New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, March
24, 2011
* * *12:00 PM* * *
(NOON)
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS
PRESENT: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore and Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS
CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 12:05 P.M.
STAFF IN
ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez- Zoning
Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Adrian Putra, Lily Langlois, Pilar LaValley,
Jeanie Poling, Rick Crawford, Kevin Guy, Chelsea Fordham, Diego Sanchez, Jessica
Range, Kearstin Dischinger, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.
NOTE:
For the next few weeks, the Commission’s Order of Business has been altered to
accommodate the new start time and honor the 1:30 p.m. noticed time for most
cases.
A.
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:
Calvin Welch
Re: Possible replacement of Redevelopment tax-increment financing for
Treasure Island project with another state instrument aimed at developing
infrastructure.
Dean Preston
Re: Proposed Chase Bank on Divisadero
Halley Albert
Re: Proposed
CHASE Bank on Divisadero
David Tournheim
Re: The
proposed CHASE Bank on Divisadero should require a CU
Alece Maggie
Re: Proposed
CHASE Bank on Divisadero
B.
COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
1.
Commission Comments/Questions
·
Inquiries/Announcements.
Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or
inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
·
Future Meetings/Agendas.
At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a
Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda
of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Moore:
AT&T has announced that it has agreed to buy T-Mobile in cash and stock. I
would like this Commission to have a separate discussion about the extensiveness
of the joint networks which we have basically supported but now I think this
poses another challenge to us. I would like to understand the challenge
comprehensively with some knowledge from the Board [of supervisors] because they
will probably be asking themselves the same question. I would like to suggest
that we all step back and understand what that means to us.
On
another point: I talked to you last week about the numbers of the U. S.
Census. I was able to get some additional information on that and that
information made me a little bit more concerned. There is an increase in
vacancy from 4.8% in 2000 to 8.3% in 2010. That is something we need to think
about particularly as we are continuing to approve and approve. We are creating
theoretically additional vacancies – and I’m not saying don’t approve – but I
would like to bring some more intelligence to how I look at the vacancies, what
opportunities they offer, and what challenges they pose to us in decision
making.
With respect I heard from Public Comment a few minutes ago, I sit on the
Treasure Island Citizen Advisory. This group together tries to find information
on what infrastructure financing district means. There isn’t really a lot
around. There might be some experts who know something about it, but it still a
pretty uncharted tool from what I understand in the state of California. I
think Florida has practiced it. But the question that Mr. Welch raised for me
is why we all will be struggling to look for new tool in lieu of Redevelopment,
because we all need them in city governance. I think we all need to understand
what that really means so that we can support it in whatever way we support
needs to be brought forward particularly in light of the fact that we have
policy which is through the state. But if that policy is challenged by new
tools, we need to figure out how we formulate new policy to supplement, or
re-define, or what the new tool needs to do if we use it. Other projects will
need to use this – Bay View Hunters Point comes to mind. So I am asking this
Commission to consider Mr. Welch’s suggestion to ask Mr. Morales to join us.
Commissioner Olague, is that something you would consider?
Commissioner Olague:
Yes. If Jim Morales would come and add his expertise to the discussion, I think
it would be great. I just don’t know what his availability is. In addition to
Mr. Blackwell if he has the time, and Mr. Hillis so that we can have a robust
discussion about what this means.
Commissioner Sugaya:
I think that’s fine, but it seems like they are all in-house people. I think
from what Mr. Welch is suggesting, there might be some other expertise around
who can look at if from a little different perspective. I don’t know who those
people are, but a little searching around they might be outside consultants –
someone other than Redevelopment Agency staff
Director Rahaim:
I am talking to Rich about getting someone from outside the city government to
talk to us.
Commissioner Antonini:
I think that’s a good idea. Maybe [we can get] someone from the Governor’s
Office. They certainly would have a perspective on it.
