New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
Thursday, May 5, 2011
12:00 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning
Administrator, Sharon Lai, Diego Sanchez, Rick Crawford, Kirsten Dischinger,
Michael E. Smith, Erika Jackson, Sara Vellve, Kevin Guy, Joy Navarrete, Mathew
Snyder, Jonas Ionin – Acting Commission Secretary
THE
MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT: 12:10 p.m.
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.
2011.0172T
(A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
The Commission will consider an Ordinance introduced by Supervisor
Mirkarimi concerning self-service restaurants, retail coffee stores, and video
stores as well as additional recommendations by Planning staff to consolidate
existing restaurant definitions and controls.
Specifically, the proposed Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning
Code by amending Sections 710, 730, 733A, 733A.1, 790.90, 790.91, and 790.102 of
the Planning Code to: (1) increase the maximum use size for Small Self-Service
Restaurants in Neighborhood Commercial Districts to that of the non-residential
use size limit for the district and eliminate the limit on the number of seats;
(2) increase the minimum size for Large Self-Service Restaurants in Neighborhood
Commercial Districts to that of the non-residential use size limit for the
district; (3) principally permit Small Self-Service Restaurants and Video Stores
in Neighborhood Commercial Cluster (NC-1) and Neighborhood Commercial Transit
Cluster (NCT-1) Districts; (4) conditionally permit Large Self-Service
Restaurants in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District; (5) require
that mechanical noise and vibration from Self-Service Restaurants be confined to
the premises; and (6) remove the prohibition of on-site food preparation and
cooking and reheating equipment in Retail Coffee Stores; 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
May 26, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
2.
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 March 3, 2011)
(Proposed for
Continuance to June 9, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
3a. 2011.0089CVX
(K. Guy at (415) 558-6163)
55 9TH STREET
- east side between Market and Mission Streets; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 3701
- Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously
approved Conditional Use authorization. Specifically, the amendment proposes
to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously
approved project to construct a 17-story building containing approximately 260
dwelling units, approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses,
and approximately 113 off-street parking spaces. The amendment proposes no
changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The
subject property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial)
Zoning District and the 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to
June 23, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
3b. 2011.0089CVX
(K. Guy at (415) 558-6163)
55 9TH STREET
- east side between Market and Mission Streets; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 3701
- Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously
granted Variance. Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the
performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved
project to construct a 17-story building containing approximately 260 dwelling
units, approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, and
approximately 113 off-street parking spaces. The amendment proposes no changes
to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject
property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning
District and the 200-S Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to
June 23, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
3c. 2011.0089CVX
(K. Guy at
(415) 558-6163)
55 9TH STREET
- east side between Market and Mission Streets; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 3701
- Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previous
Determination of Compliance with Planning Code Section 309. Specifically,
the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three
years for a previously approved project to construct a 17-story building
containing approximately 260 dwelling units, approximately 3,000 square feet of
ground-floor commercial uses, and approximately 113 off-street parking spaces.
The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as
originally approved. The subject property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown
General Commercial) Zoning District and the 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
Preliminary Recommendation:
(Proposed for Continuance to
June 23, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
4.
2008.1218C
(S. LAI: (415) 575-9087)
70 Gold Mine Drive
- north side, cross street Diamond Heights Boulevard, Lots 033 and 034 in
Assessor’s Block 7520
- Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code
Sections 209.1, 303 and 317, to demolish a single-family house and a detached garage, merge lots 033
and 034, and construct three new dwelling units, within the RH-1 Zoning –
Residential House, One Unit per Lot and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Proposed for
Continuance to June 23, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as
proposed
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
B. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed hereunder
constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning
Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the
Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member
of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter
shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at
this or a future hearing
5.
2010.0626C
(D. Sánchez: (415) 575-9082)
4301 3rd STREET - east side of 3rd Street, between
Jerrold and Kirkwood Avenues, Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 5278 - Request for
Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 303 to
establish a Large Other Institutions use (d.b.a. College Track) in excess of the
6,000 square foot use size limit within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with
Conditions
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18343
6.
2010.0614C
(S. LAI: (415) 575-9087)
4960 Mission Street
- west side, between Seneca and Onondaga Avenues Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block
6968 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning
Code Sections 712.94, 161(j) and 303, to allow a reduction in the off-street
parking requirements for the construction of a new 4-story mixed-use building
containing a ground floor commercial use and three dwelling units, within the
NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 40-X Height
and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with
Conditions
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore, Sugaya,
Miguel and Olague
MOTION: 18344
C.
COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
7. 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:
I want to briefly share with you an observation I made
yesterday afternoon driving down Divisadero Street - it looks fabulous,
particularly on the west side. The Harding Theater, which was spent a lot of
time on, is the most disappointing and abominable thing I have seen. In addition
to a padlock, which we actually deemed inefficient because it caught the
vandalism at the time, had graffiti all over it and has a for sale sign. We
approved this project. It was a lot of work. There were specific implications.
Commissioner Olague:
At the time, when we did this we did not certify the
environmental impact report. We never got to the project, so there was never a
project approved. We never certified the EIR. There was some talk that the
neighbors would work with the supervisors and developers, to look at other
potential ideas for the site – like continuing the theatre use.
Commissioner Moore:
Thank you for reminding me, nothing developed from that. If
there was a not an approved EIR, the owners still cannot leave their property in
the condition it is and it really
detracts from this evolving neighborhood. I find it really sad that we do not
have an ability to do something about it.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Does this not follow under Supervisor Chu' s legislation on
deteriorating or abandoned properties?
Commissioner Olague:
I think Supervisor Chu' s legislation requires vacant
properties to be registered, requires certain minimal maintenance. We can look
at that.
Director Rahaim:
Just to clarify -- what you did was to uphold the appeal,
that is right. Commissioner Moore:
Commissioner Moore:
If the City Attorney is taking note on this one, in the next
block, going north, there is an abandoned, boarded up liquor store in the middle
of the block also, which is also full of graffiti. Two properties, which just
make it really so hard.
Commissioner Olague
We cannot engage in conversation, obviously, but it would be
great if the Department could give us the status of that. You are right, we
spend hours here deliberating.
Commissioner Borden.
I want to commend the staff on the upgrades to the Commission
website. I did want to point out a couple of things that needed to be improved
upon. First of all, the time of the meeting still says 1:30 p.m., it needs to be
change to 12:00 p.m. The role of the Planning Commission, there is generic
language that must be used in other cities, because referred about advising the
City Council, which we do not have. That language needs to be updated. The other
thing is when you click on Planning Commission meetings, you go on a loop and
see Linda' s name, her phone number, and that takes you back to the website with
the contact information. It does not let you click through the agenda. Just
making it more usable would be more helpful.
Commissioner Miguel:
I would like to commend the Department on earning the APA
Northern California award for the Better Streets Plan. I thought that was
excellent and a number of things that have engaged in planning, this week, so it
seems, I have been involved in the San Francisco Presidio.
At a meeting last Friday, there was discussion on the impact of the Presidio --
the impact of the America's Cup on the Presidio. Part of it evolved into a
discussion of the extension of the F line into the Presidio area, as well as
impacting the National Maritime Museum, which is a separate National Park
Service Agency. That was interesting because that conversation stated they are
going to try to rush ahead as fast as possible and not have their construction
impact America's Cup. However, at a SPUR meeting this week, when the America's
Cup came up, the statement was made, there is no way they are going to do it
because it will impact America's Cup, so it will happen later, so someone needs
to get their comments together on this. I think it is very much in -- up in the
air. I am hearing from various people who are supposedly authoritative, in the
know, for that.
Monday, I attended the meeting, here in City Hall, at the
Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, the hearing called by Supervisor, Scott
Wiener, regarding the HPC Preservation survey, among other things. The Director
spoke, and number of Department heads. I thought it was a very good meeting. I
did leave before all of the public, or I probably would have been there for
another three hours, at least. Obviously, the item is continued, but I think it
aired a number of questions people had, and number of viewpoints people had
regarding that. The Safeway at La Playa has been under planning for four years,
re-construction, enlargement by a 50%.They have a huge lot. The Planning
Department told them that they are going to not let them go ahead unless they
incorporate housing.
I was able to see the now fourth iteration, 3rd architect and
this one seems to be getting it right. They are doing a tremendous amount of
interactive work with the neighborhood, and that works well for the project. It
is just very interesting to see how a major business organization can actually
interact with the neighborhood, also out in that neighborhood, and the Veterans
Administration Medical Center at 42nd Avenue and Clement Street, is
planning to possibly double its size on something of a postage stamp campus
there by their own records, there are over 300 cars parked. They are
theoretically moving to Mission Bay, all or part of their operations. The
expansion is hardly anything to do with patient care for veterans. It is all
UCSF research, which is seemingly their primary mission at the moment, although
not on paper .Here you have a federal organization without any rapport with the
community whatsoever, in fact, the community has filed suit against them, for
non-compliance with NEPA, and could possibly the very second legal action in
order to get some reaction from them.
