New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
&
Calendar
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, February 28, 2013
12:00 PM
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:10 PM.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Michelle Stahlhut, Brittany Bendix, Joy Navarrete, Sara Dennis-Philips, Joshua Switzky, Kimia Haddadan, Rick Crawford and Jonas P. 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. (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY ON TIMING OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION - Discussion and possible action on a Resolution, that would establish Planning Commission policies regarding time frames for the implementation of projects generally requiring Commission approval.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2013)
(Proposed for Continuance to March 14, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as Proposed
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore
ABSENT: Hillis, Sugaya
2. 2009.1082C (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)
194-194(A) SWEENY STREET - northeast corner of Sweeny and Merill Streets; Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 5858 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization for the formation of a new lot of lesser width and lot area and for the new construction of a single family dwelling on the proposed lot per Planning Code Section 121 (f), all within a RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to April 4, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as Proposed
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore
ABSENT: Hillis, Sugaya
3. 2012.1168C (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
793 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - northeast corner of South Van Ness Avenue and 19th Street; Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 3591 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303 to modify the performance period condition of Motion No. 17554 for Case No. 2004.0914CVEK to extend the approval period for two years of a mixed use building consisting of 3,215 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial space, 1,430 square feet of ground floor PDR space and 29 dwelling units within a NC-3 (Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 55-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 24, 2013)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued as Proposed
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore
ABSENT: Hillis, Sugaya
Items 15, 16, and 17 were also considered under the Continuance Calendar.
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
4. 2012.0692C (M. STAHLHUT: (415) 575-9116)
225 30TH STREET - south side of 30th Street between Chenery and Dolores Streets, Lot 063 in Assessor’s Block 6657 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303 for a proposed wireless telecommunications services facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The facility would consist of up to nine antennas and associated equipment on the rooftop penthouse of an existing day-time residential care facility. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 1 Site (Publicly-use Structure Site) within a RH-2 (Residential – House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Tedi Vriheas, Steven Strong, Michelle Carter, Wendy Bean, Mark Ennis
ACTION: After being pulled from Consent, Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Sugaya
MOTION: 18815
5. 2012.1442C (M. STAHLHUT: (415) 575-9116)
795 FOLSOM STREET - southeast corner of Folsom and Fourth Streets, Lot 051 in Assessor’s Block 3751 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 841.93 and 303 for modification to an existing wireless telecommunications services facility operated by AT&T Mobility - The facility would consist of adding four panel antennas to the rooftop penthouse of an existing mixed-use wholly commercial building resulting in a total of 16 panel antennas. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 2 Site (Co-Location Site) within a MUR (Mixed-Use Residential) Zoning District, the Youth and Family Zone Special Use District, and 85-X Height and Bulk District
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 21, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Sugaya
MOTION: 18813
6a. 2012.1459CV (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
3221 20TH STREET - south side, between Treat Avenue and Harrison Streets, Lot 071 in Assessor’s Block 3612 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 185 and 303 to establish a large institutional use (d.b.a. New Door Ventures) of approximately 14,250 gross square-feet within a RH-3 (Residential House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 45-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed change of use does not include any increase in the existing building envelope.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Sugaya
MOTION: 18814
6b. 2012.1459CV (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
3221 20TH STREET - south side, between Treat Avenue and Harrison Streets, Lot 071 in Assessor’s Block 3612 - Request for Variance from Planning Code Section 151 which requires the project to provide an additional 17 parking spaces to establish a large institutional use (d.b.a. New Door Ventures) within a RH-3 (Residential House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 45-X Height and Bulk District. The subject building is legally non-complying in regards to off-street parking requirements of the Planning Code and does not provide any parking.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND INDICATED AN INTENT TO GRANT
7. 2012.1353C (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
975 BRYANT STREET - south side of Bryant Street between Kate and Langton Streets; Lot 044 in Assessor’s Block 3780 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 843.46 and 303 to establish a Formula Retail use (d.b.a. Orchard Supply Hardware) within an existing building of approximately 33,000 square feet within a UMU (Urban Mixed Use) Zoning District and 48-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 14, 2013)
NOTE: On February 14, 2013, following public testimony, the Commission adopted a motion of Intent to Disapprove, and continued the matter to Feb. 28, 2013 by a vote of +5 -2 (Commissioners Fong and Antonini against).
