SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B.
Goodlett Place
Thursday, July 28, 2011
12:00 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Miguel Antonini, Moore,
Sugaya
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Borden, Fong
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT:
12:08 PM
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning,
Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Sharon Young, Rick Crawford, Sophie
Hayward, Mary Woods, Aaron Starr, David Lindsay, Erika Jackson, Ben Fu, Diego
Sanchez, Debra Dwyer, Jonas Ionin – Acting 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.
(L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)
AMENDMENTS TO COMMISSION’S RULES AND
REGULATIONS
Preliminary
Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for
Continuance to August 4, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong, Sugaya
2. 2011.0532T
(A. STARR: (415)
558-6362)
Uses, Signs, Building Features, Floor Area Ratio, Parking, and Compliance in
Specified Use Districts -
The Commission
will consider a proposed Ordinance [BF 110548] amending the San
Francisco Planning Code by repealing Sections 136.2, 136.3, 158, 187, 249.15,
263.2, 263.3, 602.25, 602.26, 607.3 and 607.4 and amending various other Code
sections to as well as additional recommendations by Planning staff.
Specifically, the proposed Ordinance would (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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Proposed Ordinance with
Modifications to Board of Supervisors.
(Proposed for Continuance
to September 8, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong, Sugaya
3.
2011.0533Z
(A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
Zoning Map Amendments – Washington-Broadway Special Use District 1; Waterfront
Special Use District 2 and 3; Special Districts for Sign Illumination; and
Special Districts for Scenic Streets
- The Commission will consider a proposed Ordinance [BF 110547] introduced by
Supervisor Chiu concerning Sheets SU01, SS01 and SS02 of the San Francisco
Zoning Map as well as additional recommendations by Planning staff.
Specifically, the proposed Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning Code
by 1) adding blocks and lots to the Washington-Broadway Special Use District 1;
2) adding blocks to the Waterfront Special Use District 2; 3) deleting blocks
and add lots to the Waterfront Special Use District 3; 4) making the boundaries
of the Special District for Sign Illumination on Broadway co-extensive with the
Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District; 5) deleting the Van Ness Special
District for Sign Illumination; and 6) adding The Embarcadero from Taylor Street
to Second Street to the Special District for Scenic Streets; adopting findings,
including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and
findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of
Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Proposed Ordinance with
Modifications to Board of Supervisors.
(Proposed for
Continuance to September 8, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong, Sugaya
4.
2011.0051C
(M. Woods: (415) 558-6315)
2429 CALIFORNIA STREET
- south side between Fillmore and Steiner Streets; Lot 001F in Assessor’s Block
0654 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow
a “financial service” use (d.b.a. “Chase Bank”) and a use size greater than
2,500 square feet pursuant to Sections 121.2, 303(c), 718.21 and 718.49 of the
Planning Code, in the Upper Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial District and
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation:
Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 26, 2011)
(Proposed for
Continuance to October 13, 2011)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong, Sugaya
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.
2011.0226C
(S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)
1336 9TH AVENUE - east side between Irving and Judah Streets;
Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 1763 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization
under Sections 303 and 730.42 of the Planning Code to allow the change of use of
an existing large fast food restaurant (d.b.a. Craw Station) to a full-service
restaurant (continuing to d.b.a. Craw Station) on the ground floor of a
two-story mixed-use building within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial
District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT: Borden,
Fong, Sugaya
MOTION: 18413
C.
COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
6.
Commission Comments/Questions
·
Inquiries/Announcements.
Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or
inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
·
Future
Meetings/Agendas.
At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a
Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda
of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
Thank you. I would like to
thank some of the excellent staff members for their excellent work.
First, Johnny Jaramillo, for the update on the Downtown Plan, which I think was
extremely well-done.
Some of that has been mentioned in the press, a summary of the findings that
were in that
report, and I think that the emphasis on the fact that our downtown area is one
of the finest in the Country as far as being dense, walk-able, and a well-served
by transit is very important. I think the only thing I would say, it is not
negative, but just not to judge our conclusions for the future from what has
happened in the last 20 to 30 years. The fact that there are fewer professional
-- or at least the same number of professional managerial type positions and
corporate jobs in the downtown area, surely that part north of Market does not
necessarily mean that is going to happen in the future.