The Housing Action Coalition have their housing forum
yesterday morning. It was, as usual, an excellent forum. The Chief Economist for
San Francisco participated this was one of the more, say, active, interactive
discussions we have had regarding public housing, low income housing. I thought
it was particularly well done. A lot of interesting statistics were brought up
everything from the financing on down .I already mentioned the SPUR meeting on
Fisherman's Wharf. Commissioner Fong was there. That went really well. I had a
conversation with Assembly Member Kathleen from Merced, she wrote the
legislation on high-speed rail, the Director' s name came up several times as
the head of the cooperative work the city has been pursuing for some time, the
problems of 16th Street, getting through, underground, not
underground. To me, it somewhat resembles the problem San Francisco has had from
time to time with Caltrans, whose objective is to move as much traffic as fast
as possible, sometimes regardless of the impact of the municipalities they go
through. San Francisco has, in recent years, a good record with Caltrans. They
have worked with the City to lessen the impact hopefully, high-speed rail, they
will be able to do so also. The friends of City Planning they there was also
last night. If I am not mistaken, the website, the ability to search the web
site came from some of their grants.
Commissioner Antonini:
I read I was not able to attend the Housing Coalition action
forum. I understand it was very good.
I was able to briefly attend the Friends of City Planning. As
always, it is a nice event. Other meetings in the last week-- I met with
representatives, who I believe -- the project have been continued for a few
weeks now. Also meetings between representatives for the Academy of Art
University, property owner in Mid-Market, this was very informative. I also met
with some neighbors who were concerned with a project that was on our
continuance calendar, 70 Gold Mine Drive, and representatives from California
Medical Center. Those were my meetings. Commissioner Sugaya:
I just want to comment on high-speed rail San Francisco to
San Jose, it is very contentious, I think, along the Peninsula having grown up
down there, I can understand the resident' s concern about high speed coming
through their area. I can remember when I was a kid, we used to go to the
bridge, we stood time it so that the 9:45 commuter train -- we would wait at the
crossing. The timing was always perfect. Any way, I did not go to the Friends of
City Planning because I was attending another reception. This one was pulled
together by Frank Fong at the Board of Appeals in honor of Mr. Cornfield who
have been transferred to the City Attorney's Office to work on seismic safety
standards in the City, or something along those lines. So he will no longer be
representing the Building Department at the Board of Appeals. We did have staff
defect from the friends meeting come to our perception. Their names will not be
mentioned here. I did also attend, along with Commissioner Miguel and Director
Rahaim, the Supervisors’ hearing on Historic Preservation. I did stay till the
very end, I think the second to the last speaker. I did offer some suggestions
directly to the Supervisor. I will be following up with that myself.
Lastly, in the business section, there was mention of a study that was done
which places San Francisco in the top five cities of opportunity. If you go to
the website, it is www.Puc.Gov, I think, there is an extensive amount of
information at their, I think. That people analyzed to see why the San Francisco
rating is so high. I think a lot of people were surprised but like all rating
systems, they are ultimately suspect.
Commission Olague:
A couple weeks ago, I asked for a report -- there was a
study, that the study the migration within the City. I still love not seen a
copy of that. I would like to receive a copy of that. I would like to discuss,
at some point, we mentioned a few possible topics for discussion up here. But
commissioners and members of the public of course at these meetings, it would be
nice if they look at the calendar and start scheduling some of those policy
discussions that have to do with parking and tourism and all of these other
topics. Hopefully -- maybe in July we can start calendaring at least once a
month. Well, that is it.
