July 9, 2009SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 9, 2009
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1: 40 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Steve Wertheim, Viktoriya Wise, Jamie Dean, Timothy Johnston, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Tara Sullivan, Steve Smith, Britt Becker, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.
The Commissionwill 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. 2008.0197E: (A. CONTRERAS: (415) 575-9044)
942 Mission Street- north side of Mission Street, between Fifth and Sixth Streets, Lot 15 in Assessor's Block 3704 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for a project proposing the demolition of an existing two-story-over-basement office and commercial building, and construction of a 152-foot-tall, 15-story building containing approximately 3,240 square feet of ground-floor retail space, 4,025 square feet of ground floor circulation and building service space, and about 72,000 square feet of hotel space including 172 hotel rooms, with pedestrian access from Mission and Jessie Streets. No off-street parking or loading is proposed. The project is located in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Use District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Proposed for Continuance to September 3, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor; and Steve Vettel for the Project Sponsor
ACTION: Continued to September 10, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
2a. 2008.0197CEX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)
942 MISSION STREET- north side between Mint and Sixth Streets, a through-lot to Jessie Street - Review under Planning Code Section 309of new construction of a 15-story HOTEL, approximately 79,000 gross square feet, with approximately 172 rooms, approximately 3,240 square feet of ground-floor retail space and approximately 152 feet in height, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3704, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to September 3, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor; and Steve Vettel for the Project Sponsor
ACTION: Continued to September 10, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
2b. 2008.0197CEX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)
942 MISSION STREET- north side between Mint and Sixth Streets, a through-lot to Jessie Street – Request for Conditional Use Authorizationpursuant to Planning Code Section 216(b)(i) for a new HOTEL with approximately 172 rooms, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 3704, in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to September 3, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor; and Steve Vettel for the Project Sponsor
ACTION: Continued to September 10, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
3. 2008.1014C (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)
652 STANYAN STREET - east side between Page and Haight Streets, Assessor's Block 1228, Lot 008 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 209.6 (Public Facilities and Utilities) for AT&T Wireless to co-locate six antennas on the roof (concealed within RF transparent material) and associated equipment cabinets in the basement of the subject property. The project lies within an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 14, 2009)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.
4. Consideration of Adoption:
- · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 12, 2009.
- · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 19, 2009.
- · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 18, 2009.
- · Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 25, 2009.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
5. Commission Comments/Questions
- . Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
- . 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:
I want to thank Peter Albert from SFMTA and Tiffany Bohi from the Mayor's Office of Economic Development who met with me last Thursday and talked a little bit about some of the infrastructure plans for south eastern San Francisco. I think contrary to some of the talk that is going about, there are significant and substantial plans in the works for that area to help some of the transportation problems that exist in a situation where you have a couple of peninsulas that come off of a peninsula and would allow development in that area. I was quite impressed with the plans they had and I think this will be the subject of hearings we're having in the near future. They have taken into consideration bicycles and pedestrians as well as lightrail and automotive transport to these areas. I think it is very encouraging the thought that has gone into it. It still has a ways to go, but I think you are going to very happy to hear some of the ideas they are bringing forward.
