New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday,
February 10, 2011
1:30 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS
CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:35 P.M.
STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, AnMarie Rodgers, Tom Disanto,
David Alumbaugh, Kearstin Dischinger, Michael Smith, Elizabeth Watty, Mark
Luellen, 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.
1. 2010.0571T
(D. Sánchez: 415.575.9082)
Amendments to Planning Code by adding
Section 102.34 and amending Sections 204.1, 209.5, 227, 234.1, 234.2, and
Articles 7 and 8 - Ordinance introduced by Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supervisor
David Chiu under Board File No. 101537 to define an urban agricultural use -
to amend Sections regulating such use in various zoning districts and
adopting findings, including environmental findings, Section 302 findings, and
findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of
Planning Code Section 101.1.
(Proposed for Continuance to February
17, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
2. 2010.0802D
(G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
2774-2776 Filbert Street
-
north side between Baker and Broderick Streets; Lot 014A in Assessor's Block
0942 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application
No. 2009.09.09.6467 proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition to the
existing three-story, two-unit building resulting in a four-story, two-unit
building in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height
and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
3a. 2009.0173DV
(D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
353 SAN JOSE AVENUE - east side
of San Jose between 25th Street and 26th Streets; Lot 022
in Assessor’s Block 6531 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning
Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and
their replacement structures, of Building Permit Application No. 2007.12.12.0285
to construct a four unit multifamily building as the replacement structure
within an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District with a 40-X
Height and Bulk Designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and
Approve
NOTE: On December 16, 2010, following public testimony, the
Commission continued the matter to February 10, 2011 by a vote of (+6 -0).
Commissioner Fong was absent. Public hearing remains open.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of December 16, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 17,
2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
3b. 2009.0173DV
(D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
353 SAN JOSE AVENUE - east side
of San Jose between 25th Street and 26th Streets; Lot 022
in Assessor’s Block 6531 - Request for Variance, pursuant to Planning
Code Sections 134 and 140, to not provide a code complying rear yard at the
ground level or above where a rear yard of 34 feet 8 inches is required and to
not provide dwelling unit exposure for two units for construction of a four unit
building within an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District with a
40-X Height and Bulk Designation.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THE MATTER TO FEBRUARY 10, 2011.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of December 16, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 17,
2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
3c. 2010.1040D
(D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
353 SAN JOSE AVENUE - east side
of San Jose between 25th Street and 26th Streets; Lot 022
in Assessor’s Block 6531 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning
Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and
their replacement structures, of Demolition Permit Application No.
2007.12.12.0282 to demolish an existing single family dwelling within an RM-2
(Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk
Designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not Take Discretionary Review and
Approve
NOTE: On
December 16, 2010, following public testimony, the Commission continued the
matter to February 10, 2011 by a vote of (+6 -0). Commissioner Fong was absent.
Public hearing remains open.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of December 16, 2010)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 17,
2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
4.
2010.0673C
(M. Woods: (415) 558-6315)
2509 BUSH STREET
- south side between Scott and Divisadero Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor’s Block
1051
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code
Sections 303(c) and 712.38, to allow the conversion from residential units to a
preschool for 48 children (an “Other Institutions, Large” as defined in Planning
Code Section 790.50) on the second and third floor levels of an existing
three-story building, containing approximately 3,900 square feet, in the NC-3
(Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation:
(Proposed for Continuance to February
24, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
B.
COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
5.
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 Miguel:
During the past week I have worked with some people regarding the high-speed
rail that impacts Mission Bay; I’ve met with several other people regarding cell
phone antennas in the city.
Commissioner Sugaya:
This morning I was reading about the America’s cup. Maybe there are some
materials about that or maybe under the Director’s Report … Secondly, apparently
they are going to make the mid-Market eastbound traffic permanent after the
experiment and this is not going to require any type of environmental review.
If we could look at that
Commissioner Moore:
More grass-roots rumors in support of the America’s Cup. I understand that many
of the local organizations and other venues in the Golden Gate Club which
sponsored the America’s Cup are stepping in so it becomes even a larger event
than what is only described by the simply the America’s Cup. I’m really glad to
hear that because it’s that mutual engagement where we all have a much richer
and robust discussion of how to approve it.