D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
8. Director’s
Announcements
Director Rahaim:
We received a second award for the Shipyard Plan. That is
one of the times we have seen the Environmental Impact Report receive such an
award. I was very pleased with that award. I did want to mention the website. We
are very pleased with the website. It was actually funded by the Planning,
allowing us to hire temporary staffers. The glitch was partially due to a
miscommunication with the City will of the website before we were ready and so,
we had to make some final changes. We were able to correct the glitches. As we
speak right now, there is a hearing on the High-Speed Rail Authority in
Sacramento, and several cities that are there. One of the issues being discussed
is what they call the initial operating segments. I think we have been urging
high-speed rail to think for some time about the San Jose to San Francisco
corridor, such that you would only need two tracks instead of four. It is clear
from the study that four tracks are not needed for a number of years. It
probably helps us in these discussions with the communities along the Peninsula
who are understandably, concerned about this. There is city staff today at
these hearings to testify in support of having that first segment. That piece of
the whole system we have been working closely on. I think it has been a good
introduction departmental effort, so, I am very hopeful we can make progress on
this. One of the things that is interesting is the discussion that we had. If
you look at the long-term picture of the growth of the State, it really comes
down to what type of transportation system we would need to employ in 20 or 30
years down the road to accommodate the growth? If you compare a high-speed rail
to other means such as expanding airports or highways - I think it is an
interesting way to frame the discussion. That really is the choice. Expanding
airports and highways is not palatable to a lot of people. It is an interesting
discussion. I think we should have a broader, long-term policy. Finally, I just
wanted to mention with respect to the preservation hearing on Monday, I thank
the Commissioners for attending. I think it went on for about four hours. We
stayed within an hour and a half and we will follow up with the supervisor on
this. I spoke with the Commission about this yesterday, the idea that I had
proposed a while ago of a summit discussion on preservation issues. I would
still like to pursue that. I would just offer to the Commissioners, not
necessarily today, but to give feedback on how that should be structured and how
we move forward. I am going to approach a couple of sources for funding such an
event and we will let you know how that goes. I think that is it for me unless
there are any questions.
9.
Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of
Appeals, and Historic Preservation
Commission.
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
The Land Use Committee’s hearings this week included an
informational item about historic preservation, as well as action items
associated with the Treasure Island project.
§
BF 110097
Historic Preservation. At the request of Supervisor Scott Weiner, the land use
committee held a hearing to consider the impact of historic preservation
policies on public policy goals. Staff led the Board Members and the public
through a presentation that outlined where in the Planning Code and the General
Plan Historic Preservation is regulated at the local level, as well as the
Planning Department’s policies and requirements under CEQA. In addition to
Planning staff, other city departments that presented included the Libraries,
MTA, Recreation and Parks, and the Mayor’s Office of Housing. The local
non-profit San Francisco Architectural Heritage was also on-hand to present to
the members of the Board. There was a large turnout and extensive public
comment by the public on both sides of the issue. Members of the Board of
Supervisors asked Planning Staff for information on a wide range of issues,
including the ethnic and cultural diversity of staff and consultants working on
historic resource surveys, the number of historic context statements devoted to
cultural and ethnic histories, and process questions related to CEQA and
surveys. The informational hearing was continued to the call of the chair.
§
BF 110328
CEQA Findings for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Development Project.
§
BF 110228
General Plan Amendments
§
BF 110229
Planning Code Amendments – Creation of an SUD
§
BF 110227
Zoning Map Amendment
§
The Committee
forwarded each the items associated with the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island
Development Project to the full Board of Supervisors without a recommendation.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
-
110200 Liquor License
Transfer.
Resolution determining that the transfer of a Type 20 off-sale beer and wine
license from 612 Kearny Street to 3132 Clement Street (District 1), to
Garfield Beach CVS LLC, dba CVS Pharmacy, will serve the public convenience
or necessity of the people of the City and County of San Francisco, in
accordance with Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions
Code, with conditions. The Board Passed the resolution in support of the
liquor license transfer.
-
110314
Resolution declaring the
intention of the Board of Supervisors to vacate the one block portion of
Mason Street between Lombard Street and Columbus Avenue for purposes of the
North Beach Public Library and Joe DiMaggio Playground Master Plan, subject
to certain conditions; and setting the hearing date for June 7, 2011,
at 3:00 p.m. for all persons interested in the proposed vacation of said
public right-of-way. The Board passed the resolution.
-
110373-6 Appeal of
Conditional Use Authorization for the project at 1268 Lombard Street.
The Board voted to modified the Conditional Use
Authorization issued for the project to develop four dwelling units at a
ratio of one unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area in an RH-3 zoning
district. The Board added three conditions to the CU, which were to
minimize the height of the proposed elevator penthouse, to eliminate the
front stair penthouse and to maintain open air stairs, and to minimize the
height of the building.
INTRODUCTIONS:
·
BF 110548
Amendments to the Planning Code - Zoning - Uses, Signs, Building Features, Floor
Area Ratio, Parking, and Compliance in Specified Use Districts. Chiu.