Many of you may have been watching the NC2A Division Championship basketball
last weekend. The sites of this tournament – not just the final four – but all
the games beginning with last weekend are located in 12 different cities. They
include Dayton Ohio, Newark New Jersey, Tulsa, Tucson, Tampa Cleveland,
Washington D. C., Denver and Chicago – all of which have lower populations than
San Francisco. Two have higher populations – Chicago and Huston – where the
final 4 will play. But the reason why we won’t host anything here is because we
have no arena, and we haven’t had one. And this precludes us from any major
concerts because capacity is too small, from National political conventions,
from the NBA, or the NHL, or a lot of sources of revenue. It is one of the
things I comment on frequently and there are some plans afoot to do something.
In times when we are challenged for revenue, and we are all trying to figure out
ways to get more revenue in San Francisco, this is a source of huge amounts of
revenue for events that can occur virtually 365 days or nights a year. So it is
something that we should pursue publicly and privately to see what can be done.
Commissioner Borden:
I want to pick up on a theme from Public Comment had related to the formula
retail issue and the financial services. I know that this commission and the
department has always considered financial services and institutions to be
separate from the formula retail legislation. I think it might be worthwhile
having a discussion here at the commission about the formula retail legislation
in general and a look back I think nearly 10 years – and look at the impact and
what has happened; and if there are any necessary needed updated related to it
based upon the realities. I think it would be useful to have a clarifying
discussion. In some cases it might be if people want to go the Board to make
change etc., but I think it is worth looking at if it has impacted positively or
negatively neighborhoods and what has been the outgrowth and the consequence. I
think one of the trends we have seen is more stores that do not necessarily have
locations in the United States, but stores that have locations in Europe and
other places opening up in San Francisco. I know that there are other concerns
that people have brought up that have arisen since we initially conceived the
legislation. I think it would be worthwhile having that discussion and looking
at all the ramifications.
Commissioner Sugaya:
I’d like to support Commissioner Borden on that and it’s partially based on an
article I read a number of years ago maybe that had to do with concerns in New
York city about the proliferation of branch banks in neighborhood areas and the
fact that they didn’t have a mechanism to address those issues. So I would like
to have something before us to discuss.
Commissioner Moore:
I would like to voice my support for what Commissioner Borden has suggested
because partially I have seen one of the most unusual combinations of formula
retail and formula banking just a few weeks ago – where you walk into a Starbuck
and on the other side of the Starbuck you are complemented by a full set of
banking services provided by Wells Fargo. I find that is really a little bit
over the top.
Commissioner Olague:
A couple of weeks ago we had that conversation on SB375 and I believe there was
a follow-up meeting that people in the community was invited to. I understand
it was a really good discussion. Is there going to be a follow-up to that?
Director Rahaim:
Nothing is scheduled right now, but I am happy to do that. The staff that is
working on that is working on the Housing Element too. Once you adopt the
Housing Element today, we are happy to work on that.
Commissioner Olague:
Great. At one of our Monday meetings, we will check in with you on that. I
know that market and Octavia had a list of things that they wanted staff to look
at and possibly bring back to us for amendment. So I also want to get a status
on that. On the census, we should be scheduling a hearing here. Maybe we will
have some questions in advance so she (Theresa Ojeda) doesn’t have to come here
without that information. As Commissioner Moore mentioned the vacancy rate and
where are those, that sort of thing might be interesting to have. I would also
like to discuss a little bit about the shift in demographics in areas like South
of Market and some of those districts. I guess we should look at the calendar
because I think we are starting to get a little bit behind in some of these
hearings. After May, we should start to schedule some of these policy
discussions here – like the formula retail, like the census. I think these
other meetings are more community meetings with staff. In the past we’ve
mentioned even tourism, and there are others that we can catch up on. I was a
little bit interested in this whole twitter discussion – it led me to think
about manufacturing and some of these artisan type of businesses we are seeing
here in the city. I know that SPUR is having a series of walks on that
subject. But I would like to get a sense of where are the jobs for people in
certain communities. What is the state of manufacturing, or trends and
workforce trends in San Francisco?
Commissioner Miguel:
On the formula retail discussion, I would be very interested in knowing as far
as financial services is concerned, whether the City Attorney has ever given any
weigh in on definitions as to the way the Code is written, because I think that
is extremely pertinent. All things are interpretive. I would be interested to
know what the City Attorney’s interpretation of that is. I don’t think there is
anything this commission can do without that.
