SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Notice of Meeting
&
Calendar
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, May 17, 2012
12:00 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Moore
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:14 PM.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Thomas Wang, Aaron Hollister, Teresa Ojeda, AnMarie Rodgers, Lily Langlois, Devyani Jain, Aaron Starr, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2011.1372C (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)
3901 24TH STREET - on the southwest corner of 24th and Sanchez streets, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 6508 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 728.49, to convert a vacant ground floor commercial space into a financial service (d.b.a. First Republic Bank) within the 24th Street - Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to June 14, 2012)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as proposed
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
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
2. 2012.0501C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)
222 COLUMBUS AVENUE - intersection of Columbus Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Kearny Street, Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 0162 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 714.44 and 303 to establish a small, self-service restaurant (D.B.A. Reveille Coffee) within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18624
C. COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS
Adoption of Commission Minutes – Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.
3. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 23, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 8, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 15, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Special & Regular Meetings of March 22, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Special & Regular Meetings of April 5, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 12, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 19, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Special & Regular Meetings of April 26, 2012
· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 3, 2012
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with corrections to 4/12/12 and 5/3/12
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
4. 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:
I want to thank Commissioner Wu for requesting that we get zoning maps for her first meeting.
It has been very helpful and I have enough wall space in my office to actually put it up.
I have talked to Secretary Avery and she has talked to Director Rahaim about
us having a hearing in the future where we could have a discussion about the zoning categories for the benefit of the commissioners and for the public. I think there are questions that would come up and it would make it easier for people to understand what is going on when we are discussing the differences of what is an NCD and what is an NCT; and there are also a lot of special use districts. I think it would be helpful during one of our sessions to go over that. I would suggest calendaring it and I would like to see if we have agreement from the other commissioners along those lines. I do not need an answer right now. The other two things I want to suggest are a couple of extremely good books that I became aware of and am reading this week. The first one was mentioned in the book section of the Chronicle. It is the Future of the American City by Alan Ehrenhalt. Basically it deals with something that we see a lot of, that is, urban areas are a lot more desirable than they were 20 or 30 years ago when people were trying to get as far away from urban areas as they could. This is not just a phenomenon in San Francisco or in the United States, but is worldwide, and it has been happening for the last 200 or 300 years in the world as opposed to the last 50 years or so when suburbanization began. I've only finished about 1/3 of it, but he makes some really good points and it is very good reading. The other one is "In the Sand." The author Laurie Ungariedi has written about the story of the Sunset District from about 1850 through 1955 and how that area was reclaimed and the people involved in settling the area and the housing and the builders, and a lot of transit stories. It is an extremely good book to read. It talks about the history of a significant portion of San Francisco.
Commissioner Miguel:
I have finished "The Future of the American City”. I disagree a little bit with Alan Ehrenhalt's first book. I personally I do not think it is very well written, although it has a lot of information in it. He takes a long time to say something. Its concentration is in the United Sates mainly from Chicago east. It is interesting that the San Jose City Council just passed a resolution that affects high rise residential tower development in downtown in order to increase the number of businesses. They are trying to guarantee an application review of 120 days; they are doing a 50% reduction in fees; and 50% reduction in construction related taxes. There are a bunch more stuff and I have not read all of the details or all of the legislations on it. But it sort of falls within the same category of movement from suburbia to downtown in effect, and that has been happening in San Francisco for some time now. From what I read in Alan Ehrenhalt’s book, we are probably a bit ahead of the curve. He entirely missed the West Coast.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Director Rahaim mentioned that there was an interesting internet site where they discuss a lots of urban issues, but there was an interesting short comment from a person who was saying that [they] took another look at high rise development and are making the argument that in the future, with energy shortages, high rises will in essence be unlivable and argues for a more medium density approach.
Since we are talking about books, “The Season of the Witch”, which just came out. It is about the history of the City of San Francisco government and politics from the late 60s thru the 80s.
Also, on May 4th there was an article regarding the Academy of Art University luncheon honoring etc., etc., and speeches were made and Ed Lee stopped by and proclaimed our university "a beautiful institution" that has "done so much to fill so many vacancies in our City." Is the Mayor on board with this Commission is my question. We know that the Academy of Art has had multiple numbers of violations, not only in the Planning Code, but also Building Code violations, DPW code violations, and sidewalk encroachment violations. Some of those have been corrected over the years, however, there is still an outstanding member of Conditional Use violations that this Commission has not taken up, because there is supposedly an Environmental Impact Review ongoing because of the Master Plan, but they keep buying additional properties, which continues to delay the process and the ability of this Commission to take up the issues. I think this quote flies in the face of the Commission's ability to do its work, and I think we should send him a note.
