosion and exposure at 4 sites. In addition to these improvements, the SFPUC proposes to install new cathodic protection equipment at 9 locations and insulated flange joints (referred to as electrical isolation) at 31 locations along the CSPL2 alignment to further protect the pipeline from corrosion. Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department’s offices until the close of business on January 25, 2010.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 14, 2010)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: None - The hearing on the DEIR was to receive comments from the public and the commission only

16a. 2009.0124DV (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

1376 FLORIDA STREET - west side between 25th Street and 26th Street; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 4272 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.03.27.4981, proposing to construct horizontal and vertical additions and add a garage on an existing single-family dwelling resulting in two dwelling units on the site within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) 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 December 17, 2009)



SPEAKERS: In support of DR: Tor Krieger – Representing the DR Requestor; [Unidentified speaker]; Judy Berkowitz; In support of the project: Russell Murphy, Joram Altman, Benjamin Pierce, and Aaron Darzig

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

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

ABSENT: Lee

DRA: 0134

16b. 2009.0124DV (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

1376 FLORIDA STREET - west side between 25th Street and 26th Street; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 4272 - Request for Variance pursuant to Section 134 of the Planning Code from rear yard requirements to construct horizontal and vertical additions and add a garage on an existing single-family dwelling resulting in two dwelling units on the site within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 17, 2009)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator Badiner closed the public hearing and granted the variance subject to the standard conditions of approval

17. 2009.0738DDD (A. Putra: (415) 575-9079)

154 Miraloma Drive - west side between Yerba Buena Avenue and Portola Drive; Lot 047 in Assessor’s Block 3011 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.02.04.1396, proposing to construct a new single-family dwelling on a vacant lot in an RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: In support of DR: Hong Zheng – DR Requestor, Michael Levinson – DR Requestor, Galina Yusupov – DR Requestor, and Vadim; In support of the project: David Silverman – Representing the Project Sponsor, and Norah Frei – Project Designer

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

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

ABSENT: Lee

DRA: 0135

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

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

SPEAKERS: Hong Zheng

Spoke in support and appreciation of what the Commission does

Adjournment: 9:03 p.m.



Adopted: February 4, 2010

Last updated: 2/25/2010 11:56:32 AM