Because, this is such a great area, we're seeing more and more of the employees
of Bay Area businesses living in San Francisco, rather in suburban areas, and I
think that there is becoming an awareness among the leaders of the many of the
companies, that makes perfect sense for executive functions, government
relations, and probably some of the work force to be in San Francisco. I think
we have the perfect opportunity to work on that to the development plan in
Transbay. I think that the future is bright in that regard, and I think there
is, hopefully, going to be a resurgence of the percentage of the work force that
does business in San Francisco. At one time, it was as high as 30%. I think it
is down to 16%. I think with what we have, the wonderful area we have for
businesses, there, that is already being built out, you know, it is appropriate
that we be 25% to 30% of the work force in the Bay Area. The only downside on
transit in that regard is, and we' re served by Bart from many directions and
from Caltrain, and unfortunately, because Marin never became part of the Bart
system, it does not go out to northwestern San Francisco, in Marin, which is an
area that has to be analyzed for the future. Finally, I guess there was the
question about, you know, the metropolitan area. There are mixed opinions as to
whether San Francisco Bay Area includes the South Bay also. The Census Bureau
and others consider them two different metropolitan areas, So that does not
really make too much difference, but it is interesting to look at it, and I
think we do have to consider it one region, but they certainly are distinct
areas. Secondly, I want to thank Elizabeth Watty, for a very excellent report,
answering questions I raised about the Van Ness Special Use District and
hospital child care information. As our discussion continues on CPMC and on
housing issues, it is important to have the facts first and make decisions
second. She has provided us and the Commission with some really interesting and
important answers to what the Van Ness Plan Special Use District is, and a
history of all the different entitlements and developments that occurred and the
relationship to the housing requirement. Certainly, it is pointed out that there
was one instance where a hotel was demolished and was replaced by housing. There
have been no instances where anything has been demolished and replaced by large
institutional use. I think it is quite clear the plan was crafted to make sure
that there is good land between housing and commercial, especially private, but
I do not think it speaks to institutional and public serving uses, you know,
because they should be distinct from the requirement in my opinion that is
something that is under discussion. It is very interesting. Finally, she did a
really good job of pointing at the level of charitable contribution for the Cal
Pacific system, relative to about 12 other hospitals in the bay area. I think it
is important that everybody read this kind of information and understand, you
know, where they are relative to the others, which is actually pretty much on
par with most. Some are higher in child care, and others are lower in child
care. So it is important to have the facts before we make our decision. I want
to thank her for a very excellent report, and I hope it is available to the
public. I am sure it is.
Commissioner
Miguel:
I have met with people
regarding the Eureka Street Project and also the Veterans Affairs Medical Center
in out on Clement Street. I would like to commend the Department again, the
Better Streets Plan, which continues to gain recognition. It was just awarded
the California APA 2011 Best Practices Awards, and it will be presented during
the California Awards Ceremony in Santa Barbara this September. With that,
perhaps we will go national with it. As Commissioner Antonini mentioned, the
information on the Downtown Plan, 25 years of work, was excellent. John
Jaramillo did a very good article on it. I did appreciate the information on the
Van Ness Plan, although different Commissioners will interpret things
differently.
President Olague:
I guess, usually as a little
small gesture, we sometimes close the meeting in memory of
someone who greatly contributed to the city. We're going to be closing the
meeting today in memory of the Executive Director of the Eviction Defense
Network, it is quite a loss he was a giant as far as advocating on behalf of
low-income tenants and renters here in San Francisco. So if we can close in his
memory that would be appreciated. Also in solidarity with the people of Norway
who experienced a rough last Friday. Even though we met the day after that, it
is something that I think we should also be mindful of, that huge loss.