Commissioner Antonini:
In this last week I was able to meet with on the architects on the Public Safety
building which is coming up in the future. Although it won’t be an item before
us, it is a project for redevelopment. I think we will be able to see the
design and some of us will have meetings and be able to weigh in. I think it
will be a very promising project and one that will be important. I also had a
meeting with the Dean of a major institution here in San Francisco who is in the
process of looking to relocate to a new facility. We are hoping to keep them
within San Francisco. It is promising. We have reason to believe we will be
able to find a site that will work for them. I am optimistic about that.
Finally, in terms of other issues, the facebook decision, as most have read
about, to relocate to the Sun Micro campus is unfortunate in one regard because
it was reported that 50% of their employees take public transit, bike or walk to
the campus. It will be impossible at the Sun Micro campus from what I heard. I
bet a high percentage of their employees live in San Francisco. You never
know. Things may happen in the future, but I think it would be great if
companies like that took a look to the north where most of their employees are
or want to be.
Commissioner Olague:
In the last week we mentioned America’s Cup and a few commissioners had a list
of things they would like to schedule. We will work with staff to try to come
up with a reasonable calendar to hear more policy issues. Maybe starting in the
summer we can start calendaring that stuff.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
6.
Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
In the interest of time I want to make an announcement – just to repeat that
next Wednesday evening, the 16th, at 6 p.m. I will be hosting a
public discussion about the Housing Element. That is Wednesday, the 16th
at the Department. The latest draft of the Housing Element is out and it is
available online. I think you have copies. The purpose of next week’s meeting
is to facilitate a discussion about the most recent changes. There will be an
informational hearing on February 24, with action tentatively scheduled for
March 24. I think that is it for me.
7. Review
of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and
Historic Preservation Commission.
Board of Supervisors:
Upper Market NCD – The Commission initiated a Planning Code text amendment on
November 4, 2010 recommending approval. The ordinance intends to achieve the
following: ensure commercial & residential development is consistent with
existing development patterns; provide relief from parking requirements &
encourage more transit-oriented development; and ensure new development provides
community benefits to offset new impacts to infrastructure due to new
development. Because this draft ordinance did not benefit from a substantial
process to inform people of pending fee changes, the Commission recommended
applying all the controls upon adoption of the Ordinance while providing an
exemption from certain impact fees for pre-existing projects that are able to
make good on their permit application by securing planning entitlements within 2
years. After last week’s Land Use hearing we discovered that the project at 299
Market Street has not yet been secured. The project would be subject to this
Ordinance upon adoption – thereby disturbing the community/developer agreement.
This week supervisor mar introduced changes to the Ordinance that would exempt
this project from the legislation so that the community/developer agreement is
not disturbed. Like the current fee exemption within the Ordinance, this
exemption was drafted such that the developer has a set window for completing
the entitlements. If all entitlements are not secured within two years the
Ordinance would apply in full to this property as well. With that amendment,
the Ordinance passed first reading with the Full Board.
New City policies governing the
future use of IFDs and the creation of a Rincon Hill Pilot IFD – On
July 22, 2010 you heard an Ordinance that created an “Area Plan Infrastructure
Finance Committee.” The committee includes four public stakeholders and
representatives from Planning, OEWD, Mayor’s Office of Public Policy & Finance,
Controller, the Capital Planning Committee and other implementing agencies.
This committee is to advise the Board on appropriate public policies for IFDs
and the Pilot IFD on Rincon Hill. You recommended approval of the process with
the understanding that Rincon Hill would be the first IFD pilot project. You
recommended 2 considerations; that the Board seek additional funding to extend
a second IFD pilot program for the Eastern Neighborhoods; and second, that the
city conduct additional study of the long-term effects on the General fund.
