To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

January 15, 2009

January 15, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, January 15, 2009

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:42 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Kevin Guy, Glenn Cabreros, Ben Fu, Carrie Dovzak, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

  • 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. 2008.0720C (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)

988 Valencia Street - west side between Liberty and 21st Streets, Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 3608 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 703.3, and 703.4 to establish a formula retail use (dba American Apparel) in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District. The subject property is within a 50-X Height and Bulk District and is a contributing resource to the Liberty-Hill Historic District designated under Article 10 of the Planning Code. No building expansion is proposed.

(Proposed for continuance to February 5, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

2. 2007.1269C (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9089)

3398 22Nd street - northeast corner at Guerrero and 22nd Streets, Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 3617 - Request for Conditional Use (CU) authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 145.2, 303 and 710.26 to legalize a walk-up facility (ATM), dba "Swipe USA", that is not recessed 3-feet from the property line, in an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) Zoning District with an 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 6, 2008)

(Proposed for continuance to February 5, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

3a. 2006.0826CV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1946 Polk Street (AKA 1591 Pacific Avenue) - southeast corner at Pacific Avenue, Lot 024 of Assessor's Block 0596 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow development on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet, to reduce parking requirements, and to grant an exception to bulk requirements. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story retail building and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story mixed-use building containing approximately 39 dwelling units, approximately 38 parking spaces, and approximately 2,300 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

(Proposed for continuance to January 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

3b. 2006.0826CV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1946 Polk Street (AKA 1591 Pacific Avenue) - southeast corner at Pacific Avenue, Lot 024 of Assessor's Block 0596 - Request for a Modification of Rear Yard Requirements within a Neighborhood Commercial District. The proposed project is to demolish an existing 1.5-story retail building and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story mixed-use building containing approximately 39 dwelling units, approximately 38 parking spaces, and approximately 2,300 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider the request for modification of rear yard requirements concurrently with the Planning Commission's consideration of the conditional use authorization at this same hearing.

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of December 11, 2008)

(Proposed for continuance to January 22, 2009)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Borden

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. 2008.0005C (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9089)

439 Bowdoin Street - east side, between Silver Avenue and Silliman Street, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 5918 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121(f) and 303 to subdivide the subject property and establish a lot with less than the required 25-foot width. No alteration is proposed for the existing dwelling unit; however, the proposal includes the demolition of the adjacent detached garage, and construction of a three-story, single family dwelling. The project site is located within an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17800

5. 2008.1150C (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

1348 - 10TH AVENUE- east side between Irving and Judah Streets, Lot 031, in Assessor's Block 1764 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.9(e) and 303 to allow a general office use (dba Guadalupe Associates) in a residential district that will be located within a designated City Landmark, Landmark # 29, Old Fire House Engine 22 in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

Note: Item 5 was removed from the Consent Calendar and heard as a Regular Calendar item

SPEAKERS:

(+) David Cincotta – Representing the Project Sponsor - not sure what the concerns are but is available to respond to questions

(-) Martin Alperen – has concerns about street traffic and noise

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17802

6. 2008.1196C (D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
3085 24th STREET - south side, between Folsom and Lucky Streets, Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 6521 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 727.52 and 303 to allow for the establishment of a personal service use (dba Jasmine Beauty Spa) situated on the second story within the 24th Street - Mission Neighborhood Commercial Transit District and a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17801

C. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

7. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the San Francisco Planning Commission, the President and Vice President of the Commission shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Commission held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the commission at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Ron Miguel was elected President

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

ACTION: Christina Olague was elected Vice President

AYES: Olague, Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

8. 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 Miguel:

- He thanked his fellow commissioners for their confidence in him (to act as President of the Commission). Also thanked Director Rahaim and Secretary Avery for their help over the last few months. He presented immediate past President Olague with a gift.

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. He mentioned that he spoke with Mr. Salinas and Mr. Roka and that the Commission will take the matter up next week.

Commissioner Moore:

  1. We have little or no time to pat ourselves on the back so would like to congratulate Commissioners Miguel and Olague on their elections. The two make a unique pair. The two of them is what we need. The institutional knowledge of Christina Olague is so incredibly valuable that I believe this is a great combination.