SPEAKERS: Gerry Wolf, Mike Ayers, Jim Meko
ACTION: After being pulled from Consent, Disapproved
AYES: Wu, Borden, Hillis, Moore
NAYES: Antonini, Fong
ABSENT: Sugaya
MOTION: 18816
SPEAKERS ON THE CONTINUANCES: Michelle Carter, Wendy Bean, Mark Ennis
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.
8. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for February 14, 2013
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Sugaya
9. 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:
On a very positive note, I would like to share with the Commission that I walked by
Broderick Street yesterday, Drew, and look at the most stunning example of a vertical garden. Patrick Blanc, you remember a few years ago, not everybody was on the Commission at that time. We approved it with actually not having any precedent in San Francisco and it turned out to be just absolutely beautiful. You should go by there. It is the example of how to do it, if you have the right landscape architect and the right nurseries to provide the type of plants which thrive. It looks fantastic. On another note, my concerns about Chase signage continue. I walked by a very stunning example at the corner of Sutter and Montgomery where I am sure all of us walk, to count 22 Chase signs on the Montgomery and Sutter Street facade. It's a former location of Charles Schwab which was a very kind of discreetly signed, but highly visibly brokerage firm at the corner, happened to be a San Francisco firm, and with Chase now moving in there are 22 signs, 11 on the outside of the façade, where in every column spacing there is one sign. So, as the arcade goes on you have a sign per column spacing and then on the inside between lit signage on the storefront you have the blue ATM's and everything else which comes with it. I would like the Department to put that on the list of things to observe. It is very much not what I think we want or what our Code really prescribes. Lastly this morning I read of a wonderful story. We talked about 150 Otis Street the other day, Veteran’s Common. Apparently the 2540 Mission Street building which is the Medjool building with the roof top garden bar was just adapted to accept about 20 -- I'm not quite sure I’m right about the number, vouchers of veteran’s homes units negotiated by former Supervisor Dufty and I think that is a wonderful and positive thing to share with each other. It’s described in today’s paper if anyone wants more detail on that.
Commissioner Antonini:
I read with interest about the story regarding, I think it was the chairperson of Yahoo that ask that employees not work from home anymore and in the future begin having to go to their campus to work. And being in the line of work I am, it's pretty impossible for anyone to work from home so I really can't comment on -- unless they're equipped and want the patients go to their homes. I can't really comment on tech businesses, however, but it seems to me that in a creative type of atmosphere you would want as much interaction as possible between employees face-to-face and you can multi-task more and network and do a lot of things that aren't easy to do if you're all at different locations and the other thing I would suggest being a San Francisco resident, and having a business here, would be, as we know many of the employees at a lot of these companies are San Francisco residents and have to commute to the campuses and I think we see the results of these with the buses and other things going through the City, but it might be wise for some of these companies, and I think we're beginning to see more of it, to relocate many of their workforce to San Francisco or their whole operation and it seems to be working well for Salesforce, Yelp, Twitter, Zynga and other companies that are here in San Francisco, and they're starting to find out you don't need the campus. You can have people in properly built vertical environments and still be just as productive as you are in a campus. It is kind of a disadvantage because there is no public transportation. Everyone is sort of locked in there more or less figuratively during the course of the day and probably it’s not as good as it could be, but that is my personal opinion. I'm not making a decision for any of these firms, but makes sense wasting an hour each way a day for everybody to commute to the campus from San Francisco or not everyone, but a significant part of your workforce could be better spent in more productive ways.
D. DIRECTOR’S REPORT
10. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Good afternoon Commissioners the one announcement I have for today, is the Supplemental Budget request we had before you a couple of weeks ago, will be in front of the Budget and Finance Committee next Wednesday at 11:00 A.M.. We will be presenting similar presentations to what we gave you. We have been working with the Board’s Budget Analyst on the details of that and hope to have final agreement before then, but we will try to move forward as quickly as possible after that hearing to get the full Board approval, so that we can move forward and hire those eight positions that we proposed in that Supplemental.
11. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
- On Jan 28, the LU Committee considered an amendment to the Subdivision Code, sponsored by Supervisor Farrell and co-sponsored by Supervisor Wiener. Since this hearing, members of the Board have engaged the public and stakeholders in negotiations to potentially revised the proposal. Only two members of the public spoke prior to the continuance, in this case the committee heard articulate comments on both sides of the issue. With that the item was continued to March 11, 2013.
- Western SoMa Community Plan Ordinances. This Commission held hearings in the fall of last year and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the Board on December 6th. This commission made several changes adjusting things such as 1) the zoning on parts of 11th Street to allow new nighttime entertainment and prohibit new housing—this provision was kept by the LUC, 2) this Commission created a grandfathering provision for a residential project on11th Street on that corridor—this provision was removed by LUC because Sup Kim's office is coordinating negotiations with the property owner and entertainment community to change the project from residential to commercial/office; 3) this commission recommended changing the zoning for several properties and two minor planning code changes to ensure compliance with the City Charter as amended by Prop C--no changes were made to this at committee), 4) you changed the benchmark for land use flexibility in certain historic buildings—this provision was kept by LUC; 5) you added an objective and policy to the land use chapter of the WSoMa Area Plan to acknowledge the need for continued planning under the Center Corridor process( again this provision was kept by the LUC; 6) and lastly you asked that the BOS "explore" a legitimization program for WSoMa similar to Eastern Neighborhoods (no legitimization program adopted by LUC).
At LU Committee, there was approximately 1.5 hrs of public comment. During the hearing Sups Wiener and Chiu were concerned about the "tradeoff" of less impact fees (especially the portion that goes towards transit) for higher affordability rates in "Major Residential Developments", 2) Sup Wiener concerned about grandfathering the residential project on 11th Street due to its potential impacts on surrounding entertainment venues, 3) All of the Committee Supervisors were unclear about the impacts of grandfathering the AAU site as related to the current discussions for a potential development agreement between AAU and the City.
Regarding this last item, the Committee added a grandfathering provision for AAU’s 601 Brannan Street site, while asking for more info from staff which may result in the removal of this provision next week. The impact fee discussion resulted in a new amendment from Supervisor Wiener to change the impact fee and affordable housing mechanism for “Major Developments.” Projects here would now pay full Tier 2 residential impact fees, and provide Tier A affordability instead of paying the higher affordable housing fees proposed in Tier B. This would provide for increased affordability in these projects (but not at levels as high as proposed by the Commission). This change would also ensure no loss of impact fees. These amendments are still up in the air as the Committee stated that they may rescind some of the provisions after hearing from our Department on the following items:
1. A capacity and development projection analysis for the “Major Development” sites within WSoMa (Wiener and Chiu).
2. Information on how this impact fee/affordable housing mechanism have worked so far in UMU (Chiu).
3. How the grandfathering issue will or will not impact the larger negotiations with AAU regarding an overall development agreement (All).
The Committee expressed a desire to move this item out of Committee next week if possible.
· Central Subway Extraction Site SUD. This ordinance would allow the demolition of the Pagoda theater so that the Central Subway Boring Machine could be removed from underground and it would allow the rebuild of the building with a project previously approved by the Commission. You approved this ordinance and the associated CU authorization on 2/14/13. At LU Committee, there was about 30m of public comment. The public discussed issues such as preparation of EIR addendum versus Supplemental EIR; costs and disruption of removal of boring machine versus leaving it underground; adequacy of measures for dewatering of the site during construction and other construction-related impacts; and assurances that the newly constructed project would not exceed the height of the existing building. President Chiu asked SFMTA staff to clarify the technical/engineering issues, and asked Planning staff to confirm that the newly constructed project would not exceed the height of the existing building. As you’ll remember, both the CU conditions and the SUD require preparation of a detailed roof height survey of the existing building, and specify that the new building may not exceed the height of the roof profile of the existing building at any point). With that the Committee recommended approval. The item was sent to the Board for Tuesday’s hearing where it was unanimously approved.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
- Also, on Tuesday, the Full Board hearing, the Board of Supervisors voted to approve on FINAL reading Supe. Weiner’s Ordinance that would modify the Car Share parking controls. If you recall, this Commission heard this item on December 6, 2012 and voted unanimously for approval with modifications. Supervisor Weiner did integrate the Commission’s recommendations into the Ordinance. The Supervisor has also scheduled a meeting with the Planning Department and the MTA to discuss possible enforcement for parking regulations in the Planning Code by SFMTA.