Commissioner Antonini:
Just in regard to Commissioner Sugaya's comments, you have to bear in mind that what is in newspapers is often taken out of context and we may not always agree on things.
.
D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
5. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
There was nothing at the Land Use Committee this week. The Board of Supervisors did have a lengthy meeting to make up for it. They had final readings on a couple of ordinances that you previously considered. The first was an ordinance from Supervisor Mar that will allow a 5-foot Increase for certain active uses is in the Richmond District. You heard this ordinance on February 6th and your recommendations were incorporated into the ordinance that did pass this week. Similarly, Articles 10 and 11 now sponsored by Supervisors Wiener and Olague passed on final reading at the Board of Supervisors. This now puts the Historic Preservation Commission into the Planning Code. It has now been adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
There was an appeal for the conditional use authorization for 8 Washington, as well as a CEQA appeal for this project. This is a proposal to demolish the existing Gateway Club and put in a new health club and residential buildings, two to 12 stories with about 134 dwelling units. These two appeals were combined to save time. Nonetheless, the hearing ran past 12:30 a.m. and the primary concerns vary from the lack of recreational facilities and parking impacts to financial considerations, such as what are the public benefits, including those for affordable housing and whether they are sufficient. Urban design and flow on the Waterfront were also questioned. The district Supervisor and Board President Chiu led the questioning. The supervisors felt the PUC and CU were being authorized and he felt that this was reflecting a high increase that had not been addressed. This was due in part to the timing of the appeals. Whereas this Commission typically considers things first required by law, then the policy document and the General Plan, and then on to the Zoning Map and finally, entitlements. At the last hearing, this was different for the Board because of the appeal. The only considered CEQA first and then entitlements. The height reclassification will return to the Board in June, as will the Development Agreement and on Tuesday, after most of the discussion, the first discussion by President Chiu was to table the EIR. The EIR was then certified 8-3., Next there was a motion to consider a continuation hearing. The last was an authorization of the CU vote and it did pass; then there was the Administrative Code to add limitations on eligibility, application deadlines, to add a timeline for the receipt of the report and to make various changes. This will be scheduled for you in the near term.
There were a couple of ordinances that were introduced and that we have been working with the Mayor and staff on. The first is the transportation Sustainability Fee. I believe the Director has provided you with a great deal regarding that; and the second was the Impact Fee and the development updates.
6. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
LAND USE COMMITTEE: no planning / land use items
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: No Planning / Land Use Items
- 111247 Ordinance to allow a 5’ Ground Floor Increase in the NC-3 District along Geary. Commissioners, you considered this Ordinance on February 6th of this year. At that time you recommended approval of Supervisor Mar’s Ordinance with modifications. Your recommended modifications were incorporated into the Ordinance last week including
- adding the 5’ bonus to
- Inner Clement Neighborhood Commercial District;
- the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District ; and
- certain NC-2 District parcels on Balboa Street.
- Exempting certain parcels on the north side of Geary Blvd. The Commission also recommended pulling back the bonus on Geary so that it would begin west of Masonic Avenue.
- The Supervisor had also amended the Ordinance to apply lot merger limitations to the Clement and Balboa Street corridors.
This week the Board approved the Ordinance on FINAL reading.
- 120300 and 120301 Articles 10 & 11. (PC provided review and comment on 2/2/12, HPC review and comment on 2/1/12, Land Use 5/1/12) After a few questions to staff, the full board passed on final reading the proposed amendments to Articles 10 and 11 introduced by Supervisor Scott Wiener and co-sponsored by Supervisor Olague.