Commissioner Moore:
I would like to commend the Planning Department – Mr. Badiner, Mr. Sider – everybody who pursued the large illegal signage discussion we had on 310 Grant Street. It shocked me walking down Grant and Sutter. I called Mr. Badiner and he informed me that there was already action on fining the installation of the shrink wrap. A week or two later the shrink wrap was down at the tune of $2,300 a day I think. In the course of that, Mr. Badiner forwarded to me and probably to all commissioners a discussion of the building at the corner of Powell and Post. I'm not quite sure if this matter was resolved, but I'd like Mr. Badiner to explain it to us.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
We are seeing over the last couple of months an innovative approach in reaching the public. We have a lot of vacant buildings downtown and we are seeing companies come forward, and as Commissioner Moore has said, shrink wrapping a building. It was brought to my attention this morning that the old S&C Ford building at Market and Deloris Street has been wrapped over the weekend – and this I don't think is a wrap, I think it is a paint – for levis. They are no longer getting in the retail and frame it where the windows used to be and then there was the solid portion and you would put a sign maybe in the window. No, now you go over the column, you wrap it all the way around and you continue it along. On the one hand we might not have a vacant building or storefront that is ratty; on the other hand we are getting what is general advertising. We do not find that that meets the provision of the Planning Code. We are looking at these very strictly. I'm also finding interestingly enough, that it's quite often on projects that are coming in for entitlements. And maybe I will put it on record: You may not have a public hearing on an entitlement if you have a violation on your property. So get those wraps down. Also, although I have not discussed this with the Director, it would not be my personal priority to be reviewing a permit if there is a violation on it – even though we can review a permit, we just can't approve it. It's becoming somewhat problematic. What I forwarded only to you commissioner was the response on one of them that was so laughable – it's not general advertising. We were drawing attention to local businesses in the area.' If that isn't the definition of general advertising, I don't know what it is.
Commissioner Miguel:
Thank you Mr. Badiner. As you know my personal thoughts on anyone doing any business with the Commission or with the Department when they have violations pending to me is a no-no.
Commissioner Olague:
This week in the paper, John King had an article about what to do with those lots where there is a delay in the development. It might be interesting, I would think, if we had a hearing here and maybe invite Mr. King and discuss with members of the public some creative ideas. I thought Friends of the Urban Forest and others had some pretty interesting thoughts on what to do with those lots that are now sitting there under utilized. I know that the Mayor had in the paper this week, or maybe it was a press release, had some ideas around food and food policy in the city. I don't know if there are ways that they cover some best practices in other cities, but I think that we need to have a hearing and a real discussion about that issue.
Commissioner Borden:
I second that. She took what I was going to say.
Commissioner Antonini:
[He made a request to staff regarding the signage issue]: on buildings that are in dis-repair, I think that particularly on a project we approved some years ago (I don't have the street address) at Sutter and Taylor, the south east corner, and nothing has been done. The building is graffiti(ed) and not kept up and it would seem if we are policing for advertising signs on buildings that are vacant, we also should be very cognizant of buildings that are not maintained properly and make sure the owners maintain that building until such time as the new tenant comes in or the building is torn down or remodeled or whatever happens.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
I will follow up on that
Commissioner Sugaya:
There have been times when the public, and sometimes commissioners I suppose, get frustrated with the way our meetings happen to be running. However I had occasion as a consultant to attend two public hearings in another community. I must say that the meetings here are run very well. The first meeting was canceled but they had the meeting anyway – not to take action, but to explain to the public why the meeting was canceled – which everybody already knew why it was canceled but they had it anyway which then erupted into this tirade from the members of the public who happened to be there venting their frustration. That did not seem to go very well in my opinion. The second meeting which was on the same subject – I was expecting a little more fireworks, but it was a bit more subdued. But I must say that in comparison, our meetings are run very well.
Commissioner Moore:
In quick response to Commissioner Antonini's comments which I think are very important, my understanding is that Supervisor Chiu's blight ordinance will address it in some form or another and I hope that we will have the time to look at that again and comment at the appropriate time.
Commissioner Miguel:
I want to mention that I met with and did a tour with people from the Exploratorium. I've been interfacing with the Housing Action Coalition as to their take on Mission Street heights. I want to take note that the letter that came out of this Commission regarding the Fisher family proposals for the museum in the main post of the Presidio was in line to the extent with what has happened so far on that one. I actually have been speaking with John King regarding his article and who knows, that's something for September 3rd.
C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director Rahaim:
On that last item on the empty lots, since I was quoted in that article, I have gotten a number of interesting emails about suggestions for empty lots. One of the important things to remember is that these are privately owned properties so access to the lots is probably not possible. But certainly having them more visually appealing and having them as venues for different types of art work or plantings or whatever is certainly possible. There are some organizations out there that emailed me that had some suggestions about how they could be involved. We'll be looking into that a little bit. Secondly, I did want to mention the Mayor's food policy Executive Order that came out this week. We are involved in that. I attended a meeting just before this meeting with other department directors on things that we can do on that. I'm personally interested in this topic and have been for a while. I think there is a lot we can do in the Department and as a city to better connect the city to its food sources and to even encourage food production within the city limits. So we will be working on that and sitting on the Food Policy Council as a way of encouraging the Department to be more engaged and encourage food production activities and connections to our sources of food in the region.
