SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jennifer Estes - Representing Sprint PCS
- This application complies with the WTS Siting Guidelines and the San Francisco Municipal Code.
- The antennas will operate 750 times below the Federal Communication's Radiation Guidelines.
- They have received the support of the neighborhood for this application.
- They conducted neighborhood meetings and only six people were in attendance.
- Sprint offered to take the neighbors to other Sprint sites to familiarize themselves with a Sprint antenna site.
- Sprint has been in contact with the JCC (Jewish Community Center) regarding the issues and questions.
- This site is necessary for Sprint to address the insufficient coverage in the neighborhood.
- The site will be visually unobtrusive.
(-) Doug Lorringer
- He lives about three blocks from the site.
- He is asking for a continuance for about one month so that the six thousand members of the Jewish Community Center can receive more information and discuss it more.
- He spoke to the Director of the JCC and he was concerned that the members of the JCC have not been individually notified and have not had a chance to take a stand on this issue.
ACTION: Approved with the additional conditions: 1) setback to the greatest extent possible the two (2) antennas located at the corner of California and Presidio; 2) Project Sponsor to work with staff to find the least intrusive color.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
MOTION: 16732
17. 2003.1296C (W. HASTIE: (415) 558-6381)
3198 16TH STREET (A.K.A. 389 GUERRERO) - north side on the corner of 16th and Guerrero Streets; Lot 27 in Assessor's Block 3555 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to permit alcoholic beverage service (with Alcohol Beverage Control Liquor License type 47) in conjunction with the permitted full-service restaurant on the subject property, "Andalu Restaurant," pursuant to Planning Code Sections 726.41 and 790.22. The property is located within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, within a 40-X Height and Bulk limit, and is subject to the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Howard Westel - Farella, Baun and Martel
- He is not aware of any opposition.
- He is available for questions.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee
MOTION: 16733
18a. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of CEQA findings and a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to 1) a finding that a net new shadow impact on Union Square Park is not adverse; 2) a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an eight-story vertical addition, historic façade restoration, and conversion of an existing office building to a mixed-use project for up to 64 residential dwelling units, up to 73 hotel time-share units, approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, and a sub grade parking garage (capable of accommodating up to 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces with the capability of accommodating up to 100 vehicles through the use of valet services and vehicle stacking), with exceptions to the Planning Code for the separation of towers requirement, residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, dwelling unit exposure requirements, ground-level wind currents, independently-accessible parking, sunlight access to sidewalks, and an upper tower extension; 3) a Conditional Use application to allow a hotel in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District; 4) a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for a General Plan amendment to change the height and bulk district of the existing site; 5) a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for approval of the creation of the Downtown Housing Demonstration Special Use District encompassing and comprised of the subject property and allowing, among other items, exceptions under Section 309 for residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, and dwelling unit exposure; 6) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional designation as San Francisco Landmark No. 243 (to be heard at a subsequent Planning Commission hearing date); and 7) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional approval of a Mills Act Contract (also to be heard at a subsequent Planning Commission hearing date) ; all for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to:
1) Seismically upgrade the subject 16-story office building (The Old Chronicle Building), which would include infilling a large light well at the rear of the building that is not visible from any public right-of-way;
2) Restore the historic building façade by removing a non-historic metal, glass and marble cladding system installed in 1962 and rehabilitating/restoring/reconstructing intact, damaged and missing historic façade features;
3) Construct an eight-story vertical addition that will result in a building height of approximately 312 feet, and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 19.68 if the residential floor space were to be counted toward the FAR calculation as currently required by the Planning Code (see item No. 5 below);
4) Convert the existing office building use to a mixed-use project that would have at least 40, but up to 64 residential dwelling units, at least 49, but up to 73 hotel time-share units (for a combined total of 113 hotel and residential units), approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, replacing an existing retail bank, and creating a sub grade parking structure, that given the irregular floor plate shape and placement of support columns would yield a maximum of 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces on the project site with the capability of providing up to 100 valet and vehicle-stacking spaces in place of the independently-accessible spaces. The new parking facility would be accessed through an existing sub grade garage facility at the adjacent 88 Kearny Street property, thereby not requiring a garage entrance at the ground level of the subject 690 Market Street property;
5) In order to construct the addition; infill the light well; implement the proposed change of use; grant exceptions for residential open space, publicly-accessible open space, and dwelling unit exposure under the procedures of Section 309, a new Special Use District is proposed to change the existing height district to a 285-S Height and Bulk District (the Planning Code allows for a 10% increase in height over the height limit under certain criteria, in this case up to 313.5 feet), eliminate residential uses from Floor Area Ratio calculations, and allow said exceptions under Section 309 instead of requiring variances. The Special Use District would also require a minimum of 15% on-site or 17% off-site Below Market Rate (BMR) units. The Downtown Element of the General Plan must also be amended as it specifies the height and bulk districts as currently designated within the C-3 zoning districts;
6) The Project Sponsor is proposing to meet the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing requirement by constructing the required BMR units off-site at 938 Market Street, a project that is seeking authorization concurrently with the subject application (2003.0587HXVLU);
7) The project sponsors are seeking to avail themselves of the Mills Act, which allows local governments to grant property tax relief benefits in exchange for the guaranteed preservation of a historic property. In order to qualify under the San Francisco Administrative Code, the property must either be designated as a San Francisco Landmark or listed separately on the National Register. As neither condition is the case with the subject property, the project sponsor is seeking conditional San Francisco landmark status. The proposed Landmark Designation would become final upon the completion of the proposed project consistent with the Rehabilitation Program set forth by the proposed Mills Act contract.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt CEQA findings and mitigated negative declaration.
