New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, June 9,
2011
12:00 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONER PRESENT: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT: 12:09 PM
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning
Administrator, Dan Sider, Kevin Guy, Rick Crawford, Sara Vellve, Ben Fu,
Elizabeth Watty, 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.
2011.0105T (K.
DISCHINGER: (415) 558-6284)
Amending Planning Code Inclusionary Housing controls to Add New Alternative in
Market and Octavia Plan Area [BOS FILE NO. 11-0085]
- Hearing of a proposed Ordinance that would amend the San Francisco Planning
Code by amending Section 415.5 to provide for a new land dedication alternative
in the Market and Octavia Plan Area in lieu of payment of the Affordable Housing
Fee; and adding Section 415.10 to provide for the requirements of such land
dedication; and making various findings including environmental findings,
Planning Code Section 101 and 302 findings, and General Plan consistency
findings. The Commission will consider the proposed Ordinance, introduced by
Supervisor Dufty, which would amend the Planning Code as described with
additional modifications as recommended by the Planning Department.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Modifications
(Continued
from Regular Meeting of May 5, 2011)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
2. 2011.0296C
(C. Teague:
(415) 575-9081)
2196 3RD STREET (aka 638 19TH STREET)
- west side at the northern corner of 19th Street, Lots 031-051 in
Assessor's Block 4044 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to
modify the existing project's original motion of approval (No. 16400) to allow
the two existing on-site affordable units to convert from rental to ownership
units in the UMU (Urban Mixed Use) Zoning District, 68-X Height and Bulk
District, and the Life Science and Medical Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 14, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
B.
COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
3.
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 Olague:
I wanted to mention at
this time that we will close the meeting in honor of the two [San Francisco]
firemen who lost their lives: Anthony Valerio and Vincent Perez.
Commissioner Antonini:
I was absent last week on a family vacation to Hawaii, and aside from the usual
golf and beach activities, I did spend a couple of days touring Honolulu. I was
pretty impressed with the changes since I had been there. It had been quite a
while.
Like a lot of other cities I see, I think it is instructive that it was
noticeably clean. There's not a lot of trash on the ground, and as you know,
they have a lot of wind there, too, so I do not think we could blame that. Not
much graffiti was visible. I went through many parts of the City. The other
thing they do that I think is pretty successful -- I' m not exactly sure how it
works -- but parks are closed between 11:00 P.M., and 6:00A.M., so while people
can occupy the parks for as long as they want during the other hours, when that
time comes, those who are there are asked to leave except for passageways on
sidewalks going through. They say it has been quite successful. I'm not sure how
they do that, but it sounds like something we might want to look into. We also
are a site for much tourism, and I think it's certainly made a difference in
what you see in Honolulu, or at least the parks I was in, and that was the
downtown area; also, in what you see in terms of the negative items. We can
always take lessons from other places. Unfortunately I also -- or fortunately, I
did take a wonderful tour of Pearl Harbor, including the USS Missouri, which
could have been in San Francisco and probably would have been, but
unfortunately, there was a lot of opposition, and now, it is in Pearl Harbor.
Commissioner Miguel:
I had the pleasure Tuesday
evening of being at the Green Room of the War Memorial Building and saw the
three finalist models for the War Memorial .They are very interesting. The Arts
Commission is leading the design. The selection on this was very well attended,
and the plaza itself will be in honor of George and Charles Schulz who were
present. Everyone has their favorites, but I think any of them would do the
City proud.
Commissioner Sugaya:
I see on the advanced calendar that there might be an informational
presentation on the Academy of Art University coming up.
Director Rahaim:
I think we concluded this
week in discussions that we would defer that. Commissioner Olague requested to
have a closed session on this.
Commissioner Sugaya:
I was just thinking they
either have purchased or are in negotiation for purchase of the Cannery, I
believe it is. I would be in support of a closed hearing before we move forward
in a public hearing.
Commissioner Moore:
I have been meeting with
the Department of Information Technology. I realize there are strong ties for
planning as a user group to information technology with many exciting projects.