Commissioner Olague:

  1. I just want to thank Ms. Avery, Director Rahaim, Mr. Badiner, and others for working with us. I think we have a really excellent commission. We bring broad experience that is represented here and I'm happy to be serving with everyone here. It was a good year. It's rare to see a Latino woman in the type of leadership position that I was able to take on last year. I'm happy I was able to represent women of color in that position. I also wanted to thank former (Board) President Peskin who reappointed me to that position and showed a lot of support for me when I was President last year. There were people in the Mayor's Office who were also very open and we were able to discuss and work on issues over the past year that brought some new integrity to the Commission where we tried to rise above the politics and focus on policy. I think we are a good example of regardless of where your politics are you can still have a lot of respect for each other and work harmoniously and bring about what's best in the areas we represent for the city. We always find a way to rise above our differences and I look forward to continue working together the next couple of years and I hope we continue to do what's best for the city. Thank you all.

Commissioner Lee:

  1. I want to also acknowledge Commissioner Olague. Last year I think we set a record for the number of meetings – over 50 plus meetings. We actually passed through 4 area plans that encompasses a good 40 percent of the city. A lot was very contentious. What is very important about Commissioner Olague, we may differ but we have always gotten along. Commissioner Antonini and I are the only two left from the original Charter change. We all have our quirks, but we work well together. As I go through the history of the Planning Department, nothing has ever been accomplished as much as under the leadership of Christina Olague. Christina, thank you so much. I look forward to the leadership from Mr. Ron Miguel and as long as you listen to Linda Avery I know you'll do well.

Commissioner Sugaya:

  1. There's not too much to add, but congratulations.

Commissioner Moore:

  1. I was going to continue the love fest as well. It's been a real pleasure for me. As everyone knows I am the most recently appointed commissioner. Everyone kept saying  are you crazy for joining the Planning Commission – it's so horrible? But I have to say that it's been an amazing pleasure, especially under the leadership of Christina, and Ron as the vice chair. It's been a wonderful experience, far exceeding my expectations. The feedback you've gotten from the general public as well as from up here is really genuine. We have a mutual respect and admiration for each other even when we don't always agree. Christina always handled this Commission with grace and dignity. I thank both Christina and Ron and I look forward to another year working with this Commission.

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. In keeping with the other comments – I think in my time on the Commission I've served under three other presidents and they all did an excellent job. But I think in keeping with what Commissioner Bill Lee just said, we accomplished more last year than we did in the whole seven years I've been on the Commission and I think a lot of it has to go to Christina Olague. I think she is fair, she is accessible, she is dedicated and most of all she is friendly and I think that is a wonderful person to have. I look forward to working with President Miguel and do even more this year.

Commissioner Sugaya:

  1. I met with Moses Corrette of Planning staff in the Survey Section last night and I received a briefing on the Market & Octavia Survey, which I believe will be coming to the Commission in the future. I would just remind the Commissioners that if they would like to have a briefing on the survey, which has gone through a number of different iterations and has changed a bit since the original survey work was done – and it's still on going – Mr. Corrette is more than willing to do so, and since he works into the evening, he is more than willing do it after hours if you want to take advantage of that.
  2. Secondly, I'm reminded that one of the conditions on the Pacific Telephone building was that the replacement windows would match the existing windows. In talking to the architects and the conservators who worked on the Sutter Street building, which was cited by the project sponsors as an example, they reminded me that those aluminum windows in that building match exactly the steel window profiles. I just want to put that into the record.

Commissioner Borden:

  1. It's a shame that our calendars are slowing down because of the reduction in building permits throughout the city, but one of the things we've talked about is maybe having hearings on neighborhoods throughout the city where maybe we do a deep dive – look at neighborhood commercial (NC) corridors; look at residential corridors - all throughout the city - and have hearings. Bring in the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development to give us the economic development lay-of-the-land; bring in the neighborhood groups and really do a deep dive into a neighborhood. I think it would be great if we started with some of the lesser talked about neighborhoods first and moved our way in to the more popular neighborhoods that we dealt with in the last year. But this is a real opportunity for us to have a great dialogue and bring in the community and talk about what their needs are in all the different neighborhoods and how we can help facilitate some positive growth and development that people would like to see in San Francisco.

