SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, March 25, 2010
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, 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, Diego Sanchez, Aaron Hollister, Kevin Guy, Rick Crawford, AnMarie Rodgers, Sophie Hayward, Tara Sullivan, Jim Miller, Sharon Lai, Sharon Young, Elizabeth Watty, 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. 2009.1107DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
3555 JACKSON STREET - south side between Locust and Spruce Streets; Lots 026 through 032 in Assessor’s Block 0987 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2008.09.25.2695, proposing to merge seven dwelling units into six dwelling units within a four-story building, in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the application
(Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Prior to this hearing, it was determined that this matter is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission
1b. 2009.1107DV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
3555 JACKSON STREET - south side between Locust and Spruce Streets; Lots 026 through 032 in Assessor’s Block 0987 pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134 and 188 to renovate an existing n Request for Variances on complying structure.This proposal requires Rear Yard and Non-Complying Structure Variances because the existing building already encroaches into the required rear yard and is considered a legal non-complying structure. The Variance decision will be issued following the Commission’s consideration of the Mandatory Discretionary Review case.
(Proposed for Continuance to April 1, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator continued this item to 4/21/10
2. 2008.0494C (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)
2115-2117 TARAVAL STREET - south side between 31st and 32nd Avenues; Lot 046 in Assessor’s Block 2394 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 161 (j) and 317 to demolish a mixed-use building, including two dwelling units and construct a new, four-level, mixed-use structure consisting of two commercial spaces and two dwelling units, without on-site parking, within the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial – Small Scale), Taraval Street Restaurant and Fast-Food Sub-District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 4, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to April 8, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
3. 2009.1180TZ (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)
680 California Street, aka Old St. Mary’s Church - Amending San Francisco Zoning Map ZN01 to change the zoning of Block 0241, Lots 011 & 012 from Chinatown Mixed Use District to C-3-O and amendments relating to Planning Code Section 128 to require that proceeds from the sale of transferable development rights from certain Transfer Lots be spent on the rehabilitation and maintenance of the Transfer Lot property. Ordinance that would amend the San Francisco Zoning Map ZN01 to change the use district of 680 California Street, aka Old St. Mary’s Church from Chinatown Mixed Use District to C-3-O and to amend Planning Code Section 128 (Transfer of Development Rights in C-3 Districts) to require that the proceeds of transfer development rights from a Transfer Lot which contains a designated landmark pursuant to Article 10 of the Planning Code be spent on the rehabilitation and maintenance of the landmark building; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.
(Proposed for Continuance to April 15, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
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
4. 2009.0559C (D. Sánchez: (415) 575-9082)
135 Mississippi Street- east side of Mississippi, between 17th Street and Mariposa Street, Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 3987 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 843.93 and 303 to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of four panel antennas on the elevator penthouse of an existing four story structure. The antennas and equipment are proposed in Location Preference 4 (Preferred Location – Industrial/Commercial Site) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services Siting Guidelines, as part of the T-Mobile Wireless’ telecommunications network within the Urban Mixed Use District (UMU) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District..
