New Page 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
Thursday, April 18, 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 12:11 PM.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Timothy Johnston, Steve Smith, Aaron Starr, Sharon Young, Rick Crawford, Delvin Washington and Jonas P. Ionin - Acting Commission Secretary.
A. 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
1. 2011.1369C (O.MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
3682 18th STREET - on the northeast corner of 18th Street and Dolores Street, Lot 027 in Assessor’s Block 3578 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 710.83 and 303 for a proposal to install a wireless telecommunications services facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The facility would consist of installing four panel antennas on the roof within faux vent pipes with equipment located within the basement. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 6 Site (Limited Preference Site) within a NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, Cluster) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 11, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18845
B. COMMISSION 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.
2. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for April 4, 2013
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
3. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Sugaya:
I heard that Equity Office was asking the Port about turning the plaza in the rear of the Ferry Building into a parking lot. There was a long e-mail that I saw from Tom Radoulovich, stating why he thought that is was not a good idea, if we could get out a memo or something on the status.
Commissioner Moore:
I've been receiving questions from the public who are following the discussions about regional and local growth. The particular question people are asking me about is to see more of the background, which leads to the projections in order to understand in which categories of labor of employment we're seeing this growth as distinguished by office, service industry, industrial or whatever. Can we get more background, including where the data comes from?
Commissioner Borden:
I wanted to alert members of the public that this is my last Commission meeting until May 16th. I will be spending 3 weeks in Fresno for a Smarter Cities Challenge Grant and my day job for IBM. We have a three year initiative where we have gone into at the end of the year, we have gone into a hundred cities around the world, 50 in growth markets, 50 in mature markets, doing a 3 week engagement where we work with cities on problems that the mayor and city leadership have identified, the goal is to, within that timeframe, help them get to a road map on how to achieve success and what is really actually fascinating, is that in Fresno it’s around economic development and revitalization, and one of the key kind of launching points for them was the revision of their general plan, in which they prioritized development in downtown Fresno and the preservation of farm and agricultural land, which is very vital, and they actually feed 1/3 of the world from the products produce in that region. And so they're really trying to hold this focus on growing and developing their downtown. How do they bring jobs and industry to downtown? That city experiences about 19 percent unemployment and the region itself has 40 to 50 percent unemployment. So they have a lot issues that they are trying to tackle, but I see land use as one the critical portions there, and they have been so serious, but the City has actually sued some municipalities on approved development on farmland because it’s against the general plan has set out for them. Very excited, and if you want to see and learn more about it, there will probably be news about it in the Fresno Bee and other sources in that region. I am excited to work on that project and disappointed that I won't be with you for the next three weeks.
Commissioner Antonini:
Listening to Commissioner Borden’s comments, and having been to Fresno, it is definitely a City that would benefit from some sort of densification. Because like many cities, particularly in the west, they just continue to spread further and further into very valuable farmland around it that was used because rather than going up, it just went out. You could drive on the same street for probably two hours and still be in Fresno, so I think that's a good thing for preserving the environment with that kind of an attitude in trying to centralize their activities a little bit more and also their residents. I also want to thank staff, particularly the staff member who assembled it who’s name I unfortunately left at home, but she did a magnificent job on the Central Sunset Historical Survey, which we got last week, and really gave us a history of that area. The 4 major builders which were Doelger, Gellert, Rousseau and Galli Brothers, I guess, and there were quite a few others and she goes into the great detail of the different builders and shows examples of their products and realizing what a wonderful thing they did when they developed those homes, it's a formula we, maybe, should look at today. Where people wanted individualized homes for themselves, a place to park their car it doesn't have to be extravagant, it doesn’t have to be huge but they want the individual residence and they like a little backyard and front yard. So hopefully, we will be able to create more Sunset type of development within San Francisco where it is appropriate because it certainly helped us in the 20’s and 30's and 40s when they were first built
4. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Good afternoon Commissioners, Commissioner Antonini that was Mary Brown who wrote that report and I think we all agree she did a great job on that report and it is a good model for other similar context statements. Several items you have in your packet today a short memo from Keith DeMartini and Tom DiSanto about the Budget Supplemental. If you recall, you had approved a request for a Supplemental for this fiscal year. About 3.2 million and what was approved by the Board was 2.8 million, which include those 8 FTE’s that we would funded over a two and a quarter year period. The way that was structured was to primarily deal with the current backlog situation and then some other one time expenditures to help improve our efficiency and some guidelines and so on. Next year's budget, which you approved a couple of months ago is still in the Mayor's Budget Office they are compiling all the budgets from the various departments and will be submitting next year's budget request to the Board on June 1st. Secondly, I'm happy to say and I think you’ve seen the report that we won two awards for the America’s Cup EIR at their annual conference which is the Association of Environmental Professional Conference in L.A.. We won two awards along with the consultant for that, which were Environmental Science Associates and Orion Environmental Associates for the America's Cup, Joy Navarrete, who worked on that project went down to accept the award on behalf of the Department. Thirdly, you had asked a few weeks ago about MTA’s plans on Polk Street and we got an update from the staff on that. They are looking at a number of alternatives, some which, all of which include some bike lanes, but also include other safety measures on Polk Street. They will be having two more rounds of public hearings one in April and one in May. The April meetings are scheduled and they are April 27th which is a Saturday from 10 to 1 and Tuesday the 30th, from 5 to 8:30 at the First Congregational Church. What I am told, is that there are a range of options being considered to improve safety. Parking removal would be necessary in order to fit some pedestrian and the bike safety upgrades, but none of the alternatives would remove all of the parking. So, they are looking at alternatives that would remove some parking, improve safety conditions for pedestrians and for bicycles along Polk Street. We can certainly ask MTA staff to give you more details on that issue, if you would like. Lastly, I just want to report that I returned last night from the National Planning Conference which happened in Chicago. Very interesting conference, it was very well-attended almost six thousand attendees. I think it is a bit of a sign of the economy improving and also the attraction of the City. I spent a fair amount of time with my counterparts of other cities, comparing notes, and looking at regulations. It's interesting to note that the City of Chicago which of course, I believe is still the third largest City in the Country has essentially eliminated their Planning Department. Under the current and previous Mayor, they're down to seven people and they are housed within the Department of Housing and Economic Development. They review some larger projects and are trying to move forward with some plans, but Chicago is known as the “City of Big Shoulders” could build very big buildings in a very short timeframes. It's very interesting to compare notes. And while the amount of development happening in Chicago is actually for that City less than what's happening here, there's a tremendous amount of growth that is happening along the city. Interestingly enough it is a city that has lost population. It lost 160,000 people in the last census. So, there is a bit of a paradox going on between what is happening downtown and along the lakefront both north and south, and between that and what is happening in the west and south sides where development is not happening. Where there is still some disinvestment happening and out- migration happening. So it's a very curious, sort of paradox between one side of town and the other that's happening in Chicago right now. We also, when my colleagues and I from another cities, got together we sometimes compare notes about certain issues and we were comparing notes on parking regulations. And while New York was not in the room the cities that were there, we were the only City that actually had parking maximums, which I was a little surprised to find out. Most cities have removed their parking minimums and are looking at the idea doing maximums, and looking at transportation demand management programs. So it's always helpful to look at these comparisons. We're organizing a brown bag at staff, which we certainly invite you to, that staff will make presentation about various sessions that they went to as well.
5. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
BF 120901 Upper Market Zoning. The draft Ordinance had three components:
1. Conversion from NCD to NCT: The proposed Ordinance would convert much of the existing Upper Market NCD to the Upper Market NCT district.
2. Height Change: The proposed Ordinance would amend the Height and Bulk Classification of Block Number 3563, Lot 034 from 50-X to 65-B.
3. Food Processing: The proposed Ordinance would also amend Planning Code Section 703.2(b) to allow a food processing use (as defined in Planning Code Section 790.54(a)(1) currently located on the west side of Noe Street between 16th Street and Beaver Street on the ground floor to legally operate as an accessory use to a non-residential establishment located within 300 feet of the food processing use. This would only be allowed if the food processing use is set back a minimum of 15’ from the front property line. This use would be subject to the noticing requirements set forth in Planning Code Section 312(d) and (e). This provision would be repealed after one year.
On February 21, 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval with modifications of this proposal as follows:
1. That the Upper Market NCD (Planning Code Section 721.1) be eliminated in its entirety and replaced by the Upper Market NCT (Planning Code Section 733.1.T recommendation was not incorporated by Supervisor Wiener as he must recuse himself from rezonings within a close distance of his home.
2. The minor technical amendments recommended by this commission were incorporated..
In addition, please note that Supervisor Wiener amended the draft Ordinance such that the new height proposed for existing gym at market & noe is 62-B, rather than 65-B. This is based on the agreement reached between the project sponsor and community stakeholders for the specific project that will be proposed for the parcel.
During the hearing speakers were at the hearing to express support for the draft Ordinance – and specifically for the change that would allow Café Flore to legalize it’s accessory, off-site kitchen.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
- BF 121065: Polk Street Tobacco and Alcohol Controls. This week the Full Board passed this ordinance on first reading. The Planning Commission recommended approval with modifications at the March 14th hearing. The revised legislation reflects some (not all) of the recommendations of the Planning Commission:
1. You recommended removing the Tobacco Paraphernalia restriction from the Polk Street NCD – recommendation was not incorporated.