- 8 Washington CU and CEQA Appeal. The proposal is to demolish the existing Golden Gateway Swim and Tennis Club and the existing surface parking lot on Seawall 351, and construct a new health club, residential buildings ranging from four to twelve stores in height containing 134 dwelling units, ground-floor retail uses totaling approximately 20,000 square feet, and 382 off-street parking spaces. The two appeals were combined to save time, nonethess the hearing ran past 12:30am. The primary concerns varied from the loss of rec facilities and parking and traffic impacts; to financial considerations such as are the public benefits, including affordable housing sufficient? Urban design and the appropriate heights along the waterfront were also questioned. District Supervisor and Board President Chiu led the initial questioning. He explored all facets of the proposal and questioned the timing of the items before the Board. The Supervisor felt that the PUD & CU being authorized were effectively being granted a height increase that had not yet been approved. This is due, at least in part, to the timing of the appeals. Whereas, this Commission typically considers CEQA first (as required) followed by any amendments to City Policy in the General Plan, then amendments to the Zoning Map/PC, and last considers approvals; at Tuesday’s hearing the Board considered only CEQA and then the entitlements in the CU. The height reclassification will return to the Board in June as will the Development Agreement and associated actions. After much discussion, the first motion by Chu was to table the EIR—this failed by an 3-8 vote. The EIR was then certified by a 8-3 vote. Next, there was a motion by Chu to continue the CU hearing this failed by a 4-7 vote (Avalos, Chiu, Cohen, Wiener). The last vote of the night was to authorize the CU, this passed 8-3.
INTRODUCTIONS:
- Mills Act120528. Wiener. Ordinance amending the San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 71, entitled "Mills Act Contract Procedures" to amend Section 71.2 to add limitations on eligibility, amend Section 71.3 to add application deadlines, amend Section 71.4 to add a time limit for receipt of the Assessor-Recorder's report, amend Section 71.5 to require use of a standard form contract, and adding new Section 71.7 to require departmental monitoring reports; amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 356 to reduce the application fee for Mills Act contracts.
- 120524 Transportation Sustainability Fee. Mayor, Scott Wiener, Christina Olague. Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by: 1) adding new Sections 411A through 411A.11 to establish a new citywide Transportation Sustainability Fee and 2) amending Section 401 to add definitions reflecting these changes.
- 120523 Transit Impact Development Fee Increase and Updates. Mayor, Scott Wiener, Christina Olague. Ordinance amending Article 4 of the Planning Code by: 1) making technical corrections to specified definitions in Section 401 relating to the Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF); 2) amending Sections 408, 411.1 through 411.5, 411.7 and 411.8 to increase TIDF rates and clarify TIDF implementation and collection.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Board of Appeals did meet last night. One item before the commission was an appeal of the wireless permit for 156 27th Avenue; it is in the public right-of-way in front of that property. It is a permit issued by the Department of Public Works and is in the public right of way. We do review those, in this case, because of what is on a good view street. We found that it was compatible and the Board of Appeals disagreed with that and actually denied the permit. They denied the wireless permit for that location. Also, last night was President Garcia's last hearing. He has been on the Board of Appeals for seven years and prior to that, the Ethics Commission for two years. He has been serving since I have been going to the Board of Appeals. He has been a consistent presence along with Commissioner Fong. I found him to be very prepared and fastidious and funny as well. It has been a privilege to have him as a commissioner on the Board of Appeals. We wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
On May 16th, a Certificate of Appropriateness to changes at the location that is part of the housing at Laguna appeared along with the project sponsors. Supervisor Wiener spoke in support of the project. The Commission voted unanimously to approve. Also at this hearing, the Commission considered extending the delegation of Minor permits to Alter to Department staff for Administrative review and action. This delegation of authority to the Department has lowered the cost and helped streamline projects that otherwise require a public hearing before HPC. At the conclusion of the hearing, they directed staff to further provide information on how to improve the review process and further help reduce cost and time for project applicants. We intend to provide more information in early July. Unless you have questions, that concludes my report.
7. (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)
2011 HOUSING INVENTORY REPORT - Announcing the publication of the 2011 Housing Inventory. This report is the 42nd in the series and describes San Francisco’s housing supply. Housing Inventory data accounts for new housing construction, demolitions, and alterations in a consistent format for analysis of housing production trends. Net housing unit gains are reported citywide, by zoning classification, and by planning district. Other areas covered include affordable housing production, condominium conversions, and changes to the residential hotel stock. In addition, lists of major housing projects completed and approved for construction in 2011 are provided. A list of affordable housing projects in the pipeline (projects in various stages of review or pre-construction planning) is included to provide a picture of likely housing construction activity in the near future. Report is available for the public at the Planning Department and on the website.
Preliminary Recommendation: No Action required. Information only.