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: In support: Joseph – T-Moble representative; In opposition: Espanola Jackson, Yvonne Gavre, David Boyd, Leslie de Taillandier, Steven Krolik, Sudi Skull, Maya Cain, Francisco Da Costa, Jerry Doyle, David Tortenteim
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
MOTION: 18052
5. 2009.0743Q (A. HOLLISTER (415) 575-9078)
1038 PINE STREET - north side between Jones and Taylor Streets, Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 0253 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed five-unit Condominium Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in an RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert the existing five-unit building to a condominium form of ownership and does not involve expansion, alteration or demolition of the existing building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Olague and Miguel
RECUSED: Sugaya
MOTION: 18051
6a. 2009.1105CX (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
72 Ellis Street - north side between Powell and Stockton Streets, Lot 011 of Assessor’s Block 0327 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved Conditional Use authorization. Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved project to demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct an 11-story, 125-foot tall hotel consisting of approximately 156 rooms, a lobby, small accessory meeting rooms, and a restaurant. The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject property is located within the C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District, the 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Yvone Delbert – Project Sponsor
ACTION: Approved with modifications
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, and Miguel
NAYES: Olague
MOTION: 18053
6b. 2009.1105CX (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
72 Ellis Street - north side between Powell and Stockton Streets, Lot 011 of Assessor’s Block 0327 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a Determination of Compliance with Planning Code Section 309. Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved project to demolish an existing surface parking lot and construct an 11-story, 125-foot tall hotel consisting of approximately 156 rooms, a lobby, small accessory meeting rooms, and a restaurant. The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject property is located within the C-3-R (Downtown, Retail) Zoning District, the 80-130-F Height and Bulk District, and the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 6a
ACTION: Approved with modifications
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, and Miguel
NAYES: Olague
MOTION: 18054
7. 2009.1131C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
325 Kearny Street - west side between Pine and Bush Streets Lot 003, of Assessor’s Block 0270 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 218.8 Massage Establishments to include massage services within an existing acupuncture and herbal medicine clinic (dba Queen’s Health Center) on the second and third floors of the subject property. The project would establish two 300 square foot massage/acupressure treatment rooms on the third floor of the building. This project lies within the C-3-O Downtown Office District and within the 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
MOTION: 18050
C. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
8. Commission Comments/Questions
Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
Read a recent article about the possibility of development for an arena in San Francisco, which is an interesting project and will pose a question to staff, I don’t need the answer today, but what is our role in this? I just kind of wonder how we fit into the process of this particular property. Even thought it is Port property, do we as a Commission have a role in this decision. Interestingly enough, that site, I don’t know the exact size of the site, but it is actually bigger than the site proposed in Santa Clara for a football stadium. It is an interesting concept because I have spoken many times about the loss of revenue that we have when large concerts are never here because there is not a facility for them. We can’t have a national political convention; we can’t even have the circus here. They do not come to the Cow Palace. The final four basketball games that San Jose got as part of the playoffs last weekend was because they have the arena. The entertainment groups that I have talked to about this idea are very enthusiastic because they feel they would rather have it here in San Francisco where there is a large population
Commissioner Sugaya:
I noticed even though the City is supposedly broke, we got brand spanking new microphones here. I would also like to say, thinking about last week’s hearing about 555 Washington Street, I was quite proud of the way the Planning Commission was able to articulate various points of view, both in opposition and in favor of, and in between, on the various issues that were heard in the seven-hour hearing. Things were contentious at certain times, but I see the Commissioners involved are still talking to each other, so it probably was not as bad as anybody thought it was watching on TV. That comment is made quite in contrast to the other Commission, who sat up here with us. Those of you that have not seen it might be interested to see the way that Commission took their vote. I don’t need to go into that any further. That said, back on the 555 Washington Street Environmental Impact Report, it is interesting to me that as I was reading the DEIR, the project at 222 2nd Street in the Land Use Analysis section it says, and I am going to quote, “a conflict between the proposed project and the General Plan Policy does not indicate a significant affect on the environment within the context of CEQA. The staff report and Planning Commission will entertain the Planning Department’s full analysis of the projects consistency with the General Plan Policy and zoning and will discuss any exceptions requested or modifications required, thus the impact analysis does not evaluate planning and consistencies, although physical [combat] (?) environmental impacts that could require from such conflicts are analyzed elsewhere” This is quite a contrast to the DEIR we had in front of us for 555 Washington Street, which took great pains to explain how the project would be in conformance with the general plan, zoning and Planning Code plans and policies because we were going to change those very policies. It’s seems to me that this EIR on 22nd was quite a different approach. I would like staff to sort of ponder these approaches.
Commissioner Borden:
One of the local realtors had information that I thought was interesting. She said single-family homes in San Francisco, over the last year the median price has gone up 17%. She also said the number of homes sold has increased 20% and the number of homes for sale has declined. I thought it was interesting, we actually see a lot of D.R.’s with home improvement projects. I guess the single-family home market seems to be going back up already, and I guess I was surprised to realize that.
Commissioner Lee:
We just got an email from Ms. Avery about the CEQA review, and I think we should take both of those cases and compare them, because I think we need to clarify, for transparency reasons, and for the general public to understand what we are allowed to do and what we are not allowed to do, but it goes back to the purpose of CEQA.
I would like to take both of them and dissect them and look at where we are weak or strong with either one. Still, the bottom line, does it meet the CEQA requirement is key to the decision making.