Zoning Administrator Badiner:
A couple of items that I wanted to bring to your attention: A couple of weeks ago there was a request that you hold a hearing and have a policy on requiring 311 notice in the RTO districts outside of West SOMA. In conversation with the President of the Commission, we both felt that it was much easier if I issue a Bulletin. I have issued that Bulletin. It is in your packets for next week. It is dated today and will require Section 311 notices in RTO districts in West SOMA. Let me remind you that we are doing a universal Planning notice project. There is actually a meeting this evening at I believe 7:00 at the Planning Department. That is a public meeting for us to discuss our initial proposals. We will be having a hearing in front of the Planning Commission – the first of a number of hearing, we don't want action – in the middle of August to discuss this. Obviously as we go through the notices, as we have these public meetings, we are discovering some of the problems we have with noticing. We would hope to correct those to the UPN process as much as possible. I think this is an exception to that and it made some sense to issue a Bulletin, but I don't intend that every time we discover a tweak or a problem to correct it individually, I hope that as we go forward that we correct it through the process, the UPN process. I think it makes more sense. It is the whole reason why we are doing the UPN process. The other point I wanted to make was the Health Department's report on CPMC's Institutional Master Plan has been transmitted to the Department from the Department of Public Health. We have hard copies in your packets along with a letter from Health Director Mitch Katz. This will also be posted on our web site shortly, if not already up, in the next couple of days so it should be readily available for anyone who wants it. I believe the Institutional Master Plan is tentatively scheduled for the September 17th Planning Commission hearing.
7. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REPORT (this report followed item 15):
Land Use Committee – Canceled
Full Board:
- · Landmark Designation of Metro Theater at 2055 Union Street (Metro Theater) for exterior only (passed first read)
BOARD OF APPEALS REPORT:
The Board had a case on Folsom Street that had not been before you. It is interesting in that it is a non-conforming use. As the Commission knows, a non-conforming use is a use that was legal at one time and the zoning changed so they are no longer a permitted use. Those uses are allowed to continue except if they are abandoned. We had this case that seemed to have been abandoned over a long period of time. It was clearly a storefront type of use. We struggle with these because there is not a lot of other uses for storefronts. We now think that having storefronts in residential neighborhoods are a good idea. This was a non-conforming use I believe in a RH-3. We had some fairly adequate information that it had been abandoned; not withstanding the fact that we felt potentially it could have been a good use. The Board of Appeals in their wisdom felt that we hadn't provided adequate notice for the abandonment and allowed the non-conforming use to remain. I believe the use they want to put in there would still be considered a conditional use and it might be coming before you for action. I believe it is 2500 Folsom. It is something we struggle with where you have a building that is clearly a ground floor commercial in nature but the non-conforming has been abandoned. In an ideal world we would reexamine our non-conforming rules where we no longer believe that retail should never mix with residential and if they do, we want to get rid of them. That is the classic planning theory. It no longer applies, but we still do have code provisions like that. So we certainly believe the Board of Appeals did the right emotional thing in this case and served justice.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISISON REPORT:
None – The Commission did not meet this week
8. 2009.0205I (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)
HEALDCOLLEGE ABBREVIATED INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN- Report on Heald College's Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. Heald College is located at 350 Mission St. (Block 3710 017). The Abbreviated IMP contains information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use of affiliated buildings, and development plans. The IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department's website (from www.sfplanning.orgclick Publications & Reports and then Institutional Master Plans ).
PreliminaryRecommendation: Informational presentation, no action requested
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: An informational item that did not require Commission action. However Commissioner Moore requested that we add a locational map to our files so that in the long run we can track where downtown institutional uses are.