SPEAKERS: Linda Chapman, Sue Hestor, Steve Vettel
ACTION: Information only. No action
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.
SPEAKERS: Dino Adelfio, Linda Chapman, Sue Hestor
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
8. 2011.0206T (A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)
PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE CREATION OF A DEFINITION OF STUDENT HOUSING - Amendments to the Planning Code Sections 102.36, 135(d)(2), 207.6(B)(3), 307(j), 317(b)(1), 317(f)(1), and 401 - Establishing a definition of Student Housing, modifying open space requirements for dwellings less than 350 square feet plus bathroom, modifying unit mix requirements for Student Housing, monitoring conversion of Student Housing to housing, and prohibiting the conversion of housing to Student Housing; 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. This item was heard by the Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee on March 27, 2012, and based on amendments introduced by Supervisor Wiener, was referred to the Planning Commission for further review.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2012)
SPEAKERS: Kiran Patel, D’pak Patel, Tony Brettkelly, Cindy Ochoa, Randy Shaw, Prabha Patel, James Haas, John Sanger, Pete Patel, Sam Patel, Gen Fujioka, Jennifer Friederbach, Sara Shortt, Linda Chapman, Anthony Molinar, Caroline Guilbert, George Williams, Sue Hestor, Hiroshi Fukuda
ACTION: Following public hearing, continued to 6/21/12. The public hearing remains open.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
9. 2011.1401M (L. Langlois: (415) 575-9083)
2012 Community Safety Element Update - Intent to initiate Department sponsored General Plan Amendments - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, the Planning Commission will consider a Resolution of Intention to initiate adoption of the 2012 Community Safety Element of the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve a draft resolution of intention to initiate amendments to the General Plan and schedule a public hearing.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved initiation. The public hearing is scheduled for 6/14/12.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18625
10. 2008.0762E (D. JAIN: (415) 575-9051)
Hearing on the 835-845 Jackson Street - Chinese Hospital Replacement Project Draft EIR - The proposed project is located at 835-845 Jackson Street [Assessor’s Block/Lot 192/41]. The Chinese Hospital property, located in the Chinatown neighborhood at Jackson Street between Stockton and Powell Streets, consists of the approximately 43,368-gross-square-foot (gsf), 54-bed Chinese Hospital at 845 Jackson Street, built in 1979; the approximately 29,793-gsf Medical Administration Building (MAB) at 835 Jackson Street (the original Chinese Hospital, built in 1924); and the approximately 15,000-gsf Chinese Hospital Parking Garage, located directly behind the 1924 MAB. These three buildings constitute the project site, an approximately 22,516-square-foot lot. The Chinese Hospital Association is the project sponsor for this project. The proposed project includes: 1) demolition of the 1924 MAB and the 41-space Chinese Hospital Parking Garage on the project site; 2) construction of a 54-bed, acute-care, 101,545-gsf, seven-story-plus-basement, 90.5-foot-tall (excluding 30-foot-tall mechanical penthouse above the roof) Replacement Hospital building with a new 22-bed skilled nursing facility on the sites of the demolished buildings on the eastern portion of the project site (an approximately 11, 526-square-foot area); 3) renovation of the existing on-site 1979 Chinese Hospital building at 845 Jackson Street to serve as a Medical Administration and Outpatient Center (MAOC); and 4) a proposal to create a Special Use District (SUD) for the proposed project to support the expansion of medical services on the project site (835-845 Jackson Street, APN 192/41) in the Chinatown Residential Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District. The proposed Replacement Hospital building would be designed and constructed to fully comply with the requirements of Senate Bill 1953 for seismic safety of acute-care facilities. The existing 1979 Chinese Hospital would remain in operation until the proposed Replacement Hospital is fully functional. The proposed project would be completed in two development phases over a four-year period between fall 2012 and winter 2015. In addition to the proposed project, two variants are being considered by the project sponsor: (1) The Off-Street Parking Variant would include the same development on the 835-845 Jackson Street project site as the proposed project; in addition, it would include off-street parking and an expanded engineering shop and storage space for Chinese Hospital at the existing Powell Street Parking Garage at 1140 Powell Street (APN 192/14). The Powell Street Parking Garage is located on Powell Street between Washington and Jackson Streets to the west of the project site. Under the Off-Street Parking Variant (i.e. garage variant), Chinese Hospital Association (the project sponsor) may either purchase the Powell Street Parking Garage or lease space in the garage on a long-term basis; and (2) The Hospital Façade Design Variant would have a different design for the Replacement Hospital’s façade, compared to the proposed