Commissioner Miguel:
I am not positive about the date, but I believe it was the “Business Times” of March 5 that had an interesting article regarding community housing partnerships. They housed formerly homeless individuals in San Francisco, which is something that has been brought up here at the Commission from time to time. They claim that 98% of people they house did not go back to the streets. They are involved in joint projects and their own individual projects. If you could get a hold of that, it was an interesting article.
We have, as we mentioned here in the City, started a number of small little public plazas. There are three with more to come around town. The reference was to how they were doing it in New York. Those public plazas, as started last May, now they have been made permanent. They were temporary before. They have been made permanent and there is good reason to keep their existence. Once in a while I mention something I have read which is interesting. I have followed one way or another Steward Brand, for years. He has a new publication out – I don’t always agree with the author, but I always find him relatively easy to read for a scientist, and someone who is willing to change his mind, which is also interesting to read. He has comments on population, environment, and density of population, and they would relate to some of the things that we do here.
In addition to that, I had a long conversation with Supervisor Eric Mar regarding the Alexandria Theater, which has been languishing for some time. Supervisor Mar is trying to figure out what is happening with that, as the rest of us are. As far as Commissioner Antonini ‘s comments on the possible stadium location, actually that was talked about as a possible stadium many years ago, and there was no traction on it. Unfortunately, there were a number of us, including myself that tried to get a little action on it, but nobody wanted to step forward, unfortunately.
Commissioner Antonini:
Well, I read about that and I remembered that it was coming at the time when the Warriors were for sale and it was also taught that their lease would expire in 2017. Incidentally, this could be privately financed, as everything pretty much is today. I wanted to mentioned at last’s week discussion, 555 Washington, one thing that was noteworthy and I will have to try to locate, there was an individual who came up – wanting that was noteworthy, he came up with interesting statistics about how many there are available and that they’re selling quickly. In fact, they were looking at the possibility of there being a shortage as early as 2011, because they project what the rate of sale has been and how many are left. These are new condominiums. I think that would be interesting because these discussions come up all the time. If we could get information from him and substantiate whether he is accurate or not; and there was also an article that dealt with the same question, I believe, in the “Business Time” or “The Chronicle” or “Examiner”, as we approved projects and consider project entitlement extensions, we are always hearing discussion about is there an oversupply or under supply of available housing and a certain type of housing - so it is good to know what we have.
Commissioner Miguel:
As to Commissioner Borden’s comments on prices and Commissioner Antonini’s last comment, one of the members of my family has been shopping in San Francisco for a condo, and I think both of these comments are quite accurate.
D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
9. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
In a quick respond to Commissioner Antonini’s request, the Department is involved in the environmental review, but the Commission as it is structured now did not approve the project on this piece of land. I sat on the advisory committee. The original proposal was much bigger, but the capacity is for more than the Arena. It is for other types of mixed used developments. Typically we are involved at the staff level, and working with the Port. But as it stands right now there is not a formal role for us. That could change as we move forward in structuring this type of zoning.
I wanted to mention the CEQA training that someone brought up. We were specifically asked to work with staff to develop training sessions for both commissions and other topics, for that matter, related to the code and general plan as well. It seems that CEQA was the most pressing need, so we are trying to organize that.
Tuesday night I attended a meeting at San Francisco Beautiful with Sarah Dennis, to talk specifically about the housing element and the draft of the element that we have prepared. We had some comments on that. The draft EIR for the housing element is due next month. Our hope was to have the final element planned by mid-summer, but that will depend on how long it takes to respond to the number of comments we get. Probably in May we will have a hearing.
I also wanted to mention the park’s program that the Commission brought up. There was a ribbon cutting last week. In this case we are looking at several other locations, rather than taking a part of the street right of way, the plan was developed to use parking spaces for a platform. It has met with great success, I think.
Again, I want to give kudos to the staff that has really made this possible from almost every aspect of it. This includes fund raising, finding furniture, planting plants and all sorts of things.
Finally, I just wanted to mention that I will be out of the office next week. I have been invited to attend a seminar in Honolulu with an organization called the Eastwood Institute that has been around for a quite a while. They provide cooperation between different countries, a number of them will be Planning and Economic Directors from several countries, and three US cities - San Francisco, Seattle and Denver will be involved.
Alicia John-Baptiste, will be in charge of the Department while I am away.
Commissioner Olague:
When will the draft EIR for the Housing Element will be ready?
Director Rahaim:
I do not have an exact date, sometime in late April.