As
far as Commissioner Moore’s comments on the vacancy rates, I get confused by
seeing figures all over the place and I have yet to see a definition or a
methodology by which those figures are put together. I don’t know how that’s
counted. I don’t know if that is directly from the census figures and whether
it’s ‘well we rang the bell four times on four different days and we sent out
two pieces of mail and no reply, so therefore it must be vacant;’ I don’t know
what the criteria is for considering something vacant. Without that the
statistics are meaningless to me. I think there is a great deal of actual fact
that has to be gotten into. I’m not disputing the number; I just have no basis
for believing it at the moment.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
2.
Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
I have a call into AT&T specifically to ask the question about what the
implications are for their plans given their acquisition of T-Mobile. I will
get back to you on that. We have talked to President Olague and Vice
President Miguel about how to move forward with a plan with the carriers. If
you recall, the carriers do have a five-year plan that they submit to us. But
what seemed clear to us is that they should try to break that plan down into
one-year increments to get a more immediate example of what all the carriers
plans are so that we can see how they overlap. We are working on that.
Just for your
information – and I’ll send you the link from San Francisco Travel Now (the old
San Francisco Visitor’s Bureau), they submitted their Annual Report on tourism
statistics.
I signed a memo
yesterday that Theresa Ojeda prepared on the census. If you don’t have that
today, you will have that in the next day or two. That question on the
definition of vacancies is a very good one. I had asked her the same thing.
The memo does not address that, but we will address that in the future. I think
it is a good idea. I will work with Linda on scheduling a hearing on the census
information in the future.
Commissioner
Olague:
Years ago we had a hearing on it and we invited Realtors and I don’t think we
got to the heart of the nature of our questions. I don’t think that is
necessarily the source that should be invited to that discussion.
3. Review
of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and
Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Land Use Committee:
·
Supervisor Mirkarimi sponsored an ordinance on Active Uses in NC-3 for certain
parts of Fillmore Street –
this would requie that only active uses be permitted on the ground floor
for certain part of Fillmore Street. On 3/3, you recommended approval and
requested expanding the definitions of active uses to include a new restaurant
definition as “self-service specialty food’ and “outdoor activity area.”
Supervisor Mirkarimi has amended the ordinance to incorporate your
recommendations. This week the Committee recommended approval of the ordinance
to the full Board.
·
Supervisor Mirkarimi sponsored an ordinance on Consistent Street Frontages –
this legislation seeks to revise parking, use, and street frontage regulations
in select areas to conform with more contemporary policies in San Francisco.
All told, the proposed ordinance amends or repeals 28 separate portions of the
Planning Code. When you heard this on January 13, you suggested over a dozen
revisions and also asked for staff to work with the Supervisor’s office on
refining controls for what was called “snout houses” or houses where the garage
extended out in front of the house. Since your hearing, staff and the
Supervisor have worked to incorporate all of your suggestions. This week the
Committee recommended approval of the ordinance to the full Board.
Full Board of Supervisors:
·
Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees –
This ordinance is sponsored by the Mayor and would amend Article 4 to clarify
language, eliminate confusion as to when the requirements must be met, increase
consistency between the way impact fees are administered and correct errors in
cross-referencing. This commission heard this on 12/16/10 and recommended
approval. Since then the Mayor has amended it to include suggestions from both
the mayor’s Office of Housing and the Controller’s Office. Among these changes
was the addition of an uncodified section that will allow this year’s adjustment
of all fees for inflation within 30 days of the effective date of the
ordinance. The Board made this last change as an amendment on Tuesday and then
approved the ordinance on first reading.
·
Zoning Map Amendment – Correction to Market & Octavia Area Plan –
This proposed ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Mirkarimi, would amend the
Zoning Map to reflect the actions by the Commission. This Commission approved
the Market & Octavia Plan on 4/5/07. The Board’s Land Use Committee made some
additional amendments. As some point after transmittal of the commission’s
recommendations to the Board and prior to final action by the Board, some of the
pages of the Zoning Map ordinance were inadvertently omitted. Although the
Board voted on zoning maps that were consistent with the Commission action, some
of the pages that listed the zoning changes were not included. The proposed
ordinance heard by the Land Use Committee would merely correct this error. The
Board approved the ordinance on first reading this week.