9. 2006.1073E (V. WISE: (415) 575-9049)
Piers 15 and 17/The Exploratorium Relocation Project- East side of The Embarcadero at Green Street; Lots 15, 15H and 17 in Assessor's Block 9900 - Informational Presentation of the Proposed Project. The Exploratorium proposes to relocate to Piers 15/17. The Project Site, owned by the Port of San Francisco (Port), is comprised of the 136,145-gross-square-foot (gsf) Pier 15, 110,615-gsf Pier 17, 11,773-gsf Connector Building, a paved parking area ( Valley ), a 1,579-gsf office shack in the Valley, and a 235-gsf office addition on the Pier 17 north apron. Piers 15 and 17 are contributing resources to the San Francisco Embarcadero National Register Historic District. The Exploratorium proposes to lease from the Port Pier 15, Pier 17, replace the Connector Building with a New Bridge Building and remove portions of the Valley. The Exploratorium proposes to expand the museum program into Pier 17 in the future. Until then, the Exploratorium would lease Pier 17 to commercial, light industrial and restaurant or other retail users.
Preliminary Recommendation: No action required
SPEAKERS: Dennis Bartells – Executive Director of the Exploratorium, James Saw – Development partner for the project, Alec Lee – Aim High, Yardstav Malev – Galileo High School, Zeke Kossover – The Jewish Community High School of the Bay, Mwambeku El-Kindly – Lowell High School, Mark Rowley – School of the Arts Hish School, Josh, Charmaine Luz – Galileo High School, Richard Pham – Archbishop Riordan High School, Mona, Hashim Anderson - Exploratorium, Helen Fried, Peter Winkelstein –SPUR, Michael Theriault – SF Building & Construction Trades, Morton Beebe – Barbury Coast Neighborhood Association, Alexandra Bevk – SF Architectural Heritage, Bob MacIntosh – CEO of Pier 39, Wells Whitney - SPUR
ACTION: An informational item that did not require commission action.
D. GENERALPUBLIC 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:
Eula Walters
Re: The use of $1.7 million from the Downtown Park Fund to fix up Ferry Park
Hiroshi Fukuda
Re: Discretionary Review Reform
E. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED
At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKERS on item 13 – 2009.0172C for 5898 Mission Street:
Steven Currier – OMMRA, Alex Murillo – OMMRA, Edward Azar – son of Project Sponsor, Mrs. Azar – Project Owner
10. 2006.1073E (V. WISE: (415) 575-9049)
Piers 15 and 17/The Exploratorium Relocation Project - East side of The Embarcadero at Green Street; Lots 15, 15H and 17 in Assessor's Block 9900 – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Exploratorium proposes to relocate to Piers 15/17. The Project Site, owned by the Port of San Francisco (Port), is comprised of the 136,145-gross-square-foot (gsf) Pier 15, 110,615-gsf Pier 17, 11,773-gsf Connector Building, a paved parking area ( Valley ), a 1,579-gsf office shack in the Valley, and a 235-gsf office addition on the Pier 17 north apron. Piers 15 and 17 are contributing resources to the San Francisco Embarcadero National Register Historic District. The Exploratorium proposes to lease from the Port Pier 15, Pier 17, replace the Connector Building with a New Bridge Building and remove portions of the Valley. The Exploratorium proposes to expand the museum program into Pier 17 in the future. Until then, the Exploratorium would lease Pier 17 to commercial, light industrial and restaurant or other retail users.