Commissioner Olague:
I noticed in the advance calendar that there is an EIR hearing on 935 Market Street. Do you know when it might be available?
Director Rahaim:
I do not. Again, there’s a 30 day gap between when it will be released and when we have the hearing.
10. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
Land Use Committee:
This week at the Land Use Committee, the Development Reform package was before the Committee.
Three ordinances in the Commission’s package on January 21, two resolutions were passed. Both of them recommended approval with various modifications. 12 in all were recommended, including things such as looking at the projects in the pipeline that could be included and open to legislation; wanting to capture additional fees; and the securing of the additional infrastructure funding.
I am pleased to report that the Mayor’s Office has integrated the ordinances from this week.
Requesting that the Board help to stimulate construction, there were members of the planned area in the Supervisors’ Committee that wanted to ensure that the infrastructure funding was not delayed.
Summing up thoughts with a few comments, Supervisor Maxwell, thought it was important to defer fees to help with development as long as they come at the same time as housing provision. She also stated that the below market units before in important component to securing great neighborhoods and she wanted to make sure that nothing about the deferral program, especially affordable housing transfer, would undermine the program. She finally commented that it was not accepted until the City secures the infrastructure.
Also before the Land Use Committee was Supervisor Chiu’s requirement for putting a garage into an existing building. At the January 14 hearing approval modifications were recommended, including legislation to be used for a different criteria starting with dwelling units; off street parking; on street parking and the design done through DPW/MTA and your recommendations were incorporated into the revisions that went before the Land Use Committee
Board of Appeals:
There was a hearing on a Medical Cannabis case that failed to meet the pre-existing deadline. Members of the Board struggled to allow this to continue, as did we, but I do not think that the law allowed it to happen. They continued the item for a number of weeks so that they can continue examining it and have the project sponsor there.
There were some allegations that the Department did not do as much as they could to help the applicant but I took an exception to that. We spent a lot of time and energy on this.
There were also allegations of racisms in doing this. I do take exception to this. I am upset about it but that did not come from the commission, but from member of the audience. The Department did the best they could and the applicant’s told them many times that they missed the deadline. When you miss the deadline, the law changes regarding the within a 1000 feet of a school. It was very problematic.
I will also be out of the office next week.
Historic Preservation Commission:
No meeting this week.
I would to note that because there was no report last week, the Commission met on Wednesday 3/17. On their calendar was the Mission Dolores Neighborhood survey document prepared by Carey and Company. An interesting situation - staff did not recommend total adoption of the survey. It was more of a partial approval, but the Commission actually adopted the survey that the consultant put forward. The Commission also wanted to talk about how the Department could find designations to work thru that piece of work.
E. 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:
Joe Butler – Little House Committee
Re: 1269 Lombard Street
Francisco Da Costa
Re: Housing
Espanola Jackson
Re: Illnesses in Bayview Hunters Point; and the National Environmental Policy Act
David Silverman
Re: Alexander Thornton
F. 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:
David Silverman – representing project sponsor for 200 Dolores/1919-1923 15th Streets
Beth Wilber – in support of 200 Dolores and the need for parking
G. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
11a. 2008.0992CESV (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
200 DOLORES STREET - on the southwest corner of Dolores and 15th Streets; Lot 063 in Assessor’s Block 3557 in an RTO (Residential, Transit-Oriented) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 151.1, 157, and 303 for a proposal to construct thirteen dwelling units with thirteen off-street parking spaces, and to replace three parking spaces for the adjacent property (Lot 062, Assessor’s Block 3557) that would be lost as a result of the proposed project. A Variance is also requested of the Zoning Administrator to construct a new building in the required rear yard and within the required front set back. A Variance from the Planning Code's open space requirement is requested of the Zoning Administrator by the adjacent parcel as a result of the lot line adjustment associated with the proposed project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Note: On January 28, 2010, following testimony the Commission closed the public hearing and passed a motion of intent to disapprove the Conditional Use Authorization for a parking proposal by a vote +4-3. Commissioners Antonini, Lee, and Miguel voted against the motion. The item was then continued to February 11, 2010 for final action.