D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
7. Director’s
Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Excuse my tardiness, I was at
the Board of Supervisors on another matter. I wanted to let you know that the
Better Streets Plan has received its third award, an award from the American
Planning Association of the Southern California Area, that will be given to the
Department in Santa Barbara later this year. That is a project that is getting
much-deserved recognition. I am very pleased for all the staff involved in and
all the City Departments that worked so hard on the project.
8.
Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of
Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
11008 Inclusionary Alt.
for Market & Octavia.
This Ordinance would to
provide a new land dedication alternative in the Market and Octavia Plan
Area in lieu of payment of the Affordable Housing Fee and provides
requirements of such land dedication. (on-site 15%, off-site 20%, fee 20%,
new alternative 40%) Currently, this alternative only exists in the Eastern
Neighborhoods. On June 23, you considered this Ordinance and recommended
several modifications that were suggested by a working group. Supervisor
Wiener incorporated all of your suggestions. This week the Committee
modified the Ordinance and continued the item.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Two of the items on the Land
Use agenda were sent out for a vote on the following day. These items were the
Limited Live Performance Permits and the Inner, Outer Clement and Geary NC
Controls.
§
Limited Live Performance.
Commissioners, you heard
this item on July 7. This Ordinance would to create a Limited Live Performance
Permit for indoor locales whose primary function is not presentation of live
performances. At that time, you recommended approval with modifications. You
requested that the Ordinance be amended to extend the opportunity for
small-scale entertainment to be considered an accessory use in the SOMA, West
Portal, and Pacific Avenue districts.
In addition, you recommended that any restrictions on the visibility of
entertainment from public rights-of-way be removed, as well as any requirement
that doors and windows be closed while the accessory performances are underway.
At last week’s hearing Supervisor Mirkarimi indicated that he would incorporate
all of your modifications, except one. On the request of Supervisor Kim, he has
amended the Ordinance so that it allows this entertainment use in the SoMa
Districts—but only in the areas not involved in the Western SoMa
Community Planning Process. This week at both the LU hearing and the Full
Board, there was interest in expanding the Ordinance to allow DJs. In the
end, the Full Board
continued the item to August 2nd.
§
Inner, Outer Clement and Geary NC Controls.
Commissioners, you heard
this item sponsored by Supervisor Mar on July 14, at that time you recommended
approval with modifications. Supervisor Mar amended the Ordinance to include
your recommendations, except for one. First you recommended permit one
additional restaurant in the Inner Clement and then allow additional restaurants
in both the Inner and Outer Clement by CU. The Supervisor accommodated this
request as it still is a relaxation from the existing controls. Second, you
recommended to remove the prohibition on Formula Retail Pet Supply Stores.
Although Supervisor Mar did not remove this prohibition, there was discussion of
this at both the Committee and the Board. After discussion, the Board
approved Supervisor Mar’s Ordinance on first reading.
§
BUDGET.
This week the Board unanimously passed the City’s Budget on FINAL reading. The
Mayor then joined the Board hearing and signed the budget into law.
§
BF 110277
Vintage Signs. This
week the Full Board considered Supervisor Campos’s Ordinance that would allow
for more types of signs to be covered under the historic sign ordinance. You
heard this item on June 2 at which time you recommended approval with
modifications. Supervisor Campos incorporated your recommendations into the
proposed legislation and chose the word “vintage” to replace the word
“historic.” The item, as amended, was passed on FINAL reading Tuesday.
§
110627 General Plan Amendment - Community Safety Element.
This Ordinance added
language to the Community Safety Element of the General Plan to reference the
most recent Hazard Mitigation Plan. This amendment ensures the City and County
of San Francisco will qualify for additional funding enabled through California
Assembly Bill AB 2140, for certain disaster recovery projects. This Commission
had recommended approval of the Ordinance. This week the Board approved the
Ordinances on FINAL reading.
INTRODUCTIONS: 2 Hearing
Requests
-
Hearing Request by
Supervisor Wiener and Carmen Chu. This hearing to include the Mayor's Offices of Housing and Economic
and Workforce Development, City Planning, and Controller. The Board will
discuss the City's plans for significantly increasing the production of
moderate and middle income housing, the status of the review of the
Inclusionary Housing Program, how that review will address a needed increase
in moderate income housing, and the connection between the production of
middle and moderate income housing and the City's ability to attract,
retain, and increase private and non-profit sector jobs.