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code to 1) increase the
amount of principally permitted parking spaces for dwellings in RC-4 and C-3
Districts; 2) make off-street parking requirements in the Van Ness Special Use
District and RC-3 Districts consistent with those of RC-4 Districts; 3)
eliminate minimum parking requirements for the Chinatown Mixed Use Districts and
North Beach Neighborhood Commercial Districts; 4) allow exceptions from required
parking under specified circumstances; 5) amend the restrictions on off-street
parking rates and extend them to additional zoning districts; 6) revise sign,
awning, canopy and marquee controls in specified zoning districts; 7) increase
the permitted use size for limited corner commercial uses in RTO and RM
districts, and allow reactivation of lapsed limited commercial uses in R
Districts; 8) revise the boundaries of and modify parking and screening
requirements in the Washington-Broadway and Waterfront Special Use Districts; 9)
modify controls for uses and accessory uses in Commercial and
Residential-Commercial Districts; 10) permit certain exceptions from exposure
and open space requirements for historic buildings; and 11) modify conformity
requirements in various use districts; 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.
Board of Appeals:
There was no hearing by the
Board of Appeals last week.
HISTORIC PRESERVATIO
COMMISSION:
No report this week
10.
2011.0070I
(R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
1355 SANSOME
STREET - Southwest corner of Sansome and
Greenwich Streets Lot 048, of Assessor’s Block 0085 - Informational
Presentation on Draft Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning
Code Section 304.5. The Hult International Business School’s IMP contains
information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use
of affiliated buildings, and development plans within the C-2, Community
Business and 84-E Height and Bulk Districts (Downtown, Retail) District, and the
80-130 F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Informational
presentation, no action requested
SPEAKERS: Lisa Tenorio, Lee
Moulton
ACTION:
Informational Presentation, no action required
E. 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
F.
REGULAR CALENDAR
11.
(K. DISCHINGER:
(415) 558-6284)
FY 2009-10 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT AND INTERAGENCY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT- Informational
presentation by Controller's Office and Planning Department staff. Per Section
409 of the Planning Code the Controller's Office must compile
an annual report on Development Impact Fee collections and expenditures. Per section 36 of the
Administrative Code, the Interagency Plan Implementation Committee (IPIC), the
City body tasked with coordination for Area Plan–identified community
improvements, must compile a status report on major capital projects in
Area Plans. Staff will present key findings of each report. Preliminary
Recommendation: Informational only, no action requested.
ACTION:
Informational presentation, no action required
12a.
2010.0937CV
(M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)
259 BROAD STREET
- south side between Capitol and Orizaba Avenues; Lot 052 of Assessor’s Block
7114 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning
Code Section 303, to modify the conditions of approval placed on the existing
residential care facility in Motion No. 14958, Case No. 1999.644C, to allow for
the construction of a one-story vertical addition that would add a dwelling unit
to the existing building, located within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family)
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Passed a
motion of intent to disapprove
AYES: Antonini, Borden, Fong, Moore,
Sugaya, Miguel and Olague
ACTION:
Continued to 5/19/11 for Final Language
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Moore, Miguel and Olague
NAYES: Sugaya
12b.
2010.0937CV
(M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)
259 BROAD STREET
- south side between Capitol and Orizaba Avenues; Lot 052 of Assessor’s Block
7114 - Request for a Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Section 151 to
add a dwelling unit without off-street parking. The project proposes the
construction of a one-story vertical addition that would add a dwelling unit to
the existing building. The project site is located within a RH-1 (Residential,
House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: Same as item 12a
ACTION: Zoning
Administrator closed the public hearing with the intent to deny
13.
2011.0126C
(E. Jackson: (415) 558-6363)
680
VALENCIA STREET
- west side between 17th and 18th Streets; Lot 007 in
Assessor’s Block 3577 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization,
pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.2, 303, 316, and 726.41, to convert a
vacant building to a new Full-Service Restaurant & Bar Establishment (dba
Amber India Restaurant) that exceeds the use size limitations for the Zoning
District. The project is located within the Valencia Street Neighborhood
Commercial Transit District (Valencia NCT), a 55-X Height and Bulk District, and
the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Robert Cornwell
ACTION: Approved with
conditions, as amended
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Moore, Miguel, Olague and Sugaya
MOTION: 18345
14
2009.1101C
(S. Vellve:
(415) 558-6263)
333 BAKER STREET
-
northwest corner of
Baker and Fell Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 1206 - Request for
Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.6(b)
and 303, to allow T-Mobile Wireless to locate up to four (4) WTS panel antennas
on an existing penthouse located at the southeast corner of the six-story
(including penthouse) building (Southern Pacific Company Hospital/Mercy Terrace
Complex), and related equipment to be located in a new roof penthouse, within
the RM-1 (Mixed, Low-Density) District and 80-E Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: David Tse, Mark
Leach, Gloria Burrell, Stefano Cassalato
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Olague and Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
MOTION: 18346
15.