Since your action the APIF Committee supervised the establishment of the
Committee; drafting of policies governing the use of IFDs were approved to
protect the General Fund; and completion of a Fiscal Impact analysis studying
the long-term effects of the Rincon hill Pilot IFD on the General Fund. The
analysis showed that there would be a net fiscal surplus at build-out. The
Planning Department has been actively involved in the process. Staff has served
on the APIF Committee to ensure that the Commission’s concerns were fairly
addressed. This week the Full Board unanimously approved all of the 8 pieces of
legislation on first reading. The property owners also voted on the IFD on
Tuesday and their vote was counted at the Board. There was 100% approval by all
property owners. All that awaits is the second reading of the draft ordinance
and the Mayor’s signature of the IFD ordinance. With these last steps, the city
will have created the first IFD in the state.
This week Supervisor Mirkarimi introduced amendments to the Planning Code
– the amendments deal largely with restaurant controls and increase the maximum
size for small self-service restaurants and the minimum size for large
self-service restaurants and it would require that certain other provisions
including removing a prohibition on on-site food preparation in retail coffee
stores. That will be before you with 90 days for your consideration.
Board of Appeals:
2139 Taraval Street,
a Medical Cannabis Dispensary approved by this Commission. The Board of Appeals
overturned that approval and denied the permit. Last night they had adoption of
findings for that denial. The Board adopted those findings and now the permit
holder will have a 10-day window to file a rehearing request.
The other two items were related to General Advertising Signs.
They were both permits that sought removal of general advertising signs. The
appeals were filed to allow replacement of those signs. Under the Planning code
you cannot replace a general advertising sign. On one of the cases, it is
interesting to note that it was a sign company that filed the appeal. They had
filed the permit to remove the sign; they called the Department of Building
Inspection; had a final inspection done; and then sought to appeal the permit
because they realized they had made a mistake and they didn’t really want to
remove the sign. The Board voted to uphold the permit for both those cases that
the signs cannot be replaced. Both cases were represented by Dan Sider of
staff, who is now undefeated before the Board of Appeals.
Historic Preservation Commission:
No report
8.
Governor
Brown’s Proposed Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Informational only – no action
D.
GENERAL
PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES
At this time,
members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the
public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except
agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the
Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each
member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKERS:
None
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:
None
F.
CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
9.
2006.1524E
(B. BOLLINGER: (415) 575-9024)
350 Mission Street
- Assessor’s Block 3710 Lot 017 - Certification of the Final Environmental
Impact Report. The proposed project would demolish an existing four story
building containing office space and retail uses, and construct a new 24-story,
350-foot tall building containing approximately 340,000 square feet of office
uses, approximately 6,500 square feet of retail space, approximately 23,500
square feet of subterranean parking area, and approximately 7,000 square feet of
publicly-accessible interior open space. The project site is located within the
C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and the 550-S Height and Bulk District.
Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment
period for the Draft EIR ended on November 2, 2010. 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: Approved certification of the Final EIR
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Miguel and Olague
NAYES: Sugaya
MOTION: 18265
G.
REGULAR CALENDAR
10a.
2006.1524EKBXV
(K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
350 MISSION STREET
- northeast corner at Fremont Street; Lot 017 of Assessor’s Block 3710 -
Consideration of Adoption of Findings under the California Environmental Quality
Act. The proposed project would demolish an existing four story building
containing office space and retail uses, and construct a new 24-story, 350-foot
tall building containing approximately 340,000 square feet of office uses,
approximately 1,000 square feet of retail space, approximately 23,500 square
feet of subterranean parking area, and approximately 12,700 square feet of
publicly-accessible interior open space. The project site is located within the
C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and the 550-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Adopt Findings.
SPEAKERS: David Wall – Project Sponsor; Craig Hartman – Project Architect;
Tom Hart – Representing 45 Fremont Street requesting a continuance because has
not had enough time to study the project and also requesting a code-complying
project; Alex de Good – Representing 50 Beal Street requesting a code-complying
project on the site and to allow more time to negotiate; and Jamie Whittaker
speaking in support.
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18266
10b.