-
Hearing Request
by Supervisor Avalos. This hearing will concern conversions of housing and
rental housing to vacation rentals. The Board requests presentations from
the Planning Department, Department of Building Inspection, Rent Board, City
Attorney, and Treasurer on the magnitude of this problem and of the
conversions and potential solutions.
Board of Appeals:
All actions below were made
by votes of 4-0. President Goh was excused. In broad terms, none of these
cases appear to rise to the level where the Commission would necessarily be
interested, although this of course is just one opinion….
2955 26th Street (E. Jackson).
This case involved the Department’s disapproval of a building permit to (1)
remove a longstanding illegal unit and (2) construct an expansion to be used by
the resulting single-family house. The Department disapproved the permit out of
deference to a previous Board of Appeals ruling on an earlier proposal to remove
the illegal unit. In that case, because of the displacement of a low-income
tenant that would have resulted, the Board disapproved the permit and instructed
the property owner to seek a parking Variance to allow legalization of the
unit. The legalization process was never completed, the unit remained, the
property changed hands, and the current owner of the building invoked the Ellis
Act and afforded the displaced tenant relocation benefits. Owing to the changed
circumstances, the Board felt that the project should go forward. However,
because Section 311 notification for the project had not taken place (as we
disapproved the permit, notice wasn’t appropriate) the Board allowed our
disapproval to stand however they waived the otherwise-applicable year-long
period during which the same building permit could not be re-submitted. In other
words, they told the applicant to re-submit the same plans and they told us to
issue the notice and – barring the filing of a DR – to approve the project.
While the technicalities of this case were highly awkward, the outcome is
satisfactory.
1138-1140 Page Street (A.
Starr). This case
involved the Department’s approval of a permit for an expansion of an existing
residential building, however the real issue was private litigation between the
parties for which the BoA hearing appeared to be used as leverage. A DR was
previously filed on this project but a settlement was reached and no hearing was
conducted. Construction began, however during construction the roof collapsed,
causing extensive damage to the subject property. Also, (1) structural problems
were discovered in the Appellant’s adjacent building, (2) tenants in that
building raised concerns about safety issues and construction noise, and (3)
there were allegations that the proposal had become a de-facto demolition. The
Appellant stated that their first desire was to have the building declared an
unlawful residential demolition, which would effectively preclude the project
for five years, and their second desire was to have the project appear before
the Planning Commission as a DR under Section 317. This case, too, was highly
technical, but after being presented with Planning Code Section 317’s controls
and DBI’s demolition policies, the Board rejected the appeal and upheld the
permit, although it did impose a condition relating to hours of construction.
Here, too, the outcome was satisfactory.
650 2nd Street (R.
Sucre). This case
involved a proposal to construct a stair penthouse, deck, and wind screen on the
roof of a live/work building which would connect to a top-floor unit. On appeal
was a Letter of Determination that stated the project would not comply with the
Planning Code because the building was noncomplying with respect to height – it
is 73’ tall in a 65-X district hence the remaining 2’ are inadequate for a stair
penthouse or wind screen. The appellant’s argument was based on (1) a misreading
of the 10’ height exemption for such features and (2) the fact that – under
ambiguous circumstances – three other similar penthouse/decks had been
constructed on the roof of the building. The Board continued the matter until
August 24 so that we could work with the Appellant to figure out a
Code-compliant means of getting them access to their proposed roof deck. It’s
worth noting that the Board clearly supported our position. This last case, too,
ended satisfactorily.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
All actions below were made by votes of 4-0. President Goh
was excused. In broad terms, none of these cases appear to rise to the level
where the Commission would necessarily be interested, although this of
course is just one opinion….