project; this variant would otherwise be identical in terms of development and building envelope to the proposed project. The project site is in the Chinatown Residential and Neighborhood Commercial (CRNC) Zoning District and a 65-N Height and Bulk District. The proposed project would require General Plan referral, General Plan amendments, Planning Code text and Zoning Map amendments to reclassify height and bulk limits and establish SUD boundaries, among other project approvals. The Draft EIR concluded that implementation of the proposed project and its two variants would result in the following project-level and cumulative significant unavoidable environmental impacts: (1) Demolition of the original 1924 Chinese Hospital Building at 835 Jackson Street (i.e. 1924 MAB) under the proposed project would result in significant and unavoidable historic architectural resources impacts on an individual historic resource (the 1924 MAB) and on the NRHP/CRHR-eligible Chinatown historic district, both of which were identified as historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) Construction (i.e. design and development) of the proposed Replacement Hospital on the project site would result in a significant unavoidable historic architectural resources impact on the NRHP/CRHR-eligible Chinatown historic district; (3) Demolition of the 1924 MAB and construction of the Replacement Hospital under the proposed project would also result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant adverse impacts on the NRHP/CRHR-eligible Chinatown historic district; and (4) Construction of the proposed project would generate substantial levels of particulate matter or PM2.5 and other toxic air contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM), that could substantially affect sensitive receptors and this would be a significant and unavoidable air quality-related health risk impact.
Preliminary Recommendation: No action is required. This hearing is for the purpose of receiving Planning Commission and public comment only.
SPEAKERS: Howard Wong
ACTION: Public hearing on DEIR. No action required
11. 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2012)
NOTE: On October 20, 2011, although informational only and no action was required, the Commission continued this item to 12/15/11
NOTE: On December 15, 2011, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 2/9/12 by a vote of (+7 -0).
NOTE: On February 9, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 3/1/12 by a vote of (+6 -0).
NOTE: On March 1, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission took action on a portion of the Ordinance, referred to as Phase One (Clerical Modifications; TDRs; LCUs; Bike Parking; & Signs, Awnings, & Canopies) and continued the remainder of the Ordinance to two separate hearings: 4/5/12 and 4/12/12 by a vote of (+7 -0).
NOTE: On April 5, 2012, without hearing, the Commission continued the 4/5/12 the discussion and possible action to 4/19/12.
NOTE: On April 12, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission continued the discussion and possible action on a portion of the proposed Ordinance (Phase Two) to 5/3/12 by a vote of (+5 -1) and requested that the discussion and possible action of the remainder of the Ordinance (Phase Three) be continued to a later date. For this reason, staff is now requesting that the Phase Three discussion and possible action on the proposed Ordinance be continued to May 17.
SPEAKERS: Jackson True from Supervisor Chiu’s Office, Linda Chapman, Tom Radulovich
ACTION: Approved phase III as modified
AYES: Fong, Wu, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18626
12. 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2012)
NOTE: On October 20, 2011, although informational only and no action was required, the Commission continued this item to 12/15/11
NOTE: On December 15, 2011, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 2/9/12 by a vote of (+7 -0).
NOTE: On February 9, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 3/1/12 by a vote of (+6 -0).
NOTE: On March 1, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission took action on the Embarcadero scenic sign issues and continued the remainder of the matter to 4/12/12 by a vote of (+5 -1); Commissioner Moore voted against and Commissioner Fong was recused.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved staff recommendations for phase III
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 18627
13. 2011.1439DDD (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
2539 VALLEJO STREET – south side between Scott and Pierce Streets; Lot 022 in
Assessor's Block 0561 – Staff and Neighbor Initiated Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.10.05.2357 proposing to extend the first and second floors approximately 13.5’ into the rear yard and to construct a 1-story vertical addition set back approximately 26’ from the front façade of the two-story-over-garage, single-family house within the RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with revisions
SPEAKERS: David Cincotta – representing DR requestor, Craig Campbell, Dan Frattin
ACTION: Took DR and approved with modifications
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Sugaya
ABSENT: Moore
DRA #: 0280
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
None
Adjournment: 5:58 PM
Adopted: June 7, 2012