At some point, it might be interesting to have someone else from the Department
-- to have these people talk to us about the planning challenges; and about what
planning does and has successfully done by establishing a powerful web site.
This is a treasure trove of wealth these people have from an idea point. It is
quite exciting to listen to them, particularly as the City faces the challenge
of the America's cup. And while they are brainstorming with the next layer, it
might well serve us and be very fun to listen to some of their ideas. So if we
can kind of have a tentative date, or have it on our things to do calendar, that
would be a good idea.
Commissioner Borden:
I know that members of the
public already know this, but I will not be here next Thursday, and the reason
is because it is the 100th Anniversary of IBM, the company for which
I work.
They have been in San Francisco since 1914. We have been in San Francisco for
almost as long as we have been around as a company. On the 15th, the
day before, our company is having a global day of service, so employees around
the world, are going to be volunteering. And here in San Francisco we will be
installing solar panels around homes in the Bayview Hunters Point. We will also
be working at St. Anthony's clinic, working with patients there through a
community health center initiative we are working on. People are also being
trained with the Red Cross, and others will be volunteering in Oakland Public
Schools. So it is exciting because we have a lot of fun things going on around
the globe where our company has had a challenge. We are challenging everyone to
pledge eight hours of service in the year 2011.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Speaking of IT, and IBM, I
am trying to connect these things with lack of information at the moment. It
seems that Salesforce has done a pretty nice job in their architectural work
with respect to their campus on Mission Bay. One of the comments I noted in the
paper was that they seem to have opened up the campus to the public with access
ways and open space areas. That kind of attitude seems to me to be very good for
San Francisco. When companies take that attitude, I noted in the paper there is
a proposal from Apple to create a new campus with some kind of circular building
that seems to be totally the opposite of what Salesforce is doing. Of course, I
do not have details. There may be penetrations into that, but the circular space
of the courtyard in between does not seem to be as penetrable as the Salesforce
campus. Some clips from Mr. Jobs also indicate that he may not be quite as
attuned to what Apple may do for Cupertino as Salesforce seems to be doing for
San Francisco. He basically said if they could not build it here, we would just
go somewhere else. But he was quoted as saying something to the Council that if
they were not going to approve it, they could just go to Mountain View or
somewhere else. Also, some Council person asked him about contributing to the
City's Wi-Fi network, and he said that is why they pay taxes.
Commissioner Miguel:
Just a tag on to what
Commissioner Sugaya mentioned. I mentioned last week seeing the model of
Salesforce's 14-acre campus proposal. Not only is it completely open, it brings
16th Street all the way into it, but unlike Google and many of the
others, there is no in-house food service, no cafeteria, no restaurant, no
nothing. They are bringing in private enterprises who will be given or leased,
probably, spaces along the plaza and everything in order to activate and service
the general public as well. It is the first major firm of that kind that is
breaking away from keeping everything in house. I thought that was fantastic.
Commissioner Moore:
Although we' re not allowed to discuss this particular subject, I want to say
that there are a couple of architects who can deliver a building out of the
unusual -- out of the usual, and I think that will be good for Mission Bay
because the building type has become a little bit subdued and boring.
C. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
4.
Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
We were informed last week that the Academy of Art did in fact close on The
Cannery, and you will soon be receiving a letter from me to the Academy
outlining my concerns about that issue, particularly in light of the fact that
The Cannery is not within the EIR study areas we have identified in the current
process. Those study areas were identified over a year ago. So we are quite
concerned about that in light of the fact that the EIR is what allows them to
come into compliance. Also regarding the Academy, I want to point out an article
that I just printed out just before this meeting that was in today' s "Wall
Street Journal” which I just had in front of me that is the outline version, but
certainly available online as well. The second thing I wanted to tell you about
was that yesterday we released a draft of the Recreation and Open Space Element
of the General Plan for the public. Those should be in your packets that you
receive today, and staff will be coming to you on June 23 for initiation of that
element. The environmental review is almost complete. Just for the purpose of
information to the public, it is available at the Department, and also online.