(Continued from the Regular Meeting of March 11, 2010)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, and Miguel
NAYES: Moore, Sugaya, and Olague
MOTION: 18055
11b. 2008.0992CESV (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
200 DOLORES STREET - on the southwest corner of Dolores and 15th Streets; Lot 063 in Assessor’s Block 3557 in an RTO (Residential, Transit-Oriented) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for a Variance from Planning Code Sections 132 and 134 from the Zoning Administrator, to construct a new ten-unit residential building within the required rear yard and within the required front setback.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
NOTE: On January 28, 2010, following public testimony, the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and stated his intent to grant the variance including CEQA findings, design and inclusionary housing.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and stated his intent to grant the variance
11c. 2003.1287V (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
1919 -1923 15TH STREET - on the south side of 15th Street near Dolores Street; Lot 062 in Assessor’s Block 3557 in an RTO (Residential, Transit-Oriented) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for a Variance from Planning Code Sections 121 and 135 from the Zoning Administrator, to allow a lot line adjustment that would result in a lot that does not meet the open space and minimum lot size requirements of the Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
NOTE: On January 28, 2010, following public testimony, the Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and stated his intent to grant the variance including CEQA findings, design and inclusionary housing.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and stated his intent to grant the variance
H. REGULAR CALENDAR
12. 2010.0050T (T. SULLIVAN: (415) 558-6257)
Amendments relating to Planning Code Section 315 to amend the Affordable Housing Program and related components [BOS File No. 10-0046] - Ordinance introduced by Mayor Newsom and Supervisor Chiu that would amend Planning Code Section 315 et seq. to change the name of the Residential Inclusionary Housing Affordable Program to the Affordable Housing Program and to require all project applicants to pay the Affordable Housing fee unless they are eligible for an alternative; making other amendments to the program including expanding the uses of the Citywide Affordable Housing Fund, deleting provisions relating to certain requirements of off-site units, and deleting provisions requiring a refund of fees after issuance of certificate of occupancy; amending Section 827 to delete the requirement that 50% of on – or off- site affordable housing units provided under Section 315 et seq. in the Rincon Hill Area Plan be provided as rental; amending the Administrative Code by amending Chapter 56 related to Development Agreements to create certain exemptions from its requirements for rental housing developments with on-site inclusionary units; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 11, 2010)
SPEAKERS: Steve Vellard, Myrna, Ms. Melgar
ACTION: Approved as modified per staff recommendations and to address resale values
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
RESOLUTION: 18056
13a. 2007.1135EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)
562 - 564 HOWARD STREET - north side between First and Second Streets - Review under Planning Code (hereinafter “Code”) Section 309 an eight-story addition to an existing two-story building to contain approximately 19 dwelling units, second-story residential use and ground-floor retail space, approximately 122 feet in height, requiring an exception pursuant to Code Section 309(a)(1) for rear-yard requirements, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3721, in a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown Office – Special District) and a 450-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 25, 2010)
NOTE: On February 25, 2010, following public testimony, the Commission continued this item to 3/25/2010 and required that they be provided with the Howard Street frontage prior to the hearing by a vote +5 -0. Commissioner Sugaya was recused. Commissioner Borden was absent. The public hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: Dreg Sheppard – Project Architect
ACTION: Following public testimony and some Commission deliberation, this item was continued to 5/13/10. The public hearing will remain open.
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore and Miguel
NAYES: Olague
RECUSED: Sugaya
13b. 2007.1135EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)
562 – 564 HOWARD STREET - north side between First and Second Streets - Request for aVariance of Planning Code Section 140 for dwelling-unit exposure for ten dwelling units in conjunction with the construction of 19 new dwelling units, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3721, in a C-3-O(SD) (Downtown Office – Special District) and a 450-S Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 25, 2010)
NOTE: On February 25, 2010, following public testimony, the Commission continued this item to 3/25/2010 and required that they be provided with the Howard Street frontage prior to the hearing by a vote +5 -0. Commissioner Sugaya was recused. Commissioner Borden was absent. The public hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator continued this item to 5/13/10 and stated that he is not inclined to grant the variance.
14a. 2009.0365DV (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
4209 24th Street - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 6505 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings of Building Permit Application No. 2009.10.20.9401 proposing alterations to the existing single-family home that include adding a second unit, moving the building forward on the lot, and horizontal and vertical additions in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. A Variance is also requested of the Zoning Administrator to construct within the required front set back and the required rear yard.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the proposal with modifications
SPEAKERS: Bonnie Bridges – Project Architect, David Maltz – Project Sponsor
ACTION: The Commission took DR and approved per staff modifications.