2955 26th Street (E. Jackson). This case involved the
Department’s disapproval of a building permit to (1) remove a longstanding
illegal unit and (2) construct an expansion to be used by the resulting
single-family house. The Department disapproved the permit out of deference to a
previous Board of Appeals ruling on an earlier proposal to remove the illegal
unit. In that case, because of the displacement of a low-income tenant that
would have resulted, the Board disapproved the permit and instructed the
property owner to seek a parking Variance to allow legalization of the unit.
The legalization process was never completed, the unit remained, the property
changed hands, and the current owner of the building invoked the Ellis Act and
afforded the displaced tenant relocation benefits. Owing to the changed
circumstances, the Board felt that the project should go forward. However,
because Section 311 notification for the project had not taken place (as we
disapproved the permit, notice wasn’t appropriate) the Board allowed our
disapproval to stand however they waived the otherwise-applicable year-long
period during which the same building permit could not be re-submitted. In other
words, they told the applicant to re-submit the same plans and they told us to
issue the notice and – barring the filing of a DR – to approve the project.
While the technicalities of this case were highly awkward, the outcome is
satisfactory.
1138-1140 Page Street (A. Starr). This case involved the
Department’s approval of a permit for an expansion of an existing residential
building, however the real issue was private litigation between the parties for
which the BoA hearing appeared to be used as leverage. A DR was previously filed
on this project but a settlement was reached and no hearing was conducted.
Construction began, however during construction the roof collapsed, causing
extensive damage to the subject property. Also, (1) structural problems were
discovered in the Appellant’s adjacent building, (2) tenants in that building
raised concerns about safety issues and construction noise, and (3) there were
allegations that the proposal had become a de-facto demolition. The Appellant
stated that their first desire was to have the building declared an unlawful
residential demolition, which would effectively preclude the project for five
years, and their second desire was to have the project appear before the
Planning Commission as a DR under Section 317. This case, too, was highly
technical, but after being presented with Planning Code Section 317’s controls
and DBI’s demolition policies, the Board rejected the appeal and upheld the
permit, although it did impose a condition relating to hours of construction.
Here, too, the outcome was satisfactory.
650 2nd Street (R. Sucre). This case involved a
proposal to construct a stair penthouse, deck, and wind screen on the roof of a
live/work building which would connect to a top-floor unit. On appeal was a
Letter of Determination that stated the project would not comply with the
Planning Code because the building was noncomplying with respect to height – it
is 73’ tall in a 65-X district hence the remaining 2’ are inadequate for a stair
penthouse or wind screen. The appellant’s argument was based on (1) a misreading
of the 10’ height exemption for such features and (2) the fact that – under
ambiguous circumstances – three other similar penthouse/decks had been
constructed on the roof of the building. The Board continued the matter until
August 24 so that we could work with the Appellant to figure out a
Code-compliant means of getting them access to their proposed roof deck. It’s
worth noting that the Board clearly supported our position. This last case, too,
ended satisfactorily.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
No meeting
9.
2011.0661I
(R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
135 MAIN STREET - east side of Main Street between Mission and
Howard Streets; Lot 012 of Assessor’s Block 3717 - Report on Samuel Merritt
University’s Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan, pursuant to Planning
Code Section 304.5. Samuel Merritt University’s Abbreviated IMP contains
information on the nature and history of the institution, the location, and use
of affiliated buildings, and development plans within the C-3-O Downtown Office
District and 311-S Height and Bulk Districts. The IMP is available for viewing
on the Planning Department’s website (from
www.sfplanning.org click “Publications & Reports” and then “Institutional
Master Plans”).
Recommended Action: Informational presentation,
no action requested.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Informational. No action required
10.
(A. STARR:
(415) 558-6362)
INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON FORMULA RETAIL
- The Commission has requested a history of the City's planning and
land use controls for Formula Retail. Staff will present a summary of that
history, the status of the current controls, and information about applications
for Conditional Use authorization for Formula Retail uses since 2007.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action. Information Only.
SPEAKERS: Tes
Welborn, Russell Pritehard, Calvin Welch, Greg Endom, Gus Hernandez, Douglas
Fong, Amy Wis4e, Dean Preston, David Tornheim Mark Brennan, Peter Cohen, Jim
Worchel, Quentin Morgan, Joe O’Donoghue,
ACTION: Informational. 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.