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Request for Continuance
(+) Mary Murphy - Farella, Braun and Martel
- She would rather not have this case continued.
- She apologized to the Commissioners who did not receive their case material on time.
- She would request that the Commission hear the project sponsor and then decide if they need more information.
- They have done an extensive public outreach.
- Yesterday, the Landmarks Board unanimously approved this project.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004
AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee,
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee
18b. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a finding that a net new shadow impact on Union Square Park is not adverse for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt finding.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004
AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee,
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee
18c. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an eight-story vertical addition, historic façade restoration, and conversion of an existing office building to a mixed-use project for up to 64 residential dwelling units, up to 73 hotel time-share units, approximately 6,500 square feet of ground level retail space, and a sub grade parking garage (capable of accommodating up to 29 independently-accessible parking spaces and two loading spaces with the capability of accommodating up to 100 vehicles through the use of valet services and vehicle stacking), with exceptions to the Planning Code for the separation of towers requirement, residential open space requirements, publicly-accessible open space requirements, dwelling unit exposure requirements, ground-level wind currents, independently-accessible parking, sunlight access to sidewalks, and an upper tower extension, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Determination of Compliance with Exceptions Motion with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004
AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee,
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee
18d. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for a Conditional Use application to allow a hotel in the C-3-O (Downtown, Office) Zoning District, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Conditional Use Motion with Conditions.
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004
AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee,
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee
18e. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors a General Plan amendment to change the height and bulk district of the existing site, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004
AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee,
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee
18f. 2003.0584EKXCMTZLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)
690 MARKET STREET - north side at northeast corner of Kearny and Geary Streets, Lot 6, in Assessor's Block 311 - Request for adoption of a resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors the approval of the creation of the Downtown Housing Demonstration Special Use District encompassing and comprised of the subject property, requiring a Planning Code Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 250-S Height and Bulk District. See first item under this case number for a project description.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Draft Resolution
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 18a.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to March 18, 2004
AYES: Boyd, Feldstein, Hughes, S. Lee,
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, W. Lee
19. 2003.1049T (J.IONIN: (415) 558-6309)
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW POLICY - Consideration of a Resolution recommending that the Board of Supervisor's amend Planning Code Sections 311 and 312 to establish an Administrative Discretionary Review Policy, and creating a Pre-Application process for new construction and certain alterations in RH and RM districts.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2004)
SPEAKER(S):
Paul Wermer - Pacific Heights Residents Association
- He represents the Pacific Residents Association.
- He is in favor of the pre-application process. However there are two areas where improvement is possible: 1) how to address the initiation of plans after the pre- application process, and 2) there is too much of a restricted notification process to the abutting neighbors.
- It is better to err in the process of advising more neighbors than necessary.
- The Residential Design Guidelines are not applied consistently.
- He has full confidence that with the proper guidance [staff] will be able to manage the various Discretionary Review areas.
Eileen Boken
- Much of the reason that the Planning Commission meetings go for so long is because many of the Discretionary Reviews could be avoided.
- Administrative Discretionary Reviews and the pre-application process are two separate issues and should be not be grouped together.
- She supports the pre-application process if it were broadened to include all residential alternations and permit applications and if it were implemented for a 12 month period.
- She believes that the Budget Analyst's audit proposed a very good solution. The City's Planning and Administrative Code allows for the extensive use of Conditional Use and Discretionary Reviews in San Francisco compared to other California cities and counties.
- Because of the frequent use of Conditional Use or Discretionary Review approval of many projects is uncertain, the most important thing to do is to find a solution that results in a reduction of Discretionary Review applications.