2009.1076C
(S. Vellve:
(415) 558-6263)
333 BAKER STREET
- northwest corner of Baker and Fell Streets; Lot 003
in Assessor’s Block 1206 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization,
pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303, to allow Verizon Wireless
to locate up to six (6) WTS panel antennas on an existing penthouse located at
the southeast corner of the six-story (including penthouse) building (Southern
Pacific Company Hospital/Mercy Terrace Complex), and related equipment to be
located in the building’s basement and at grade, within the RM-1 (Mixed,
Low-Density) District and 80-E Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: David Tse, Mark
Leach, Gloria Burrell, Stefano Cassalato,
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Olague and Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
MOTION: 18347
16.
2011.0097C
(K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)
1423 POLK STREET
- west side between Pine and California Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block
0646 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning
Code Sections 303 and
723.26 and 723.41, to establish a bar (dba "HI-LO Club") within the Polk Street
Neighborhood Commercial District and the 80-A Height and Bulk District. The
business also proposes a coffee service window for daytime coffee sales, which
is categorized as a "Walk-Up Facility". The size of the existing tenant space
would not change. This approval would relocate an existing bar (dba "Koko
Cocktails") from its present location at 1060 Geary Street.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: In Favor:
Heather Hageon, Michael Green, Chris Stokes, Chris Schulman, John D. Newman, Ron
Case, Jennifer Farris, Ludovic Racinet, Steve Black, Harry Lee, Bill Lum,
Alfonso Callazo, Heather Cummings, Linda Valente, Miguel Hudin, Michelle
Cardinal, Liam Bigelow, Ron Puagpinij, Chamh Pham, Duncan Ley, Gabriela Lifsher,
Bill Klebeck, Alison Leelay, Mathew McConihe, Richard Woodruff, Ken Meade, Sue
May Yen, David Manchester, James Moran, Elizabeth Shyperti, Lisa Harmayer,
Joseph Y. Dabit, Renee Skolnick, Aldo Noboa, David Brooks, Soner Ustun, Chris
Raulli, Elena Demetrion, Anna Seregina, Tobias Olson, Michele Scanlon, Sean
Gallagher, Martin Dias, Eugene Rasnojon, Derek White, Martin Dias, Shamus Booth,
Jacob Moody, George Yerby; Opposed: Linda Chapman, Frank Cunnata, Dawn
Trennert, John Nulty, Paul Corbani, Georgia Liewellyn, Karyn Payne
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
MOTION: 18348
17.
2011.0071C
(K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)
401 BROADWAY
- southwest corner at Montgomery Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0163 -
Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code
Sections 303 and 714.44, to establish a small self-service restaurant within the
Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, the 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District,
and the Broadway Special Sign District. The business would also include twelve
pool tables and a "billiards academy", which are categorized as "Other
Entertainment" uses, and are principally permitted pursuant to
Planning Code Section 714.48.
The size of the existing tenant space would not change.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
MOTION: 18349
5:00 PM
G.
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.
NONE
H.
CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
18.
2006.0422E
(J. NAVARRETE: (415) 575-9040)
Executive Park Amended Subarea and The Yerby Company and Universal Paragon
Corporation Development Projects
-
the entire 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in
the southeastern part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along
the San Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway
101 to its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue to its east (but
not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south.
Parcels
that would be affected by the proposed development projects and rezoning are
bordered by Executive Park Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north,
and east respectively and Harney Way on the south and include Assessor’s Block
and Lots 4991 / 012, 024, 061, 065, 074, 045, 078, 085, 086, and 5076 / 012, 013
(the existing office park portion of the site).