SPEAKER: Amy O’Hara
F.
REGULAR CALENDAR
11.
2011.0656TZ
(S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
Amendments to the Planning Code Sections 602.10, 607.1, 608, adding Section
608.16, and amending Sectional Map SSD of the Zoning Map:
Establishing the City Center Special
Sign District [Board File No. 11-0448].
Ordinance
introduced by Supervisor Farrell amending Planning Code Sections 602.10
(Definitions), 607.1 (Neighborhood Commercial Districts), 608 (Special Sign
Districts), adding Section 608.16 (“City Center Special Sign District”), 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 1094, Lot 001), to allow
additional projecting signs, freestanding identifying and directional signs and
to modify existing controls on business wall signs; adopting findings, including
environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of
consistency with the General Plan and the priority policies of Planning Code
Section 101.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to 8/11/11
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong, Sugaya
12.
2010.0623C
(M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
2675 GEARY
BOULEVARD
- southeast corner at
Masonic Avenue (aka the City Center); Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1094 -
Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a “formula retail use”
(d.b.a. Target) and a use size up to 120,000 square feet pursuant to Sections
121.2, 121.6, 303(c), 303(i), 703.4 and 712.21 of the Planning Code, in the NC-3
(Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and the 40-X/80-D Height and
Bulk Districts.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Keith Conser, Lynn Austin, Eric Holmgren, Jenniffer Soloway,
Jennifer Dever, Jim Reuben, Jim Grossman
ACTION: Continued to 8/11/11
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT: Borden,
Fong, Sugaya
MOTION: 18414
13.
2011.0155C
(A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
5411 GEARY BOULEVARD
- south side between 18th and 19th Avenues; Lot 035 in
Assessor’s Block 1526 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization,
pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c), 303(i), and 703.4 to allow a “formula
retail use” (d.b.a Unleashed by PETCO) within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale
Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Disapproval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to 10/27/11
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong, Sugaya
14.
2010.0951C
(S. VELLVE: (415) 558–6263)
4141
GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between 5th and 6th
Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 1539 - Request for Conditional Use
Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303, to allow
Verizon Wireless to locate up to nine (9) WTS panel antennas on an existing
penthouse located along the 6th Avenue frontage of the five-story
building (Kaiser Hospital), and related equipment to be located on the roof,
within a portion of the lot zoned RM-1 (Mixed, Low-Density) District and 80-E
Height and Bulk District. The northern portion of the lot fronting Geary
Boulevard is zoned NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Gabriella Barr, Thelma Famorca, Angela Coo, Ha Chin
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
MOTION: 18415
15.
2010.0987C
(S.
VELLVE: (415) 558–6263)
2055 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster
Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 0509 - Request for Conditional Use
Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 234.2(a) and 303, to allow
AT&T Mobility to locate up to nine (9) WTS panel antennas and related equipment
on an existing elevator penthouse located on the top floor of the four–story
building containing ground–floor commercial space and commercial parking, within
a P (Public) District and 40–X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular
Meeting of May 26, 2011)
SPEAKERS: Tedi Virhais, Christine Stout, Mikki Ness, Patricia Vaughey
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
MOTION: 18416
16.
2011.0294C
(E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6362)
199 LELAND AVENUE -
corner of Leland Avenue and
Rutland Street, Lot 016 of Assessor’s Block 6251 -
Request for
Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.83, 303,
and 790.80 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting
nine new panel antennas on the rooftop and two new equipment cabinets in the
garage of an existing single-story commercial building as part of AT&T’s
wireless telecommunications network within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal
is part of a wireless transmission network operated by AT&T on a Location
Preference 5 (Preferred Location – Mixed Use Buildings in High Density
Districts) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS)
Siting Guidelines.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to 10/6/11
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
16.