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya and Miguel
ABSENT: Lee and Olague
DRA: 0142
14b. 2009.0365DV (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
4209 24th Street - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 6505 - Request for a Variance from Planning Code Sections 132 and 134 from the Zoning Administrator to allow a major alteration that would extend into the front setback and into the required rear yard. The proposed alterations to the existing single-family home would include adding a second unit, moving the building forward on the lot, and horizontal and vertical additions in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance subject to the standard conditions of approval.
15a. 2009.0694DV (S. LAI: (415) 575-9087)
356-358 Elizabeth Street - northeast corner of Elizabeth and Blanche Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor’s Block 3652 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.06.23.1112 proposing to expand the existing 2-unit building by constructing horizontal additions at the second and a vertical expansion at the third floors to raise the height by approximately 5-feet. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential House, Three Units per Lot) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This project triggers open space, rear yard, and non-complying structure variances.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve as proposed.
SPEAKERS: In support of DR: Arleen – DR Requestor, Kurt Fletcher, and Jean Allan; Donna – Project Architect, and John – Project Sponsor
ACTION: The Commission did not take DR and approved the project as proposed.
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Lee
DRA: 0143
15b. 2009.0694DV (S. LAI: (415) 575-9087)
356-358 Elizabeth Street - northeast corner of Elizabeth and Blanche Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor’s Block 3652 - Request for Open Space, Rear Yard, and Non-Complying Structure Variances, to allow horizontal additions at the second and third floors and a vertical addition to the existing third floor. The construction at the second and third floor extends within the required rear yard of the existing non-complying structure, which triggers rear yard and non-complying structure variances. The further expansion within the required rear yard also lessens the required open space and would therefore require an open space variance. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential House, Three Units per Lot) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Variance decision will be issued following the Commission's consideration of the Discretionary Review request.
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 15a
ACTION: The Variance requests need to be re-noticed for Zoning Administrator consideration.
16. 2010.0166U (A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)
Large Tourist Hotel Annual Inventory - Section 41F.3(g) of the Administrative Code required that an annual inventory of the number of rooms commercially available for rent as of March 1, 2009 in Large Tourist Hotels (hotels with over 100 rooms) be adopted by the Planning Commission. The Commission adopted a baseline inventory in Resolution No. 17822 on February 5, 2009. The Administrative Code further requires that an annual inventory of the number of Tourist Hotel Rooms commercially available for rent be updated each year thereafter. This hearing is for the Commission to consider adoption of the first Annual Inventory to update the Baseline Inventory. More information is available athttp://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=1652.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Baseline Inventory
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved as amended to eliminate Cathedral Hill and change the name of the Crown Plaza to The Marriott.
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
ABSENT: Lee
RESOLUTION: 18057
17. 2009.1013C (R. Crawford: (415) 558-6358)
2735 HYDE STREET - west side between North Point and Beach Streets Lot 003B, in Assessor’s Block 0025 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 161.(j) to allow the elimination of an existing off street residential parking space (garage) to enable the development of the space as an approximately 625 square foot full service restaurant (dba D and D Bistro). The project would eliminate the existing one-car garage and develop the restaurant on the ground floor of the building. The two existing dwelling units in the building will be preserved. This project is within an NC-1, Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: In support: Kelly Waters – Project Architect, David Ong, and Richard Ow
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
MOTION: 18058
18. 2010.0036C (R. Crawford: (415) 558-6358)
1760 Polk Street - southeast corner of Polk and Washington Streets Lot 020, of Assessor’s Block 0620 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 723.41 and 723.42 to expand the hours of operation at the existing restaurant/bar (dba, La Parrilla Grill) on the property. The project would allow hours of operation extending until 2:00 a.m. nightly. The current approval for the restaurant/bar requires the facility to close at 10:00 p.m. nightly. This project lies within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKERS: In support: Vladimir Abramon, Richard Montes, Ron lee, Michael Tshng, Marc Meiselbach, Erick Arguello, Laurel Muniz, Rita Alviar, Patricia Melgarejo, Marie Sorenson, Parilla Restorantz, Maria De La Mora, Hector Garcia Gomez, Jorge Rocna, Gerardo Marin, John Nulty, Michael Nulty, Gil Padia, Elena Gorobchuk, Gulba Ramzhanous, Aleksey Severyuknia, Edward A., Arkadly, Alex Kolovjamsky, Gary Anderson, Roberto Tiuitron, Hector Garcia Gomez, Dan Allard, Reynaldo arellano, Jorge Garcia, Richard Ow, Espanola Jackson, Gene Pinkhas; In opposition: Lt. Belinda kurr, Dawn Trennril, Joyce Louie, Jeannie Yee, Marilyn Morison, Frank, Leigh Tota, Michelle Murray, Lylie Adams
ACTION: Approved as amended to allow food and alcohol to 12 a.m.; change the windows; and encourage continued talks with the Mid-Polk Neighbors.