- The Board made two appointments to the HPC: Aaron Hyland and Diane Matsuda.
INTRODUCTIONS: We have a host of new introductions.
· 130184 60 Day Extension for the 1111 8th Street SUD Art & Design [BF 111278]
· 130174 60 Day Extension for Avalos Conversion, Merger Demo Ord [BF 130041]
· 130182 Police Code Amendment from Supervisor Wiener that would to clarify permit requirements and procedures, as well as to expand suspension, citation, and enforcement provisions regarding Entertainment Commission and Place of Entertainment permits, including changes to the Limited Live Performance Permit such as allowing DJs and expanding this permit to include outdoor spaces; amending the Administrative Code to clarify fee setting and reporting procedures. As this item is a Police Code amendment, it will not be brought before this commission, unless the Commission or President requests a hearing on this item.
· 130180 Pre-Application Meetings in Product/Distribution/Repair-1-B Districts. This ordinance introduced by Supervisor Cohen would amend the Planning Code to require pre-application meetings for certain projects in the this district. This item will be brought before this body within 90 days.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Board of Appeals did not meet last night, but there were actually two items that I wanted to report from last week’s hearing. The first being 2065 Oakdale Avenue, I had mentioned this to the Commission in January. The Board of Appeals upheld the permit as a PDR-1B property and they sought to reduce the size of the building, but there were concerns from the neighbors about how they were doing the work and that they weren’t doing proper mitigations to the site for air quality issues, so there is an appeal from the neighborhood on that. The Board upheld the permit, but they did have a condition to do a soil study. There was a rehearing request on the permit and in the rehearing request the appellant noted some facts where only a day over two after the Board of Appeals hearing the Project Sponsor continued work, removed paint, that was probably lead paint without proper containment and also was doing additional demolition within the building. A Building Inspector was called out, they tried to make entry to the premises, they were barred from entry and they were intimidated, so the Police Department was called, and responded to the scene. An additional Notice of Violation was issued this was all reported to the Board of Appeals last week. The Board of Appeals felt there were significant issues with this permit and they voted unanimously to allow the rehearing request, which has been scheduled for April 10th. One other item was at 26th and Taraval it was a building permit for a tenant improvement, it was actually a change of use that was not routed to Planning. It was going from a personal service use to a business and professional service use. There was an appeal on the building permit as well as related mechanical and plumbing and electrical permits. As a result, each side had 28 minutes to present their case; because you are given 7 minutes for each of appeal you have, so it was quite a lengthy hearing that evening. One of the issues, this was in the new Taraval NCD that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors had adopted, and at the time it was before you we made a recommendation regarding the use categories because if you look at business and professional service use in the table it says principally permitted, but if you look at the Street Frontage Controls it's not considered active commercial ground for use, so it's not allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial District, only with a conditional use authorization. We had wanted to use more explicit… It was the recommendation of the Department, of this Commission, however the Board of Supervisors did not accept that change so the table does have this…It can be quite confusing where it looks as if it’s principally permitted, but in reality it is a conditional use authorization, so this was pointed out to the parties last week. When we became aware of this we requested that the Board of Appeals actually deny the permit because it needed the conditional use authorization if they were to relocate there. The Board continued the item to allow them to provide additional information item because now they're arguing they're a financial service use given how they operate. They're an insurance company, but they said they also offer financial services. So the Board continued that for more information and that's all I have to report.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
No Report
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. However, for items where public comment is closed this is your opportunity to address the Commission. With respect to all other 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: Linda Chapman, Jeffrey Liebowitz, Gerry Wolf
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
After being pulled off Consent, Items 4, and 7 were considered under the Regular Calendar.