Note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on March 16, 2009. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: FEIR Certified
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya
MOTION: 17916
11. 2007.0118E (J. DEAN: (415) 575-9028)
San Joaquin Pipeline System Project- portions of Tuolumne, Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes the San Joaquin Pipeline (SJPL) System Project, which is comprised of repair or replacement of an approximately 6.5-mile segment of SJPL No. 3 in the eastern portion of the SJPL System beginning at the Oakdale Portal in Tuolumne County and extending west to unincorporated Stanislaus County, and construction of a new approximately 11-mile pipeline, SJPL No. 4, beginning near a new crossover facility (Pelican Crossover) west of the San Joaquin River in Stanislaus County and extending to the Tesla Portal facility in San Joaquin County. The project also proposes construction of two new crossover facilities along the SJPL System: Emery Crossover located about 9.5 miles west of the Oakdale Portal in unincorporated Stanislaus County, and Pelican Crossover, located west of the San Joaquin River at the eastern terminus of the new pipeline in unincorporated Stanislaus County. Ancillary project components include site improvements at the Oakdale Portal, construction of two new throttling stations along SJPL No. 3 in the eastern portion of the SJPL System; upgrade/replacement of existing valves at the discharge facilities at Cashman Creek; and replacement of the existing valves and discharge piping and addition of a new discharge valve at the California Aqueduct.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report
Note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on January 26, 2009. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 11, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: FEIR Certified
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Olague
RECUSED: Sugaya
MOTION: 17917
12. 2005.0164E (T. Johnston: (415) 575-9035)
BAY DIVISION RELIABILITY UPGRADE PROJECT- Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Bay Division Reliability Upgrade Project (also known as BDPL No. 5 ). The project would be constructed as a 21 mile pipeline, parallel to, and within the existing right-of-way (ROW) of BDPL Nos. 1 and 2, which originate at the Irvington Tunnel Portal in Fremont, pass through the cities of Fremont and Newark in Alameda County, cross the Bay at the Dumbarton Strait, and continue through the cities of East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County. The project would include a seven-mile reach (or sub-segment) in the East Bay that begins approximately 100 feet east of Mission Boulevard, near the Irvington Tunnel Portal, and continues westward through the cities of Fremont and Newark to the Newark Valve Lot. A proposed five-mile tunnel would extend from the Newark Valve Lot to the Ravenswood Valve Lot in Menlo Park, crossing beneath the Bay. From the Ravenswood Valve Lot, BDPL No. 5 would extend nine miles westward to the Pulgas Tunnel Portal in unincorporated San Mateo County.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report
Note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on February 5, 2009. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: FEIR Certified
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya
MOTION: 17918
13. 2009.0172C (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)
5898 Mission Street- northwest side of Mission Street, between Lawrence and Sickles Avenues, Block 7143, Lot 033 - Request to amend a Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 178(3)(c), 303 and 711.4 to extend the hours of operation of the retail market at the ARCO Service Station to 24-hours, seven days a week, within an NC-2 District 40-X Height and Bulk.
preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 11, 2009)
Note: On June 11, 2009, following public testimony, the Commissionentertained a motion to disapprove. Them motion failed on a vote of +3 -2. Commissioners Moore and Sugaya voted against and Commissioners Lee & Olague were absent. The matter was continued to July 9, 2009 by a vote of +5 -0.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Disapproved
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Lee
NAYES: Moore and Sugaya
EXCUSED: Olague
MOTION: 17919
14. 2009.0454T (E. Forbes: (415) 558-6417)
General Advertising Program Cost Recovery- Consideration of amendments to Planning Code Sections 303, 358 and 604.2, and Administrative Code Section 10.100-166 to increase the annual inventory fee for cost recovery; expand the Planning Department's Code Enforcement Fund sources and uses to enforcement of all Planning Code violations; and to make clarifications to the program.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 25, 2009)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 6, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya
ABSENT: Olague
15. 2008.0354T: (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)
Amendments to Planning Code Section 318 to Clarify Provisions of the South of Market Stabilization Fund [Board File No. 09-0477].Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly amending the Planning Code to clarify certain provisions relating to the South of market (SOMA) Stabilization Fund by amending Section 318.2 and 318.7to clarify that the Mayor's Office of Community Investment, the successor to the Mayor's Office of Community Development, will manage and expend the Fund; and amending Section 318.3 to clarify that the SOMA Stabilization fee is due before issuance of the final certificate of occupancy or within a time certain after the issuance of first certificate of occupancy, whichever is sooner.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Steve Vettel – Representing the Project Sponsor; Jazzie Collins – Chair of SOMA CAC