·
Upper Fillmore NCD Changes –
This proposed ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Farrell, would remove the
current prohibition against new restaurants in this NCD. Under this proposal,
restaurants would be allowed by CU. This commission considered the ordinance on
1/13/10 recommending approval but also with the recommendation to allow large
fast-food restaurants by CU. You also respectfully requested that the
Supervisor continue additional public outreach. The Supervisor has worked with
the Department and appropriate merchant and neighborhood groups and has amended
the legislation to allow large fast-food restaurants by CU; to specify that when
the Commission considers restaurants in this area, the Commission shall consider
whether the use would propose lunch service or other daytime usages in order to
limit the number of such businesses that have no daytime activity; and lastly it
would allow a new bar via CU when that bar is provided in conjunction with a
full-service restaurant. With these amendments, the Board approved the
ordinance on first reading.
·
CEQA Appeal of 795 Foerster Street, 203-213 Los Palmos Drive –
This week the Full Board heard a CEQA appeal of the Department’s Cat Ex
determination for these properties. The proposed project involves a subdivision
of two lots into four and construction of three new single-family dwellings on
three of the newly subdivided lots. No changes are proposed to the existing
single-family dwelling at the corner lot. Despite the appellant’s arguments,
the Department maintained its position. The Board unanimously rejected the
appeal and upheld the CEQA determination on a 9 to 0 vote.
Introductions:
·
There was one hearing request by Supervisor Cohen –
On the proposed
neighborhood plan for the Executive Park area.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
·
401 Divisadero Street – CHASE Bank –
The Board did side with
the Planning Department and our interpretation of the Code.
·
281 Turk Street – This was a re-hearing request for a
building permit that authorized a pharmacy. The Board had initially denied the
application, but when it came to the adoption of findings, the decision changed
and the permit was upheld. The re-hearing request will allow both sides to have
council represent them through the whole hearing process.
·
731 Commercial –
This was of a letter we had releasing suspension of the permit. That item was
continued to May to give us some time to work with the neighbors.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
No report
4.
(K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
Informational Item: Update on previous entitlements for office development at
524 Howard Street (Case Nos. 84.199BEKRX and 98.843BKX).
SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor and Brett Gladstone
ACTION: Although informational and Commission action is not required,
the Commission did direct that the item be scheduled for a revocation hearing on
June 2, 2011
5.
(J. RAHAIM: (415)
558-6411)
Governor
Brown’s Proposed Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Informational only – no action
D. 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 an agenda
item (item 12) that has 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
1:30 P.M.
E.
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.
6. 2011.0248K
(D. SÁNCHEZ:
(415) 575-9082)
Gene Friend Recreation Center
- block bounded by 6th, Folsom and Harriet Streets, Lots 10, 11, 12
and 111 of Assessor's Block 3731 - Request to Consider jointly with the
Recreation and Park Commission an increase of the cumulative shadow limits
for Gene Friend Recreation Center as established in a jointly-approved Section
295 implementation Memo adopted in 1989, in order to accommodate new shadow cast
by the 36 - 38 Harriet Street Project. The Gene Friend Recreation Center is a
park referred to as "South of Market Park" in the 1989 Implementation Memo. The
impacted park is located within the P (Public) Zoning District and the 45-X,
65-X, and OS Height and Bulk Districts.
Preliminary Recommendation (Planning Commission): Adoption of the
Resolution raising the cumulative shadow limit for Gene Friend Recreation
Center.
(Proposed for continuance to April 21, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
7.
2010.0128K (D.
SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
36 - 38 Harriet Street
- Request to consider, with a recommendation of the General Manager of the
Recreation and Parks Department in consultation with the Recreation and Parks
Commission, whether the shading or shadowing on Gene Friend Recreation
Center from the proposed project will be significant or adverse, pursuant to
Planning Code Section 295 (The Sunlight Ordinance). The proposed project will
construct a four story, 23 unit multifamily SRO building on an existing vacant
lot. The finished roof of the building would reach a height of approximately 45
feet, while the parapet would reach a height of approximately 48 feet. The
project site is located within the MUG (Mixed use General) and RED (Residential
Enclave District) Zoning District and the 45-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation (Planning Commission): Adoption of the
Motion finding that net new shadow from the project is not adverse, and
authorizing the allocation of the cumulative shadow limits for Gene Friend
Recreation Center to this project.
(Proposed for continuance to April 21, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
8. 2008.0723E
(C. FORDHAM: (415)
575-9071)
1255-1275
COLUMBUS AVENUE
– east side Columbus Avenue at the northwest corner of the intersection of
Columbus Avenue, North Point, and Leavenworth Street; Lot 014 of Assessor’s
Block 0028 – Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The
proposed project is demolition of an existing 15,852-square-foot, 32-foot-tall
office building built in 1954 and construction of a new 54,420-square-foot,
40-foot-tall, mixed-use building containing 20 residential units and 6,215
square feet of commercial space. The project site is located in a C-2 (Community
Business District) Use District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2, and
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Proposed for
Continuance to May 12, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
F.
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
9.
2010.0797C
(A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)
1799 19TH AVENUE - northwest
corner of 19th Avenue and Noriega Street; Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block
2030 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning
Code Sections 711.83, and 303 to establish a macro wireless telecommunications
services (WTS) facility by replacing two omni antennas with 12 new panel
antennas to be located within an expanded cupola of a building containing an
automotive repair use (dba "Pennzoil 10 Minute Oil Change") with related
equipment cabinets on the ground, as part of the AT&T wireless
telecommunications network in a NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-scale)
Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
NOTE: Pulled from the Consent Calendar and followed
item 15
SPEAKERS: Mike – representing AT&T
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
NAYES: Moore
MOTION: 18304
10.
2011.0087M
(L. Langlois (415) 575-9083)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT- MINOR TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY SAFETY ELEMENT
- Request to amend the Community Safety Element by adding language to
reference to the most recent Hazard Mitigation Plan.
This amendment would allow the City and County of San Francisco to qualify for
additional funding for certain disaster recovery projects per California
Assembly Bill AB 2140. The Planning Commission will consider environmental
findings and consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section
101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18298
11.
2011.0103U
(P.
LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)
201 VAN NESS AVENUE (aka 270-290 HAYES STREET)
- block bounded by Hayes, Grove, and Franklin Streets and Van Ness Avenue,
Assessor’s Block 0810, Lot 001. Request for Sign Approval pursuant to
Planning Code Section 605 to install signs in a P (Public) District on the
Louise M. Davies Symphony Hall. Planning Code Section 605 requires that all
applications to erect business signs in P Districts shall be submitted to the
Planning Commission for approval or disapproval. The subject property is
located within a P (Public) Zoning district and a 96-S/130-G Height and Bulk
district and is a non-contributing structure to the Civic Center Historic
District. The Historic Preservation Commission approved a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the proposed project at their regular hearing on March 16,
2011.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18299
G.
CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
12.
2005.0869E
(J. POLING: (415) 575-9072)
121 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE/St.
Anthony Foundation and Mercy Housing Project
- Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - Assessor’s
Block 0349 Lot 001 - The proposed project would demolish a 2-story 42,468 sq.
ft. building containing dining hall/philanthropic uses, and construct a
10-story, 109,375 sq. ft. building that would replace and expand the dining
hall/philanthropic uses and add 90 affordable senior housing units. No
off-street parking exists or is proposed. The 14,156 sq. ft. project site is
located in an RC-4 zoning district, an 80-120-T height and bulk district, and
the North of Market Residential Special Use District, Subarea No. 1.
NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public
comment period for the Draft EIR ended on January 24, 2011. 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 Final EIR Certification
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18300
H.
REGULAR CALENDAR
13a.