Certification
of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed Project as studied in
the Environmental Impact Report includes three components: (1) Amendments to
the Executive Park Subarea Plan and other related General Plan and
Planning Code Amendments: Along with amending the Subarea Plan of the
Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, amendments would be made to the Planning Code
by creating the Executive Park Special Use District and the 65/240-EP Height and
Bulk District, and by creating new Design Guidelines; (2) The Yerby
Development Project: at 5 Thomas Mellon Circle, the Yerby Company (Yerby)
would demolish the existing office building and construct five mixed-use
buildings, ranging in height from 68 feet to 170 feet containing a total of
approximately 500 residential units and up to 750 below-grade parking spaces;
and (3) The Universal Paragon Corporation Development Project: at 150
and 250 Executive Park Boulevard, Universal Paragon Corporation (UPC) would
demolish two existing office buildings, and construct eight mixed-use buildings,
ranging from 65 feet up to 240 feet tall containing a total of approximately
1,100 residential units, approximately 70,000 square feet of retail, and up to
1,677 below-grade parking spaces.
Please
note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period
for the Draft EIR ended on November 29, 2010. The Planning Commission does not
conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
MOTION: 18350
I.
REGULAR CALENDAR
19a.
2006.0422EMTUZ
(M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
EXECUTIVE PARK –CEQA FINDINGS - the entire 71-acre Executive Park
Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern part of San Francisco, just
east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San Francisco/San Mateo County border. It
is generally bounded by Highway 101 to its west, Bayview Hill to its North,
Jamestown Avenue to its east (but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and
Harney Way to its south.
Parcels that would be affected by the proposed
development projects and rezoning are bordered by Executive Park Boulevards
West, North, and East on the west, north, and east respectively and Harney Way
on the south and include Assessor’s Block and Lots 4991 / 012, 024, 061, 065,
074, 045, 078, 085, 086, and 5076 / 012, 013 (the existing office park portion
of the site).
–
Adopting environmental findings (and a
statement of overriding considerations) under the California Environmental
Quality Act in connection with the adoption of the project and related actions
necessary to implement such plans.
The
proposed Project as studied in the Environmental Impact Report includes three
components: (1) Amendments to the Executive Park Subarea Plan and
other related General Plan and Planning Code Amendments: Along with amending
the Subarea Plan of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, amendments would be
made to the Planning Code by creating the Executive Park Special Use District
and the 65/240-EP Height and Bulk District, and by creating new Design
Guidelines; (2) The Yerby Development Project: at 5 Thomas Mellon Circle,
the Yerby Company (Yerby) would demolish the existing office building and
construct five mixed-use buildings, ranging in height from 68 feet to 170 feet
containing a total of approximately 500 residential units and up to 750
below-grade parking spaces; and (3) The Universal Paragon Corporation
Development Project: at 150 and 250 Executive Park Boulevard, Universal
Paragon Corporation (UPC) would demolish two existing office buildings, and
construct eight mixed-use buildings, ranging from 65 feet up to 240 feet tall
containing a total of approximately 1,100 residential units, approximately
70,000 square feet of retail, and up to 1,677 below-grade parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the Findings
SPEAKERS:
George
Yerby, Jonathan Schwarfman, Project Sponsors, Jacob Moody, Tom
Colen, Arelious Walker, Espanola
Jackson
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
MOTION: 18351
19b.
2006.0422EMTUZ
(M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
EXECUTIVE PARK –GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
- the 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern
part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San
Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to its
west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue to its east(but not those
lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south. Request to Amend
the Executive Park Subarea Plan of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan of the
General Plan, the Land Use Index and other minor General Plan Map and Figures,
pursuant to Planning Code Section 340(c). The amended Subarea Plan would
establish objectives and policies to transform Executive Park from a partial
office park to a mixed-use, predominately residential, pedestrian-oriented
neighborhood; and would provide objectives and policies to guide land use,
streets and transportation, urban design, community facilities and services, and
recreation and open space issues. The amended Subarea Plan would also establish
a new publicly accessible street grid and open space network. The land Use
Index and various maps and figures throughout the General Plan would also be
amended to reflect the Subarea Plan changes. These amendments along with
proposed Planning Code Text Changes, Zoning Map Changes and the establishment of
Design Guidelines would accommodate up to and additional 1,600 dwelling units,
approximately 70,000 gross square feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street
parking spaces, and other associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings
that would range between 65-feet to 240-feet tall.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as item 19a
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 18352
19c.
2006.0422EMTUZ
(M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
EXECUTIVE PARK –PLANNING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS
- the 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern
part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San
Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to its
west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue to its east(but not those
lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south. Parcels that would be
affected by the Planning Code Text and Map Changes are bordered by Executive
Park Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north, and east respectively
and Harney Way on the south (also referred to as the office park portion).