2. PC sought to modify several controls within the proposed Lower Polk Alcohol RUD, most of which were included in the revised ordinance. However, the major recommendation-- that the ban on new bars and liquor stores be modified was not changed.
The following recommendations of the PC were incorporated:
a. Remove the requirement that Restaurants with Type 47 or 49 liquor licenses close by midnight.
b. Require that restaurants continue food service until closing.
c. Modify the proposed abandonment period for existing liquor establishments such that liquor establishments are considered an abandoned use if the use has been discontinued 3 years or more; The abandonment period was increased to but only to 1 year.
d. Add a sunset provision for the proposed Lower Polk Alcohol Restricted Use District so that the provisions of the district would expire after three years. The amended legislation includes a 5 year sunset provision.
This ordinance requires one more reading at the Board for final passage.
- The items related to CPMC were before the Board for disapproved this week. As you’ll recall this Commission has initiated new General Plan amendments that respond to the agreement betweent he City & CPMC. These new ordinances have been scheduled to be before this Commission on May 23.
- Items that were adopted this week on Final Read include:
- Mayor Lee’s Ordinance establishing the City Hall Preservation Fund
- Board President Chiu’s Ordinance allowing TDR transfers across all C-3 districts.
INTRODUCTIONS: None.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
No Report
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
I'm here to give you a brief summary of yesterday’s Historic Preservation Commission Hearing. The Architectural Review Committee met yesterday prior to the HPC hearing. At the Committee they nominated Andrew Wolfram, Vice-President as chair and then continued a review of a proposed San Francisco Ferry Terminal expansion. This includes constructing three new ferry terminal berths behind and adjacent to the ferry terminal, a public plaza in between the agricultural building and the ferry terminal building and then some canopies for public queuing areas. In response to Commissioner Sugaya’s previous comment during Commissioner Comments and Questions, tthe proposed project at this time does not include any parking area adjacent to or near the ferry terminal building. The Committee’s comments were concerns about the project, were largely around the comparability or lack of compatability of the canopy structures and the project team will come back to the ARC to address some of those issues at a future Committee hearing date. I also wanted to point out that due to the Statewide Historic Preservation Conference in Southern California, the first week in May, a number of Planning Department staff will also be at that Conference, the HPC hearing on May 1st, has been cancelled. At the full HPC hearing, the Commission nominated and elected Bob Cherny, a former Landmarks Advisory Board member and historian, as their representative to the Historic Preservation Fund Committee. The Commission then only had one entitlement on their calendar which was the major permit to alter for 135 Powell Street. This is to replace part of a damaged cornice on the property, in anticipation of a new Walgreens flagship store to open later in May. And finally President Hasz and myself gave an update to the Commission and members of the public on the condition of the Shipwright’s Cottage at 900 Innes. Myself along with members of the community attended a site visit and examined the building last week, along with a contractor that has been working pro-bono on the project. The contractor is going to provide a list of the priorities and recommendations for the rehabilitation of the building for the property owner and the community and an architect for the San Francisco Architectural Heritage does have some potential funding sources for the rehabilitation work. We’ll update you on those efforts and the results of the report, once we receive it.
D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. 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: John Elberling
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
6. (J. RAHAIM: (415) 558-6411)
UCSF LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Informational presentation - on the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) UCSF is preparing a new LRDP to guide physical development at its campus sites through the year 2035. UCSF will provide an overview of plans under consideration for its campus sites, community participation in the planning process and upcoming schedule milestones.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: None - Informational
7. 2008.1122E (T. JOHNSTON: (415) 575-9035)
SFPUC GROUNDWATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The project is located in the North Westside Groundwater Basin, which is within the larger Westside Groundwater Basin underlying parts of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Project facilities would be constructed in the Sunset District of San Francisco and in Golden Gate Park. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing a project that seeks to provide an average of four million gallons per day (mgd) of groundwater to San Francisco’s municipal water supply. Groundwater would be blended with San Francisco’s existing municipal water supply system for distribution within San Francisco. The project consists of the construction and operation of six potable groundwater well facilities—two that would be converted from existing irrigation well facilities and four that would be newly constructed. Each facility would include a groundwater production well and a pump station. The SFPUC would also construct a distribution system (including pipelines and connection points) that would connect five of the well facilities to Sunset Reservoir; the sixth well would connect to the existing Lake Merced Pump Station, and would require a short length of distribution piping to make this connection. The groundwater would be pumped from the North Westside Groundwater Basin, which is located within the larger Westside Groundwater Basin and underlies parts of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. The Draft EIR found that implementation of the proposed project would not lead to significant unavoidable impacts. The project site contains no known hazardous materials as defined under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
NOTE: Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on April 27, 2013.