2010.0038C
(E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6362)
888 INNES AVENUE
- northeast side
between Griffith Street and Arelious Walker Drive, Lot 014 of Assessor’s Block
4645 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning
Code Sections 711.83, 303, and 790.80 to install a wireless telecommunications
facility consisting of 3 new panel antennas and 2 new equipment cabinets on the
rooftop of an existing single-story commercial building which is approximately
20 feet tall. The project site is within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal
is part of a wireless transmission network operated by MetroPCS on a Location
Preference 4 (Preferred Location – Industrial or Commercial Structures)
according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting
Guidelines.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Sylvia Do
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
MOTION: 18417
17a.
2003.0527XE
(B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
1000 16TH
STREET -
east side between Hubbell and 7th Streets, Lots 001 and 002 in
Assessor’s Block 3833, and Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 3834 - Consideration
of Adoption of CEQA Findings regarding the proposed construction of two new
five-story, 68-foot buildings consisting of up to 468 dwelling units over ground
floor retail, industrial spaces, and parking for up to 306 spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Motion Adopting the
CEQA Findings.
SPEAKERS: David
Murphy, Cary Johnson, Kepa Askenasy, Tom Radulovich, Adrian Simi, Lucio Sanchez,
Julie Milburn, Susan Eslick, Josh Smith, Rod Minett, Leslie Winick, David
Meckel, Tim Colen, Robin Talmage, Janet Carpinelli, Sue Hestor, Joe Baas
ACTION: Adopted CEQA Findings
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
MOTION: 18418
17b.
2003.0527XE
(B. FU: (415) 558-6613)
1000 16TH STREET - east side between Hubbell and 7th
Streets, Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor’s Block 3833, and Lot 001 in Assessor’s
Block 3834 - Request under Planning Code Section 329 for Large Project
Authorization and exceptions for rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, off-street
loading, horizontal mass reduction and ground floor active uses for the
proposed construction of two new five-story, 68-foot buildings consisting of up
to 468 dwelling units over ground floor retail, industrial spaces, and parking
for up to 306 spaces. The subject property is located within the UMU (Urban
Mixed Use) District with a 68-X Height and Bulk Designation.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.
SPEAKERS: Same
as Item 17a.
ACTION: Approved with Condtions
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
MOTION: 18419
18a.
2010.0959CV
(D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
147 SOUTH PARK AVENUE - south side between 3rd Street and
Jack London Place, Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 3775 - Request for Conditional
Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 814.13 and 303 to demolish an
existing single family dwelling and construct as the replacement structure a
four-story, two-unit multifamily dwelling with a ground floor commercial use
identified as an eating establishment. The proposal is within the South Park
Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to 10/6/11
AYES:
Olague Miguel, Antonini,
Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong, Sugaya
18b.
2010.0959CV
(D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
147 SOUTH PARK AVENUE - south side between 3rd Street and
Jack London Place, Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 3775 - Request for Variance
under Planning Code Sections 145.1 and 306 to provide a parking entrance of 16
feet, in excess of 1/3 of the lot width, at the rear of the lot as part of the
four-story, two-unit multifamily replacement structure. The proposal is within
the South Park Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.
ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THE MATTER TO 10/6/11.
19a.
2009.0683D
(S. HAYWARD: (415)
558-6372)
309-311 Eureka Street
- east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 035 in
Assessor’s Block 2750 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to
Planning Code Section 317(d), of Building Permit Application No.
2009.05.04.7631, proposing to demolish a two-family building and Building Permit
Application No. 2009.05.04.7636 proposing to construct a new
three-story-over-garage, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential, House,
Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. A separate
request for Discretionary Review has also been filed by a member of the
public against the replacement project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve the demolition.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011)
NOTE: On May 19, 2011, following public testimony the Commission
continued the matter to July 28, 2011, by a vote of (+6 -0),
Miguel voted no.
Public Hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS:
Fergal O’Boyle, Jane Gee, Elena Olzark, Emily Scott, Liz Noteware, Myra Friel,
Patrick Friel, Gabriel Friel, Clare Friel, Zmid Sardar, Mary Devries, Jane
Segal, Gutta Reichert, Joe Quigley, Tony Kim
ACTION: No DR, Approved Demolition
AYES:
Olague Miguel,
Antonini, Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
DRA:
0224
19b.