2005.0869ECV
(R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
121 GOLDEN
GATE AVENUE
- southwest corner of Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s
Block 0349 - Adoption of Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
(“CEQA”) particularly Section 21081.5, the Guidelines for Implementation of
CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. (“CEQA
Guidelines”), particularly Section 15091 through 15093 and Chapter 31 of the San
Francisco Administrative Code for a project that proposes to demolish the
existing two-story building on the property and construct a 10-story,
99-foot-high building with a dining hall/kitchen and philanthropic/social
services in the basement and ground and second floors, 90 senior affordable
dwelling units and approximately 21,864 square feet of non-residential interior
space and no parking facilities. The project site is located within the RC-4
(Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, North of
Market Residential Special Use District, and 120-T Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Adopt CEQA Findings
SPEAKERS: In support: Harriett Sebastian, Susie Wong, Noriel
Nanagca, and Mark Fisher; In opposition: Picanello
ACTION: Approved adoption of CEQA Findings
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18301
13b.
2005.0869ECV
(R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
121 GOLDEN
GATE AVENUE
- southwest corner of Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s
Block 0349 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization with exceptions as
provided under Planning Code Section 249.5, pursuant to Planning Code
Sections, 249.5, 253, 161(h), 253, and 303 to allow construction of a building
exceeding 40 feet in a Residential District, allow elimination of off street
parking, with exceptions including but not limited to exceptions from Section
249.5(c)(9) Setback Requirements, Section 249(c)(10) Rear Yards, Section
209.3(d) Establishment of a Social Service or Philanthropic Facility Above The
Ground Floor, and Section 271(b) Bulk Requirements. The project proposes to
demolish the existing two-story building on the property and construct a
10-story, 99-foot-high building with a dining hall/kitchen and
philanthropic/social services in the basement and ground floor, 90 senior
affordable dwelling units and approximately 21,864 square feet of
non-residential interior space and no parking facilities. The project site is
located within the RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning
District, North of Market Residential Special Use District, and 120-T Height and
Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with conditions
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18302
13c.
2005.0869ECV
(R.CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
121 GOLDEN
GATE AVENUE
- southwest corner of Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s
Block 0349 - Request for Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 152
to construct a building exceeding 100,001 square feet in area without off-street
loading where one off-street loading space is required. The project proposes to
demolish the existing two-story building on the property and construct a
10-story, 99-foot-high building with a dining hall/kitchen and
philanthropic/social services in the basement and ground floor, 90 senior
affordable dwelling units and approximately 21,864 square feet of
non-residential interior space and no parking facilities. The project site is
located within the RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning
District, North of Market Residential Special Use District, and 120-T Height and
Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted
the variance subject to the standard conditions of approval
14.
2009.0646C
(K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
524 HOWARD
STREET
- north side between First and Second Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 3721
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code
Sections 156 and 303, to allow the continued operation of an existing temporary
surface parking lot within the C-3-O (SD) District and the 450-S Height and Bulk
District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2011)
SPEAKERS: Brett Gladstone – representing the Project Sponsor
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18303
15.
2009.0418E
(C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)
PIER 36/BRANNAN STREET WHARF
-
the east side
of The Embarcadero, in proximity to Brannan Street and Townsend Street, Lot
034,036 in Assessor’s Block 9900 - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report. The proposed project involves the demolition of Pier 36,
including 133,000 square feet of pile-supported decks and piles, the 35,000
square foot Pier 36 warehouse building, and 18,800 square feet of bulkhead wharf
sections which runs between Piers 30-32 and Pier 38, and construction of a
57,000 square foot open space park, “the Brannan Street Wharf”, which would be
approximately 830 feet long, and would vary in width from 10 feet to 140 feet.
The park would consist of a raised lawn and a 2,000 square-foot craft float. The
construction of the Brannan Street Wharf would require driving 269 new piles and
reinforcing the adjacent seawall. The existing Pier 36 and bulkhead wharf
sections 11a, 11, and 12 are historic resources. The project site is located in
an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District and 40-X height and bulk district.
Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department’s offices until the
close of business on March 28, 2011.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Public hearing on the Draft EIR – no action
16.