SPEAKERS: Tim Kennedy
ACTION: Accepted Public Testimony
8. 2011.0123E (S. SMITH: (415) 558-6373)
SFPUC PENINSULA PIPELINE SEISMIC UPGRADE - (PPSU) PROJECT - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the PPSU project, which includes six project components at five different locations on the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County, in the Town of Colma and the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae. The proposed project consists of replacement and stabilization of three Regional Water System water transmission pipelines: San Andreas Pipeline No. 2 (SAPL2), San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3), and Sunset Supply Branch Pipeline (SSBPL). The project would upgrade segments of these pipelines to increase reliability during potential seismic events. The proposed PPSU project is one of several pipeline and facility improvement projects that the SFPUC proposes to implement under the SFPUC’s Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) to meet system objectives and service goals.
NOTE: An additional public meeting will be held on April 16, 2013, at 6:30 PM at the San Bruno Chinese Church, 250 Courtland Drive, San Bruno, CA. Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on April 29, 2013.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Accepted Public Testimony
9. 2013.0281TZ (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING CODE AND ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH THE OUTER MISSION STREET NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT [BOARD FILE NO. 13-0084] - Ordinance amending the Planning Code, by adding a new section, to establish the Outer Mission Street Neighborhood Commercial District along Mission Street between Alemany Boulevard and the San Francisco-San Mateo County line; repealing the Excelsior Alcohol Restricted Use District and adding controls on liquor establishments to the new Neighborhood Commercial District; amending various sections to make conforming and other technical changes; amending the Zoning Map to rezone specified properties to the new Neighborhood Commercial District; and making 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 with Modifications
SPEAKERS: Supervisor Avalos, Shona Gochneur, Sandra Bacon, Theresa Cooper, Dominique Johnson, Mark Dameron, Denise Dorey, Angie Minkin, Tom Bernheim, A. Jon Martinelli, Oscar Islas, Jerry Goodman, Kenneth Lima, Tony Bowles, Caren Woodson, Mel Flores, Jonathan Dyer, Charles Sinfuego, Frank Malonado, Penny Ghram, Michael Goldman, Alex, Steve Courier, Leonard Moreland, Paul Hansbury, Susan Tibbon, Brett Saupe, Stephanie Tucker, Joelle Chameleon, Scott Christian, Barbara Fugate, Steven Crane,
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution Recommending Approval for the new NCD and modifying the proposed controls with respect to MCD’s: Converting the 500’ restriction to a trigger for CU.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Borden, Hillis, Moore
NAYES: Antonini, Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 18846
10. 2012.1507C (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)
919 COLE STREET - west side between Carl Street and Parnassus Avenue; Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 1272 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 703.4, 703.3, 303(c), and 303(i) to establish a Formula Retail Use within a NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert a vacant approximately 813 square foot ground floor commercial space (previously occupied by “Tully’s Coffee”) into another Formula Retail Use (d.b.a. Peet’s Coffee & Tea) and continuing as a Limited Restaurant use.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: (Sharon will provide name)
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Borden, Sugaya
MOTION: 18847
11. 2012.1316C (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)
1501 BAKER STREET (AKA 2600 AND 2606 SUTTER STREET) - northwest corner of Baker and Sutter Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 1054 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 186(g) and 303 to reactivate two vacant ground floor Limited Commercial Use tenant spaces at 2600 and 2606 Sutter Street to establish an approximately 1,850 square-foot personal service establishment (d.b.a. Roots Wellness) within a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: David Angon
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18848
12. 2013.0172C (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
3970 17th STREET - north side between Castro and Noe Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor’s Block 3563 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 721.44, for a change of use from Limited Restaurant to a Restaurant (d.b.a. Pica Pica Maize Kitchen), within the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial District and 65-B Height and Bulk District. The proposed Restaurant will serve beer and wine only and the hours of operation will be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Adriana Bernut, Thomas Carlaccini
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18849
13. 2013.0203DD (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)
3819 21st STREET - south side between Noe and Castro Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 2985 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2012.1221.6784 proposing to construct a three-story, flat roofed, addition to the rear of the existing three-story single-family dwelling within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: Barbara Barnard, Veronique Farmont, Bob Yale, Judith Hoyen, Michael Levitt,
ACTION: Took DR and required the ground floor rear horizontal addition on the west side be set back as agreed to with neighbor
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
NAYES: Wu
DRA No: 0313
F. 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: 5:37 PM
Adopted: May 2, 2013