2009.0685D
(S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
309-311 Eureka Street
- east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 035 in
Assessor’s Block 2750 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to
Planning Code Section 317(d), of Building Permit Application No.
2009.05.04.7631, proposing to demolish a two-family building and Building Permit
Application No. 2009.05.04.7636 proposing to construct a new
three-story-over-garage, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential, House,
Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. A separate
request for Discretionary Review has also been filed by a member of the
public against the replacement project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve the new construction, as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011)
NOTE: On May 19, 2011, following public testimony the Commission
continued the matter to July 28, 2011, by a vote of (+6 -0),
Miguel voted no.
Public Hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: Same
as Item 19a.
ACTION: No DR, Approved New
Construction
AYES:
Olague Miguel,
Antonini, Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
DRA: 0224
19c.
2010.0577DD
(S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
309-311 Eureka Street
- east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 035 in
Assessor’s Block 2750 - Publicly Filed Discretionary Review, of Building
Permit Application 2009.05.04.7636 proposing to construct a new
three-story-over-garage, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential, House,
Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take
Discretionary Review and approve the new construction, as proposed
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011)
NOTE: On May 19, 2011, following public testimony the Commission
continued the matter to July 28, 2011, by a vote of (+6 -0),
Miguel voted no.
Public Hearing remains open.
SPEAKERS: Same
as Item 19a.
ACTION: No DR, Approved New
Construction
AYES:
Olague Miguel,
Antonini, Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT:
Borden, Fong
DRA:
0224
20.
2000.618E
(D. Dwyer: (415) 575-9031)
801 Brannan and One Henry Adams Streets Project
- The proposed project has two sites: one on the south side of Brannan Street
between 7th and 8th Streets [Block 3783, Lot 001] and one
on the east side of Henry Adams Street between Division and Alameda Streets
[Block 3911, Lot 001] - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report. The proposed project would include demolition of the existing
Concourse Exhibition Hall on the 801 Brannan site and demolition of the three
existing commercial/industrial buildings on the One Henry Adams site, and would
include new construction of three mixed-use residential and retail buildings on
the 801 Brannan site as well as two mixed-use residential and retail buildings
at the One Henry Adams site. All buildings would be 68-feet-tall (six stories).
The easternmost portion of the 801 Brannan site would be dedicated to the City
in partial fulfillment of the project’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing
requirement. Up to 150 units of affordable housing would be constructed on that
portion of the 801 Brannan site under the direction of the Mayor’s Office of
Housing (MOH). There are two project variants proposed for development at the
801 Brannan site. Under the two variants development at the One Henry Adams
site would be the same as the project and there would be no land dedication at
the 801 Brannan site. Variant 1 would include new construction of two mixed-use
residential and retail buildings on the 801 Brannan site. Variant 2 would
include new construction of three mixed-use residential and retail buildings on
the 801 Brannan site. Total development would include up to 1,187,943 gross
square feet, with up to 824 residential units, 54,598 square feet of retail
space, and 866 parking spaces. Under the project or either variant, the 801
Brannan site also would include creation of a two-way, publicly accessible
Brannan Alley which would connect Seventh and Eighth Streets and which would
provide access to the proposed project’s parking garages. The project sites are
located in the UMU (Urban Mixed Use) Zoning District and 68-X height and bulk
district. The proposed project is seeking exceptions for rear yard, street
frontage and mass reduction pursuant to Planning Code Section 329, Large Project
Authorization within the Eastern Neighborhoods. In addition, Conditional Use
authorization is required for 71 parking spaces at the One Henry Adams site.
NOTE:
Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on
Monday, August 8, 2011.
Preliminary Recommendation:
No Action Required
SPEAKERS: Sue
Hestor, Tim Colen
ACTION: Public hearing, no action required
ABSENT: Borden,
Fong
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))
Adjournment: 6:35 PM
Adopted: October 6, 2011