2006.1524EKBXV
(K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
350 MISSION STREET
- northeast corner at Fremont Street; Lot 017 of Assessor’s Block 3710 -
Request for Allocation of Square Footage pursuant to Planning Code Sections 321
and 322 (the Annual Office Development Limitation Program). The proposed
project would demolish an existing four story building containing office space
and retail uses, and construct a new 24-story, 350-foot tall building containing
approximately 340,000 square feet of office uses, approximately 1,000 square
feet of retail space, approximately 23,500 square feet of subterranean parking
area, and approximately 12,700 square feet of publicly-accessible interior open
space. The project site is located within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) District
and the 550-S Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
with Conditions.
SPEAKERS: Same as
those listed for item 10a
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18267
10c.
2006.1524EKBXV
(K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
350 MISSION STREET
- northeast corner at Fremont Street; Lot 017 of Assessor’s Block 3710 -
Request for a Determination of Compliance pursuant to Planning Code Section 309,
with exceptions to the requirements for "Separation of Towers", "Reduction of
Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 Districts", "General Standards for Off-Street
Parking and Loading" to create a curb cut on Fremont Street, and "Bulk Limits".
The proposed project would demolish an existing four story building containing
office space and retail uses, and construct a new 24-story, 350-foot tall
building containing approximately 340,000 square feet of office uses,
approximately 1,000 square feet of retail space, approximately 23,500 square
feet of subterranean parking area, and approximately 12,700 square feet of
publicly-accessible interior open space. The project site is located within the
C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and the 550-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions. The Planning Department
has made an initial determination that 340,362 square feet of the proposed
office uses would be subject to the requirements of the Downtown Park Special
Fund (Section 412), Housing for Large-Scale Development (Section 413), and
Child-Care Requirements for Office and Hotel Development Projects (Section 414).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Same as
those listed for item 10a
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18268
10d.
2006.1524EKBXV
(K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
350 MISSION STREET - northeast corner at Fremont
Street; Lot 017 of Assessor’s Block 3710 - Request for a Variance,
pursuant to Planning Code Section 155(s)(5)(A) to allow a shared parking and
loading garage opening with a width of 33 feet, exceeding the maximum permitted
width of 27 feet. The proposed project would demolish an existing four story
building containing office space and retail uses, and construct a new 24-story,
350-foot tall building containing approximately 340,000 square feet of office
uses, approximately 1,000 square feet of retail space, approximately 23,500
square feet of subterranean parking area, and approximately 12,700 square feet
of publicly-accessible interior open space. The project site is located within
the C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and the 550-S Height and Bulk District. The
Zoning Administrator will consider the Variance request concurrently with the
Planning Commission's consideration of the other project entitlements at this
same hearing.
SPEAKERS: Same as
those listed for item 10a
ACTION: ZA closed PH and granted the Variance subject to the standard
conditions of approval
11.
2010.1121T
(A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)
Parking in South of Market and Mission Bay -
The Commission
will consider a proposed Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly amending the
San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 151, 151.1, 155, 161, 249.1,
249.23 and Part VII of Article 9 (1) to remove minimum parking requirements and
establish maximum parking limits in M-1, C-M, and South of Market districts and
the Folsom and Main Residential/Commercial and Fourth and Freelon Streets
Special Use Districts to make them consistent with those of neighboring
districts, (2) to require that non-residential and non-hotel parking in C-3 in
the South of Market Mixed Use districts adjacent to Downtown maintain a fee
structure which discourages long-term commuter parking, (3) to make parking
controls in the Mission Bay Districts that are subject to the Planning Code
consistent with requirements of neighboring districts; and adopting findings,
including environmental findings, Section 302 findings, and findings of
consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section
101.1.
Recommendation: Approval with Modifications of Proposed Ordinance to Board of
Supervisors.
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Without hearing, continued to 4/28/11
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
From the Addendum:
(T. DiSanto (415) 575-9113)
FY 2011-12 Budget Development
-
Review and approval of a balanced FY 2011-12 budget for submission to the
Mayor's Office (action Item).
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved proposed balanced budget for FY 2011/1012
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
H.
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))
None
Adjournment:
3:14 P.M.
Adopted: March 17, 2011