2010.0386C
(D. Sánchez: (415) 575-9082)
3438 Mission Street
- west side of Mission Street, between Kingston Street and Cortland Avenue, Lot
008 in Assessor’s Block 6660
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections
712.83 and 303 to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of five
panel antennas and associated equipment and having a Location Preference of 5 on
a three story mixed use building as part of the T-Mobile wireless
telecommunications network within the Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial
District (NC-3) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Rick Hirsh – representing T-Mobile
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
NAYES: Moore
MOTION: 18305
17.
2010.0492C
(D. Sánchez: (415) 575-9082)
650 5th StreeT
- southeast corner of Bluxome and 5th Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s
Block 3785 -
Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections
818.73 and 303 to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of eight
panel antennas on an existing commercial building having a Location Preference
of 4 as part of the T Mobile wireless telecommunications network within the
Service/Secondary Office District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: In support: Marion Mystead – representing T-Mobile; in
opposition: Eric Barnes
ACTION: Approved
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya, and Miguel
NAYES: Moore
and Olague
MOTION: 18306
6:00 P.M.
I. 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 an agenda
item (item 18) that has 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: In opposition to EIR certification: Bernie Chodin, Mary
Miles, Kathy Devincenzi, Joan Girardot, Rose Hillson, Helen Picard Judy
Berkowitz, George Woody, Hiroshi Fukuda, Marc Salomon, [name unclear]
J.
CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
18.
2007.1275E
(J. RANGE: (415)
575-9018)
San Francisco 2004 and 2009 Housing Element - Certification of the
Final Environmental Impact Report The proposed project is the 2004 and 2009
Housing Elements. The Housing Element is a public policy document that addresses
issues relating to housing needs for San Francisco residents. The Housing
Element is prepared in response to Government Code section 65580 et seq.,
California housing element law, which requires local jurisdictions to plan for
and address the housing needs of its population for attainment of state housing
goals. The California Court of Appeals has determined the environmental document
prepared for the 2004 Housing Element inadequate, and has directed the City to
prepare an EIR for the 2004 Housing Element. The City must also comply with
state housing element law and prepare another periodic update of the Housing
Element. The City has undergone a community planning process and prepared the
draft 2009 Housing Element. This EIR satisfies the City’s legal requirements for
preparing an EIR on the 2004 Housing Element and also analyzes the environmental
effects of the 2009 Housing Element.
Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment
period for the Draft EIR ended on August 31, 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 Final EIR Certification
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18307
K.
REGULAR CALENDAR
19a.
2007.1275EM
(K. Dischinger: (415) 558-6284)
2009 Housing Element Update
- Adopting CEQA Findings on approval of the 2009 Housing Element Update of
the General Plan - and associated actions, including repealing the existing
Housing Element of the General Plan, adopting the 2009 Housing Element update,
and related actions. Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: In opposition: Kathy Devincenzi, Bernie Chodin, Marc
Salomon, Rose Hillson, Hiroshi Fukuda, George Woody, and Judy Berkowitz; In
support: Sarah Karlinsky – SPUR, Tim Colen – SFHAC, Jason Henderson, and
Linda Chapman
ACTION: Approved as amended
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18308
19b.
2007.1275EM
(K. Dischinger: (415)558-6284)
2009 Housing Element Update - Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Amending to the General
Plan
- Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340 (c), the Commission will consider
adopting amendments to the General Plan, including repealing the existing
Housing Element of the General Plan, adopting the 2009 Housing Element update,
and related actions, making Planning Code Section 101.1 findings, and
recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Ordinance approving the
amendments. The 2009 Housing Element Update is required by State Law, and
includes Part 1: Data and Needs Analysis, which contains a description and
analysis of San Francisco’s population, household and employment trends,
existing housing characteristics, and housing needs; Part 2: Objectives,
Policies; and a series of Appendices including Implementing Programs, which sets
forth actions to help address the City’s needs.
Preliminary recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 19a.
ACTION: Approved as amended
AYES:
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
RESOLUTION: 18309
L.
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:
Joan Girardot
RE:
The Planning Commission should have a joint hearing with the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission regarding water supplies
Tim Colen
RE: The
house shown earlier as his was not his, but a neighbors house.
Adjournment:
8:19 p.m.
Adopted:
April 14, 2011