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Miguel, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya
NAYES: Antonini
RESOLUTION: 17920
16a. 2008.0788CV (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)
50-52 GRENARD TERRACE- located in the middle of the block bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Lombard Street, Polk Street and Greenwich Street, Lot 009, in Assessor's Block 0502 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 253, 303 and 317 to construct a building higher than 40' in height and to demolish the two-unit, two-story over garage building with four bedrooms, and to construct a two-unit, three-story over garage with penthouse building with 5 bedrooms in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapprove
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 18, 2009
SPEAKERS: (+) Jeremy Paul – Representing the Project Sponsors, (-) Robert Padia, (-) Gralen Britle, (-) Ron Hirson, (-) Caz Pereira, (-) Lori Hirson, (-) Patrick, (+) Paul & Marie Ferris – Project Owners, (+) Steven Morse, (+) Anita Morse, (+) Yat-Pang Au & wife, (+) Hans Roderich, (+) Justine Sears – Project Contractor, (+) Pat Buscovich, (+) Wilfred Hsu, (+) Ross Levy – Project Architect, (+) Penelope Clark – Russian Hill Neighbors
ACTION: Intent to approve with final language on July 23, 2009
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya
16b. 2008.0788CV (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)
50-52 GRENARD TERRACE- located in the middle of the block bounded by Van Ness Avenue, Lombard Street, Polk Street and Greenwich Street, Lot 009, in Assessor's Block 0502 - Request for Variances from the front setback and rear yard requirements pursuant to Sections 132 and 134 of the Planning Code, to allow the proposed building to be located within the required 6' front setback and to be located within the required 15' rear yard setback within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 18, 2009)
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variances subject to the standard conditions of approval but stated that he would not issue them until after the Commission takes its final action
17. 2005.0162E (S. Smith: [415] 558-6373)
NEW IRVINGTON TUNNEL PROJECT– Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the New Irvington Tunnel Project (also known as NIT ). The project would be approximately 3.5 miles long, extending west from a new Alameda West Portal in the Sunol Valley to a new Irvington Portal in the City of Fremont. The new tunnel would be located approximately parallel to the existing tunnel, with an internal diameter between 8.5 and 10.5 feet. The depth of the tunnel would range from 30 to 700 feet below ground surface. Construction would occur at four work areas: Alameda West Portal (in Sunol Valley), Sheridan Valley (along Sheridan Road), Vargas (along Vargas Road near Interstate 880), and the Irvington Portal (along Mission Boulevard in the City of Fremont). Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on Thursday, July 16, 2009.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Public hearing on the draft EIR that did not require Commission action
RECUSED: Sugaya
18. 2006.0137E (B. BECKER: (415) 575-9045)
SUNOLVALLEYWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION AND TREATED WATER RESERVOIR PROJECT- Informational Presentation and Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant (SVWTP) Expansion and Treated Water Reservoir Project. The SVWTP Project proposes the construction and operation of a new 17.5 million-gallon (MG) treated water reservoir, 3.5 MG chlorine contact tank, flocculation and sedimentation basin, construction of new effluent pipelines within the SVWTP, and a new 78-inch pipeline connecting the new treated water reservoir to the existing 78-inch plant discharge pipeline, which transports water from the plant to the existing Alameda Siphons. Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department's offices until the close of business on July 17, 2009. Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Public hearing on the draft EIR that did not require Commission action
19a. 2009.0555D (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
SPEAKERS: (+) Steve Atkinson – Representing the Project Sponsor, (+) Sabien Lannoye – Project Architect, (+) Michael Christian – neighbor who has reached an agreement with the project sponsor to address his privacy concerns
ACTION: The Commission did not take discretionary review and approved the merger as proposed
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya
DRA: 0093
19b. 2008.1308D (A. Starr: 415-558-6362)
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 19a
ACTION: The Commission did not take discretionary review and approved the project as proposed but included an instruction that the project sponsor and architect continue working with staff to better define the front façade design
AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya
DRA: 0094
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
SPEAKERS: None
Adjournment: 6:29 p.m.
Adopted: July 23, 2009