12. 2012.0718E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 575-9040)
Event Center and Mixed-Use Development at Piers 30-32 and Seawall Lot 330 - Blocks/Lots: Piers 30-32 - 9900/030 & 9900/032, Seawall Lot 330 - 3770/002 & 3771/002 - Informational Item, GSW Arena LLC (GSW) proposes to construct a multi-purpose event center, public open space, maritime uses, a parking facility and visitor-serving retail uses on Piers 30-32. The event center would host the Golden State Warriors NBA basketball team during the NBA season, as well as provide a year-round venue for a variety of other uses, including concerts, cultural events, family shows, conferences and conventions. The project would include substantial repair and structural upgrades to Piers 30-32. GSW also proposes to construct a mixed-use development including residential, hotel and retail uses on Seawall Lot 330, located directly across The Embarcadero from Piers 30-32.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational Only
SPEAKERS: Jen Matz, MOEWD, David Alumbaugh, Jeffrey Liebowitz, Kevin Carroll, Rebecca Pew, Sara Biglar, Rob Graham, Dale Reinhardt, Danny Campbell, Anthony Urbina, Jim Lazarus, Gayle Cahill, Sue Hestor, David Cincotta, Jessie Blonte, Erin Miller
ACTION: None - Informational
13. (S. DENNIS-PHILIPS: (415) 558-6314)
CITYWIDE GROWTH DISCUSSION - Informational Item - Plan Bay Area, the Bay Area’s draft Sustainable Community Strategy, projects 92,000 housing units and 190,000 jobs for San Francisco by 2040, and expects this growth to be planned in high density, transit served locations. Staff will provide an overview of the City’s likely growth in coming decades, and its efforts to plan for that growth, as background and context for the Central Corridor planning effort.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational Only
SPEAKERS: John Elberling, Tameka Moss, Jamie Whitaker, Sue Hestor
ACTION: None - Informational
14. (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)
CENTRAL CORRIDOR PLAN - Informational Update on the planning process to create an integrated community vision for the Central Subway corridor in the South of Market area. The Plan area is generally bounded by Market, Townsend, 2nd and 6th Streets. Since the conclusion of the community workshop series and Commission presentation in summer 2012, staff has been working to refine plan concepts into a Draft Plan. The Draft Plan document for public review is scheduled to be published in March with environmental review commencing shortly thereafter. This update presentation will discuss the draft proposed land use and height scenarios, and other key aspects of the Draft Plan that will be analyzed in the EIR, as well as next steps for continued community engagement. Information on the plan process is available at http://centralcorridor.sfplanning.org.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational Only
SPEAKERS: John Elberling, Sue Hestor
ACTION: None - Informational
15. 2011.0397T (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
BICYCLE PARKING ORDINANCE - The proposed Ordinance would amend (1) the San Francisco Planning Code by repealing existing Sections 155.1 through 155.5 in their entirety, adding new Sections 155.1 through 155.4; to revise the bicycle parking standards; (2) the San Francisco Planning Code by renumbering Sections 430 to 431 and adding a new Section 430 that allows portions of bicycle parking requirements to be satisfied with an in lieu fee; (3) the San Francisco Planning Code Section 145 to define bicycle parking as an active use; (4) the San Francisco Planning Code Sections 102.9, 155(j), 157.1, 249.46 and 307; (5) the San Francisco Environment Code Section 402 to revise cross-references to the San Francisco Planning Code; and would (6) make 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. The Planning Commission initiated this legislation on August 9th, 2012 and held an informational hearing on December 13, 2012.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 21, 2013
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore
ABSENT: Hillis, Sugaya
16. 2013.0109T (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING CODE, SECTION 604, TO PROVIDE THAT CHANGING THE COPY ON A SIGN SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A NEW SIGN [BOARD FILE NO. 12-1199] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Chiu amending Planning Code Section 604, to provide that changing the copy on a sign shall not be treated as a new sign; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan; and 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 March 7, 2013
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore
ABSENT: Hillis, Sugaya
17. 2013.0003D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