There will be freebies and hardcover copies available for people to review. This
has been a work in progress for a couple of years between the staff of the
Recreation and Park Department and several other agencies and public task forces
as well. That was released as of yesterday in draft form, and I wanted to call
it to your attention. I received an e-mail before I came here about some
reorganization in San Diego on the Planning Department side. They have recently
taken steps to merge what had been a separate Planning Department responsible
for Long-Range Planning with their Building Services and Development Department.
As best I can tell, it is the equivalent of merging planning and DBI in San
Francisco. These things are happening in many Cities, and San Diego is one
where these organizations go back and forth. A few years ago they were one way,
and then there will be a change, and it will be another way. It is not clear how
much of their long-range planning function will survive. I know that the
director of that department was let go as part of this process. But this is an
indication of what is happening in some other cities. Several years ago, you may
recall the City of Cincinnati entirely eliminated their planning department.
That has since been restarted. Chicago eliminated their Long-Range Planning
function a few years ago as well. So these things are moving targets somewhat.
Cities often reorganize these functions in many different ways, but I thought it
was interesting that San Diego was one, the first California City I have seen in
a while where it happened. The first large City where I have seen it happen. I
just thought that was interesting and wanted to bring that to your attention. I
think that concludes my report.
5.
Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of
Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
§
BF 110658 800 Presidio/Booker T Mixed
Use Development.
The Land Use Committee held a hearing on legislation introduced by Supervisors
Mirkarimi, Mar, and Avalos that would create a special use district related to
the project that would amend the height limit from 40-x to 50-x. Commissioners,
you heard this project on April 28, 2011. At that hearing there was a great
deal of discussion about whether the height limit should be 45’ or 55’, your
decision was to approve a 55’ project. This week the land use committee took
public comment on the SUD but could not take action due to a pending CEQA
appeal. At this time there is both a pending CEQA and CU appeal on this project
pending before the Full Board which are tentatively scheduled for June 14 and
28, respectively.
§
Bf 110556 Western SoMa Community Stabilization Policy.
Supervisor Kim is the sponsor of this resolution whereby the Board would urge
the Planning Commission to incorporate the policy and objectives of the
Stabilization Policy into the Western SoMa Community Plan when that plan comes
before you. This Stabilization Policy would establish a metering of development
with the goal of achieving the community’s desired balance of affordable housing
to market-rate housing and jobs to housing. As a resolution, the Board does not
refer these items to the Commission (only Ordinances are required to wait
90-days for your deliberation). At this hearing, Department staff expressed
support for ensuring balanced development. Staff also expressed concerns about
a few items of this resolution. Specifically, that this proposed “metering” may
bind future Planning Commissions and Board Members preventing them from using
their discretion to approve potentially beneficial projects. The Department
explained that an area of this small size is difficult in that projects just
outside of the boundary would not be counted but would impact the neighborhood
nonetheless. Further the boundaries of Western SoMa were not drawn to reflect a
self-sustaining urban organism but are a result of political negotiations and
split thru blocks, zoning districts and streets. Lastly due to the specific lot
size needs of affordable housing projects staff requested more time to study the
issue to ensure that there are enough large parcels to support 30% affordable
housing. The Committee discussed continuing the item to allow time for the
Director to meet with Western SoMa Stakeholders but the legislative sponsor did
not consent. The item was forwarded to the Full Board without recommendation.
§
BF 101350 Parking in SoMa and Mission Bay.
The Planning Commission considered this proposed Ordinance sponsored by
Supervisor Kim on April 28. The legislation would revise parking, use, and
street frontage in the Western SoMa area to conform to more contemporary
policies in San Francisco. At the hearing, the Commission voted to recommend
approval with modifications. At that hearing, you recommended a host of changes
to ensure that the legislation (originally sponsored by Supervisor Daly) was
made consistent with legislation which has passed in the past 6 months. You
also recommended removing all controls related to Mission Bay. Supervisor Kim
incorporated all of your recommendations and made minor technical amendments at
the Land Use hearing. This item was continued for one more and likely final
hearing at the land use committee as amended.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
§
North Beach Library Appeal and Associated Approvals.