- Better neighborhood plans would drastically reduce the number of Discretionary Reviews.
Ron Miguel - Planning Association for the Richmond (PAR)
- He acknowledged the work of Jonas Ionin.
- PAR is concerned with clarity and consistency.
- The concept of a pre-application process is an excellent one.
- There has to be some consistency and training for the planners.
- It is essential that the Residential Design Guidelines are being followed for this process.
- He agrees that the notification process should be expanded.
- He would propose a six-month [review] of this policy.
- He would like to see this go ahead.
Bob Klausner - Volunteer Mediator for Community Boards
- He complimented staff on implementing what the desires of the Commission are.
- His organization is interested in conflict resolution.
- The pre-application will cut out a lot of the problems that end up in Discretionary Reviews.
- He thinks that with minimal tweaking, a reduction of projects can be accomplished.
- It is important to include as many people as possible in the 311 notices.
- Staff always takes a "bad wrap," but part of the problem is that staff does not receive all the information they need.
- There should be a form filled out in the pre-application so that planners understand exactly what the concerns of the community are.
Bruce Bonacker - San Francisco Neighborhood Network
- He supports this policy.
- He would like to have officers that are knowledgeable and neutral.
- He is very much in favor of giving this a beta test for a year in order to come back to the Commission and tweak it a bit.
- He is very happy with the pre-application concept.
- He would like to have this "put into effect now!"
- This process will result in fewer Discretionary Reviews. But it is important to do it cautiously.
John Schlesinger - American Institute of Architects
- The time to start this process is now.
- It is important to start administrative discretionary right away.
- He is proposing not having a hearing but having a more informal process.
- He recommends allowing these cases to be reported to the Commission prior to being heard by a staff person. If there is a problem with the project then the Commission could request to have it heard. There should be a review in six months to see how things are working.
Hiroshi Fukuda - Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods
- He supports the pre-application process.
- He is neutral regarding the Administrative Discretionary Reviews.
- He believes that some planners are better trained than others.
- Many do not bring information regarding surrounding neighborhoods.
- If the pre-application process is done early enough it would help.
Judy Berkowitz - Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods
- She understands that about two days ago the document was changed and she has not seen that document.
- She understands that there will be several meetings in the future.
- She proposes a review of this policy after 12 months.
- If the pre-application process is successful then the Administrative Discretionary Reviews would be unnecessary.
- She suggests that the Residential Design Guidelines and the codes be followed closely.
Anita Theoharis - Vice President of the Westwood Park Neighborhood Association
- She served for five years as a Planning Commissioner and knows that Discretionary Reviews add to the already heavy workload.
- She urges the Commission not to take any steps to limit the community in making their case before the them.
- The Planning Commission specializes in neighborhood planning issues. The Board of Appeals does not.
- As a concerned citizen she realized that Discretionary Reviews was her single most important tool to provide input to the Commission.
Terry Milne - Bernal Heights East Slope Design Review Board
- The citizens voted for proposition D for a more transparent and open Planning Commission and to have a voice at City Hall.
- Restrictions to the public's right to petition this Commission is in opposition to Proposition D.
- Only Discretionary Reviews allow the Commission to oversee and manage planning staff.
- Discretionary Reviews allow the Commission to understand the trouble spots in the code through citizens' voices at the meetings.
- One of the reasons that not many Discretionary Reviews come from their neighborhood is because they have two design review boards.
Karen Wood - Miraloma Park Improvement Club
- They have a good record of working with various City agencies.
- She supports the position of the San Francisco Coalition of Neighborhoods.
- She supports the pre-application process and feels this would avoid Administrative Discretionary Reviews.
- This is not to say that staff is not capable of making decision, it is just that people have the right to express their opinions.
Marilyn Amini
- She asked the Commission to take no decision on this matter.
- This issue is extremely important to the community.
- San Francisco's unique character and charm has been preserved by the right of have Discretionary Reviews.
- It has been inadequate the way noticing has been done regarding the proposed DR policy change.
MOTION: Approve and amend various criteria and lower threshold
AYES: Feldstein and Hughes
NAYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, S. Lee, W. Lee
RESULT: Motion Failed
ACTION: Item continued to April 1, 2004 with instructions to staff to explore criteria for simple Discretionary Reviews vs. complex Discretionary Reviews.
AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, Boyd, W. Lee, S. Lee
NAYES: Feldstein and Hughes
20. (L. BADINER/D. LIM: (415) 558-6411/558-6547)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT AUDIT - Review of Budget Analyst's management audit of June 2002 and Commission consideration of recommendations/ implementation by Planning Commission for follow-up.