Request to Amend the San Francisco Planning Code by addding Section 249.54 to
establish the Executive Park Special Use District; Section 263.27 to establish
Special Height Provisions for the Executive Park Special Use District and the
65/240 EP Height and Bulk District; and by amending Table 270 to provide that
the Table is not applicable, pursuant to Planning Code Section 302(b). The
new Executive Park Special Use District (SUD) would create special provisions
for buildings within the office park portion of the site that would, among other
things, allow for density transfers across the site, and include requirements
for street and open space improvements. The new height and bulk provisions
would generally allow buildings between 65-feet and 85-feet along with three
towers between the heights of 170 to 240 feet. The design review provisions
would require review by the Planning Commission of all new development
projects. These amendments along with proposed changes to General Plan
Amendments Zoning Maps and the proposed establishment of Design Guidelines,
would provide for the transition of the existing office park portion of the
site to a new mixed-use predominately residential, pedestrian oriented
neighborhood. These amendments would accommodate up to 1,600 dwelling units,
approximately 70,000 gross square feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street
parking spaces and other associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings
that would range between 65-feet to 240-feet tall.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as item 19a
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 18353
19d.
2006.0422EMTUZ
(M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891
EXECUTIVE PARK –ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS
-
the 71-acre
Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern part of San
Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San Francisco/San Mateo
County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to its west, Bayview Hill
to its North, Jamestown Avenue to its east(but not those lots fronting on
Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south. Parcels that would be affected by the
Planning Code Text and Map Changes are those bordered by Executive Park
Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north, and east respectively, and
Harney Way on the south (referred to as the office park portion). Request to Amend the
San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sectional
Maps SU10 of the Zoning Map to establish the Executive Park Special Use
District; amending Sectional Map HT10 to establish the 65/240-EP Height and Bulk
District; amending Sectional Map ZN09 to change certain Executive Park parcels
from C-2(Community Business) and M-1 (Light Industrial) to RC-
3(Residential-Commercial Combined, Medium Density).
More specifically, Sectional Map ZN10 would be
amended by rezoning Assessor’s Block 4991, Lots 074, 075, 085 and 086 from C-2
to RC-3; Assessor’s Block 4991 / Lots 012, 024, 061, 065, 078 and Assessor’s
Block 5076, Lots 012 and 013 from M-1 to RC-3; Planning Code Sectional Map SU10
would be amended to include Assessor’s Block 4991, Lots 012, 024, 061, 065, 074,
075, 078, 085, 086, and Block 5076 Lots 012 and 013 into the newly established
Executive Park SUD, and Sectional Map HT10 would be amended to include
Assessor’s Block 4991, Lots 074, 075, 085 and 086 within the newly established
65/240-EP Height and Bulk District. These actions along with the proposed
General Plan Amendments and Planning Code Text Amendments would provide for the
transition of the existing office park portion of the site to a new mixed-use
predominately residential pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. These amendments
would accommodate up to 1,600 dwelling units, approximately 70,000 gross square
feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street parking spaces and other
associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings that would range between
65-feet to 240-feet tall.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as item 19a
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 18354
19e.
2006.0422EMTUZ
(M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
EXECUTIVE PARK –DESIGN GUIDELINES
-
the 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the
southeastern part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the
San Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to
its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue to its east(but not those
lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south. Parcels that would be
affected by the Planning Code Text and Map Changes are those bordered by
Executive Park Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north, and east
respectively, and Harney Way on the south (referred to as the office park
portion). Request to Adopt Design Guidelines for Executive Park. As
proposed, a new Executive Park Special Use District would refer to the Design
Guidelines for additional guidance in building out the office park portion of
the site. The Guidelines would include provisions for guidelines and
controls for (1) Street and Block Pattern, (2) the Public Realm, (3) Buildings
and Siting, (4) Building Features and Characteristics, and (5) Sustainable
Development. The adoption of these Guidelines along with the
related General Plan Planning Code Text and Map amendments would provide for the
transition of the existing office park portion of the site to a new mixed-use
predominately residential pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. These amendments
would accommodate up to 1,600 dwelling units, approximately 70,000 gross square
feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street parking spaces and other
associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings that would range between
65-feet to 240-feet tall.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the
Design Guidelines
SPEAKERS: Same as item 19a
ACTION: Approved with
conditions
AYES: Antonini,
Borden, Fong, Miguel, Moore, Olague and Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 18355
J.
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: 5:50 PM
ADOPTED: July 7, 2011