On April 21, this Commission approved the Library and the associated EIR and
Zoning Map Ordinance. This week at the EIR appeal, the appellant failed to
convince the Board that the EIR was inadequate or that entitlements the Library
and Rec Park were seeking should not be granted, although entitlements were not
acted on due to notice issues. Public testimony centered on the legality of
using the so-called "triangle" parcel at the corner of Columbus, Mason, and
Lombard Streets as the site of the new library, rather than as open space, which
appellants argued was not in keeping with the acquisition of the property by
eminent domain. Also, appellants argued that the EIR wrongly characterized the
triangle parcel as a parking use, based on it's current use, rather than as open
space. The Board, by a unanimous vote, upheld the Planning Commission's
unanimous certification of the Final EIR and denied the EIR appeal. The Board
went on to approve the street vacation and zoning map amendment for the project
on first reading, except for the Ordinance that would authorize the use of 701
Lombard as a playground and library due to noticing issues. This sole item was
continued to June 28 to allow for public notice.
§
Treasure Island Appeal and Approvals.
This project had the usual complications for reuse of former military facilities
plus a remote mid-Bay location. Further complicating matters late in the
process were uncertainties about the future of redevelopment agencies and a
decision to switch the governance and financing to not include redevelopment.
The EIR Appellants included the Sierra Club, Arc Ecology, former Supervisor
Aaron Peskin, and others. There was considerable uncertainty going into and
during the appeal hearing whether or not appellants' arguments against the EIR
and the project were getting traction with various members of the Board and a
five-hour appeal hearing ensured. Opponents raised concerns about hazardous
materials, sea level rise, tsunamis, visual effects, transportation, historic
resources, and other issues which were thoroughly addressed in the EIR. Based
on recent changes to how the project would be implemented, which includes a much
greater oversight role for the Planning Department, appellants argued that the
"unstable" project definition required recirculation of the EIR, contested the
legitimacy of Land Use Committee hearings, and essentially argued for starting
the whole process over again. At this week’s hearing the EIR for Treasure
Island was upheld. Regarding the associated approvals, Supervisor Mar
introduced an amendment (which was approved 7-4) related to Historic
preservation. The Design for Development was amended to require TIDA to follow
the Standards of the Secretary of the Interior and to consult with Historic
Preservation experts at the Planning Department regarding any development
involving historic resources. After this staff review, the Dept could bring the
matter to the HPC for input if desired. (Previously, TIDA just needed to consult
"an expert," not necessarily at Planning and there was previously no mention of
the HPC). All the other minor amendments were approved unanimously. This
amendment was considered separately from the other items and received a the
split vote due to the explicit codification of the Sec'y of the Interior
Standards. Supe. Wiener express concern that this would be the first City
ordinances to mention these standards. (Though the HPC has adopted them as
policy). With that all items were passed unanimously on first reading.
§
Parkmerced.
Lastly, all of the Ordinances related to Parkmerced were passed by the Board on
second reading and will now be sent to the Mayor for signature.
INTRODUCTIONS:
-
110448 Zoning Map Amendments - Establishing City Center Special Sign
District.
Supervisor Farrell introduced an Ordinance that would amending Sections
602.10, 607.1, and 608, adding Section 608.16, and amending Sectional Map
SSD of the Zoning Map to establish the City Center Special Sign District
encompassing the real property bounded by Masonic Avenue, Geary Boulevard,
Lyon Street and O'Farrell Street (Assessor's Block No. 1094/Lot No. 001), to
allow additional projecting signs, freestanding identifying and directional
signs and to modify existing controls on business wall signs.
-
Supervisor Cohen introduced a hearing request
to review the status
of California's High Speed Rail Project, including a discussion of the
design alternatives concerning the route's path through the City and County
of San Francisco.
Board of Appeals:
There was no hearing by the Board of Appeals last week.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
There was no meeting this week
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.
None
E.
REGULAR CALENDAR
6.