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
NAYES: Moore
MOTION: 18060
19. 2010.0031C (S. Young: (415) 558-6346)
1928 FILLMORE STREET - northeast corner of Fillmore and Wilmot Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 0660 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 703.4, 303(c), and 303(i) of the Planning Code to establish a Formula Retail Use within the Upper Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert a vacant retail sales establishment (previously occupied by “Aveda”) to another retail sales establishment (dba BoConcept, a contemporary design furniture and accessories store). The proposed retail store is considered a Formula Retail Use under Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. The proposal will involve interior and exterior tenant improvements to the existing commercial space. There will be no expansion of the existing building envelope.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Jace Levinton – representing the project sponsor, Shawn Craigmeyer – project sponsor, Carolyn Craigmeyer – project sponsor
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, Olague and Miguel
MOTION: 18061
20. 2009.0845C (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)
2535A TARAVAL STREET - south side between 35th and 36th Avenues; Lot 043 in Assessor’s Block 2390 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to modify the hours of operation restricted in the conditions of approval for Case No. 2005.0861C, Motion No. 17154, for the existing massage establishment (dba Natural Health Care) located within the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 18, 2010)
SPEAKERS: Vickie Long – representing project sponsor
ACTION: Approved as modified without the side setbacks and with the stairs tucked
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, and Olague
NAYES: Miguel
MOTION: 18059
21. 2009.1079C (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
658 Vallejo Street - north side between Columbus Avenue and Stockton Street, Lot 026 of Assessor’s Block 0131 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a Specialty Food, Self-Service business (as defined by Planning Code Section 790.93), offering specialty foods, a take-out deli, and catering services, located at 658 Vallejo Street, within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, the 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the North Beach Special Use District. No exterior modifications are proposed by this project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Amahd – representing the project sponsor and Geovan Salko
ACTION: Approved as amended to require a six-month review and a price list.
AYES: Borden, Lee, Sugaya, and Miguel
NAYES: Moore and Olague
ABSENT: Antonini
MOTION: 18062
6:30 P.M.
22. 2007.0946emtzruu (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
THE CANDLESTICK POINT – HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD PHASE II INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AND PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS - The Candlestick Point component is generally bounded by Jamestown Avenue north of Hunters Point Expressway and south of Giants Drive to the south and southwest; Bayview Hill Park to the southwest; Gilman Park to the northwest; the southwest, northwest, and northeast outer boundaries of Alice Griffith Housing to the north; the San Francisco Bay shoreline along Candlestick Point State Recreation Area from Arelious Walker Drive to Hunters Point Expressway to the east and south and includes the following Assessor's Blocks and Lots: Block 4884, all lots; Blocks: 4917, all lots; Blocks: 4918, all lots; Block: 4934, all lots; Block: 4935, all lots; Blocks: 4956, Lots 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014 , Block 4960, Lot 027 , Block 4977, Lot: 006; Block 4983, all lots, Block: 4984, all lots; Block: 4886, all lots; Block 4991, Lot: 276; Block: 5000, Lot: 001; Block 5005, all lots. The Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II component of the project includes almost all of the former Hunters Point Shipyard except for the portion being developed as Phase I and includes the following Assessor’s Blocks and Lots: Assessor's Block 4591A, Lot 079; Block 4591C, Lots 010, 209, and 210; Block 5491C, Lot 211 - Consideration of adoption of a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the General Plan, Planning Code, and Zoning Map, pursuant to Planning Code sections 302(b) and 340(c) related to proposed amendments to the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan and the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan. Together, the proposed amendments would implement the Bayview Jobs, Parks and Housing Initiative (Proposition G) certified on June 28, 2008 by the Department of Elections by allowing large-scale mixed-use multi-modal development. As proposed the Project would include approximately 10,500 dwelling units, 885,000 square feet of retail, 150,000 square feet of office, 3,000,000 square feet of research and development, a new 69,000 seat football stadium, performance arena, arts center and artists studios, 336 acres of open space and parks (inclusive of a dual use field stadium parking lot), among other uses. In the event the 49ers do not avail themselves of the opportunity to build a new stadium in the Project, the Project includes a non-stadium program that would expand both the research and development and residential uses on some of the areas of the Shipyard currently reserved for stadium uses, slightly reduce residential densities on Candlestick Point, and slightly reduce the total amount of open space on the Shipyard. The project requires several actions by the Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Commission the Board of Supervisors, among other decision-making bodies, including conforming amendments to the General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map of the Planning Code. The following Planning Commissions actions are proposed at this public hearing:
22a. 2007.0946emtzruu (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
THE CANDLESTICK POINT – HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD PHASE II INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AND PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS - Informational Hearing -on proposed amendments to the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan, amendments to the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan, the Candlestick Point Design-for-Development document, and the Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Design-for-Development document.