35 LA GRANDE AVENUE - east side between Avalon Avenue and Burrows Street; Lot 042 in Assessor’s Block 5963 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2012.0720.5437, proposing to construct a new three story single-family dwelling on a vacant lot. The new dwelling will be setback nine feet nine inches from the front property line. The proposed third floor will be setback 15 feet from the front wall of the lower stories within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review for New Construction.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 21, 2013
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore
ABSENT: Hillis, Sugaya
3:30 PM
18a. 2011.0038CEKVX! (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)
250 FOURTH STREET - northwest corner of Fourth and Clementina Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 3733 - Request for Determination of Compliance, pursuant to Planning Code Section 309, with exceptions to the requirements for "Reduction of Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 Districts" (Section 148) and “Tour Bus Loading” (Section 162). The proposed project would demolish the existing two-story-over-basement, approximately 30-foot tall, 31,200-sf office/educational building, occupied by Olivet Theological University, and would construct a new, 11-story, 78,000 gsf, 220-room tourist hotel building, including 4,265 sq. ft. of ground-floor restaurant/bar space. The project site is located within a C-3-S (Downtown Support) Zoning District, SOMA Youth and Family Special Use District and 130-L Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to April 4, 2013
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
18b. 2011.0038CEKVX! (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)
250 FOURTH STREET - northwest corner of Fourth and Clementina Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 3733 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 216(b), 249.40A and 303 to allow up to 220 tourist hotel guestrooms with ground-floor restaurant and bar. The proposed project would demolish the existing two-story-over-basement, approximately 30-foot tall, 31,200-sf office/educational building, occupied by Olivet Theological University, and would construct a new, 11-story, 78,000 gsf, 220-room tourist hotel building, including 4,265 sq. ft. of ground-floor restaurant/bar space. The project site is located within a C-3-S (Downtown Support) Zoning District, SOMA Youth and Family Special Use District and 130-L Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to April 4, 2013
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
18c. 2011.0038CEKVX! (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)
250 FOURTH STREET - northwest corner of Fourth and Clementina Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 3733 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 145.1 to allow a reduced percentage of transparent frontage on Clementina Street as well as non-active uses within the first 25 feet of building depth on the ground floor. The proposed project would demolish the existing two-story-over-basement, approximately 30-foot tall, 31,200-sf office/educational building, occupied by Olivet Theological University, and would construct a new, 11-story, 78,000 gsf, 220-room tourist hotel building, including 4,265 sq. ft. of ground-floor restaurant/bar space. The project site is located within a C-3-S (Downtown Support) Zoning District, SOMA Youth and Family Special Use District and 130-L Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 31, 2013)
WITHOUT HEARING, ACTING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED TO APRIL 4, 2013
19. 2013.0123D (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
3450 THIRD STREET - Units 2A and 2B - west side, between Cargo Way and Custer Avenue, Lots 032 and 033 in Assessor’s Block 5211 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2012.12.13.6169 and 2012.12.13.6171 to establish a 17,014 square-foot social service and outpatient medical clinic (d.b.a. the Child Advocacy Center and the Center for Youth Wellness) within a PDR-2 Zoning District, the India Basin Industrial Park Special Use District and 65-J Height and Bulk District. The proposal does not result in any expansion of the physical building and pertains solely to the change in use.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve the Project as proposed.
SPEAKERS: Dr. Espanola Jackson, Francisco Da Costa, Shirley Smith, Cati H Okorie, Theresa Ballard, Sala Uquia, Lila Nelson, Veronica Shepurd, Dr. Nadine Burke, Katie Albright, Sharon Ameproso, Beavulen Latimore, Lottie Titus, Mildred Clark, Linda Moore, Jr Tagata, Renecia Threadgill, Adrianne Vandercourt, Christina Sandoval, Janelle Pierce, Michael Francis, Omar Khalif, Careltta Jackson
ACTION: No Discretionary Review, Approved as proposed
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
DRA No: 0310
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 6:59 PM – In Honor of Bill Wycko
Adopted: March 14, 2013