(D. SIDER (415)
558-6697)
ANNUAL
LIMIT UPDATE - Informational presentation on the status the Office Development Annual Limitation (Annual
Limit) Program.
Discussion of the office space allocation process and previous office
allocations along with an informational presentation, pursuant to Commission
Resolution 17846A, by the Project Sponsors of the entitled office projects at
350 Bush Street and 500 Pine Street.
Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.
SPEAKERS: Jim Ruben and Sue Hestor
ACTION: Informational only –
no
action
7.
2011.0506B
(D. SIDER (415) 558-6697)
48 TEHAMA STREET -
northwest side between 1st
and 2nd Streets, Lots 84 and 85 of Assessor’s Block 3736 -
Revocation of allocation of square footage under the Annual Office Development
Limitation Program set forth in Planning Code Sections 320 through 324. Pursuant
to [1] the provisions of Planning Code Section 321(d)(2), [2] Conditions of
Approval contained in Planning Commission Motion 16235, and [3] Planning
Commission policy set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 17846A, the
Planning Commission will consider revoking the 49,300 square feet of office
space allocated in September of 2001 for a proposed mixed-use building. The
proposal would not result in any physical changes to the subject property.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Revocation
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION:
Revoked
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18378
8.
2011.0503B
(K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
524 HOWARD STREET
- north side between 1st
and 2nd Streets, Lot 013 of Assessor’s Block 3721 - Revocation of
allocation of square footage under the Annual Office Development Limitation
Program set forth in Planning Code Sections 320 through 324. Pursuant to [1]
the provisions of Planning Code Section 321(d)(2), [2] Conditions of Approval
contained in Planning Commission Motions 11683 and 14801, and [3] Planning
Commission policy set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 17846A, the
Planning Commission will consider revoking the 199,965 square feet of office
space allocated in June of 1989 (which was reauthorized and expanded to 202,000
square feet in March 1999) for a proposed mixed-use building. The proposal would
not result in any physical changes to the subject property.
Preliminary Recommendation: Revocation
SPEAKERS: Sue Hestor
ACTION:
Revoked
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18379
9.
2010.1118DD
(R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
952 MISSION
STREET
- north side between 5th and 6th Streets; Lot 017 in
Assessor’s Block 2704 - Mandatory Discretionary Review for a Medical Cannabis
Dispensary, pursuant to Planning Code Section 217(k) of Building Permit
Application No. 2010 1222 7171, proposing to develop a Medical Cannabis
Dispensary (dba Grass Roots Cannabis) on the ground floor of an existing
building. This project lies within a C-3-G (Downtown, General Commercial)
District, and within the 160-F Height and Bulk District. A separate request for
Discretionary Review has also been filed by a member of the public against the
project.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 28, 2011)
SPEAKERS: Brandon Hallinan, Gloria
Patten, Brian Webster
ACTION: The Commission took
DR and approved with conditions
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
NAYES: Antonini
DRA: 0213
10.
2010.1136D
(S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
324 HUGO STREET – north side between 4th and 5th
Avenues; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 1746 - Request for Discretionary Review
of Building Permit Application No. 2006.05.04.0670, proposing to add one
dwelling unit and to construct a horizontal addition consisting of a three-story
component approximately 12 feet deep and a two-story 12-foot deep component
with roof deck, at the rear of the three-story single-family house within the
RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk
District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as
revised
SPEAKERS: Jeremy Paul and David
Grubber
ACTION: Without hearing,
continued to
9/15/11
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
11a
2006.0858D
(B. FU: (415)
558-6613)
14 COSTA
STREET
– north side between Holladay and Brewster Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block
5557 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section
317, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.0623.5920, proposing the demolition
of a one-story over garage, single-family dwelling, located in the RH-1
(Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk
District, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
SPEAKERS: In Favor: Herman
LaZadia, Terry Milne, Carolina Moratillo, Gloria Salazar, Evangeline Bagare,
Floramay Ptalinhug Nella Manuel, Lorenzo Listanza, Opposed: Sandra Manny,
Steve Woo
ACTION: The Commission did
not take DR and approved the demolition
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
DRA: 0214
11b.