SPEAKERS: In opposition: Espanola Jackson, Francisco Da Costa, and Sue Hestor; In Support: Rev. Arelious Walker, Richard Ow, Ron Lee, Richard sun, Patrick, Eric Butler, Michael Patten, Karissa Cole, Roanae Kent, Bradley Bradley, Zavier Marquez, Al Norman, Manny Flores, Tim Coleman, Chandra
ACTION: Informational only – no action
22b. 2007.0946emtzruu (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
THE CANDLESTICK POINT – HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD PHASE II INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AND PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS - Pursuant to San Francisco Charter Section 4.105, Planning Code § 340(c) and § 306.3, consideration of adopting Resolution of Intention to Initiate amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, including amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Recreation and Open Space, Transportation, and Urban Design Elements, the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, and corresponding revisions to the Land Use Index of the General Plan; introduction of the Candlestick Point Sub-Area Plan, and the Hunters Point Shipyard Area Plan. At the hearing, the Planning Commission may consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the General Plan, and schedule a public hearing to consider adopting the proposed General Plan amendment.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 22a
ACTION: Approved initiation
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, and Miguel
NAYES: Olague
MOTION: 18063
22c. 2007.0946emtzruu (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
THE CANDLESTICK POINT – HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD PHASE II INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AND PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS - Pursuant to Planning Code § 302(c ) and § 306.3, consideration of a Resolution of Intention to Initiate an amendment to the San Francisco Planning Code, adding Sections 249.50, 249.51, 263.24, and 263.25 of the Planning Code to establish the Candlestick Point Activity Node Special Use District, the Hunters Point Phase 2 Special Use District, the 40/420-CP Height and Bulk District, and the 40/370-HP Height and Bulk District. At the hearing, the Planning Commission may consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to initiate an amendment to the Planning Code that would require all development within the Redevelopment Project Areas to be consistent with the Redevelopment Plans and respective Design for Development document and schedule a public hearing to consider the proposed amendment.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 22a
ACTION: Approved initiation
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, Sugaya, and Miguel
NAYES: Olague
RESOLUTION: 18064
22d. 2007.0946EMTZ (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
THE CANDLESTICK POINT – HUNTERS POINT SHIPYARD PHASE II INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AND PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS - Pursuant to Planning Code Sections 302(c ), and 306.3, consideration of a Resolution of Intention to Initiate an amendment to the Zoning Map of the San Francisco Planning Code, amending Sheets ZN09, SU09, SU10, HT09, HT10, classifying all property located within the Candlestick Point portion of the project within the Candlestick Point Special Use District, and the 40/420-CP Height and Bulk District; and property located within the Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II portion of the project within a MUO (Mixed-use Office) Use District , the Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Special Use District and the 40/370-HP Height and Bulk District. At the hearing, the Planning Commission may consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to Initiate an amendment to the Zoning Map and schedule a public hearing to consider adopting the proposed amendment.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 22a
ACTION: Approved initiation
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Lee, Sugaya, and Miguel
NAYES: Moore and Olague
MOTION: 18065
I. 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: None
Adjournment: 11:33 p.m.
Adopted: May 27, 2010