2006.0890D
(B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
14 COSTA
STREET
– north side between Holladay and Brewster Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block
5557 - Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section
317, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.0623.5920, proposing the
construction of a new two-story over garage, single-family dwellings, located in
the RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and
Bulk District, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as
proposed.
SPEAKERS: Same as those listed in item 11a
ACTION: The Commission did
not take DR and approved the new construction and required an NSR
AYES: Olague, Miguel,
Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
DRA: 0215
5:00 P.M.
12.
(E.WATTY (415) 558-6620)
CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER (CPMC) LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
– This is the third of four scheduled informational hearings that will
provide an overview of CPMC’s development projects. Specific topics to be
discussed at this session include a summary of the required entitlements and
approvals, an overview of the topics contained in the Development Agreement, and
a response to several questions raised by Commissioners during the May 12, 2011
hearing. California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is made up of four
medical centers in San Francisco, consisting of the California Campus
(previously known as the Children’s Hospital of San Francisco), Pacific Campus
(previously known as the Pacific Presbyterian Medical Center), Davies Campus
(previously Ralph K. Davies Hospital), and St. Luke’s Campus. Three of CPMC’s
four acute-care hospitals (California, Pacific, and St. Luke’s Campus’) must be
rebuilt or de-licensed in order to comply with state law about the seismic
stability of hospitals. CPMC proposes to consolidate the acute-care services
currently located at the California and Pacific Campuses, and locate them at a
new medical center at Van Ness Avenue and Geary. The Van Ness and Geary Medical
Center would include a hospital on the west side of Van Ness Avenue ((Block
0695, Lots 005, 006) and a new Medical Office Building on the east side of Van
Ness Avenue (Block 0694, Lots 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 009A, 010). The sites are
bounded by Franklin Street, Post Street, Van Ness Avenue, Cedar Street, Geary
Street, and Geary Boulevard. At the St. Luke’s Campus, CPMC proposes to
construct a new hospital that will be located adjacent to the existing hospital
tower on Cesar Chavez Street (Block 6576, Lot 021). The existing hospital tower
on St. Luke’s Campus (Block 6575, Lots 001, 002) would be demolished after the
new hospital is built, operational, and patients have been transferred. In a
subsequent phase, a replacement medical office building/expansion building would
be built at the corner of Cesar Chavez and Valencia Streets. CPMC also proposes
to reauthorize their previously approved Conditional Use for the Davies
Neuroscience Institute (aka Noe Street Medical Office Building) located at 601
Duboce Street (Block 3539, Lot 001).
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Requested. Informational
Discussion Only.
SPEAKERS: In Favor: Connie
Mardikian, Tony Wagner, Joseph Flanagan, Ron Kaufman, Barbara Bishop, Brian
Webster, Lisa Pena, Dr. Valerie Gruber, Mary Michelucci, Steve Falk, Adrian
Simi, Barbara Engmann, Anna Manuel, Dr. Emily Watters, Flank Baldanzi, Sandee
Singer, Roland Andersen, Helene Dellanini, Dina Hilliard; Opposed:
Marianna Ferris, Susan Blaschak, Madelne Yee-Kopperdahl, Reiko Furuya, Karen Ho,
Eileen Prendiville, Michael Lyon, Jane Sandoval, Maria Servillon, Rob Buckley,
Linda Chapman, Jonica “Yanaka’ Brooks, Debbie Perkins-Kalama, Barbara Savitz;
Neutral: Chris Schulman
ACTION: Informational only –
no
action
G.
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of
the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that
are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda
items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission
will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.
When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which
members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the
public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised
during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public
may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a
commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted
agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public
comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding
to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting
staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3)
directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code
Section 54954.2(a))
None
Adjournment: 9:47 PM
– ADJOURNED IN MEMORY OF TWO SAN FRANCISCO FIREFIGHTERS WHO LOST THEIR LIVES:
ANTONY VALERIO AND VINCENT PEREZ
Adopted:
June 23, 2011