Commissioner Moore:

  1. First, I'd like to respond to Commissioner Borden's suggestion because I think in its intent it is a very important one. What I would like to do though is tie that into quadrant leaders and planners who are experts within those general areas so that there is notification between neighborhood groups and Planning (Department) so that they are better prepared. It's not a stand alone conversation. It is a broader informed dialog between all groups
  2. Second, I'd like to talk about the letter we received from Mr. Vettel regarding 3400 Cesar Chavez labor issues and the comments that were made last week in our discussion about the Pagoda Theatre. I assume that everybody read the letter. I just want to make sure that the public knows that indeed labor and hiring practices by Pagoda developer and 3400 Cesar Chavez developer are in line with what the agreements are. That needs to be communicated to commissioners and to the public.

D. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

  1. Director's Announcements

Director Rahaim:

  1. On the budget, we are working to gather the data on the first half of the fiscal year. The Mayor has asked us to submit the budget a little early this year. We have scheduled three hearings before you for the first three weeks in February. During those hearings we will bring the budget to you with our goals for the year.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. Congratulations to both of you and the work you've done over the last year
  2. On Discretionary Review (DR) reform – at the December 11 hearing, we presented the first phase of the DR reform and the Department's thoughts and proposals from that. We heard from the Commission that we should hold further meetings with the neighborhoods to understand any proposals they may have. We have sent out an invitation to neighborhood groups, individuals, stakeholders, interested parties, and the commissioners for a community outreach meeting on Tuesday, February 10 at 6:00 p.m., at our offices, 1650 Mission Street. In that invitation, we solicited any written comments from the public on any specific proposals they may have and on the proposals we put forth. After that meeting, we will synthesize that information, revise our proposal, and hope to come back to you in mid March to tell you what happened at that outreach meeting and present you with more ideas on DR.

10. Review of Past Week's Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

Board of Supervisors reported by Tara Sullivan-Lenane of staff:

  1. There were no sub-committee land use meetings. There has not been a formal Chair announced for the Land Use Committee and that meeting was canceled.
  2. At Tuesday's full Board hearing there were two items related to planning.
  3. The first was a piece of legislation that would change the Planning Code to require a conditional use (CU) to remove any dwelling unit. Right now the code says that any removal up to one or two units is a discretionary review and anything above that requires conditional use. This was introduced by former Supervisor McGoldrick. This Commission recommended disapproval at the October 23rd hearing. It did go to the full Board and the full Board did recommend approval of it. The Mayor did veto this piece of legislation and it was back at the full Board last Tuesday. The veto over ride did fail on a +7 -4 vote. The current code is still in existence – the McGoldrick legislation failed.
  4. The second item before the full Board was an appeal at 299 Valencia Street. It was a CU appeal that this Commission passed on November 6. There were two CU requests at that hearing for this project. One was to allow development on a large lot over 10,000 square feet and the other was for parking spaces. The project is in an NC-2 zoning district and the zoning permits up to .5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. And anything .75 and above requires a CU. You had granted 25 residential spaces. The CU on the parking spaces only was at the full Board. The Board failed to get the 2/3 necessary votes to overturn you. They tabled the item, which allows the project to move forward as you approved it.
  5. There was no new legislation introduced this past week and Land Use is canceled next week.

Board of Appeals as reported by ZA Badiner:

Commissioner Olague

  1. I spoke with some neighborhood activist on the 299 Valencia issue. My sense was that the concern had to do in part with the CU process. There is a desire for us to establish more specific criteria when we apply CU in the Market and Octavia area as it relates to parking. They felt that needed to be strengthened. I don't know what that means. I forget at this point what was adopted ultimately in the Market and Octavia Plan as far as criteria is concerned for CU permits as it relates to parking. My sense in my conversations with the people is that they want to see the CAC with the Board (of Supervisors) and the Department, at some point, discuss what that means.

ZA Badiner responded

  1. I believe there are nine specific criteria. The way that we reviewed it is that the criteria we recommended to the Commission and the Commission said it met the criteria and it was adopted. What I have heard was that there was a focus on the overall CU, for any CU of whether something is necessary and desirable. And I heard there was a desire that there be more discussion of the necessary and desirable of the parking itself than was done in these findings. I think that was one of the arguments that was made.

Tara Sullivan-Lenane

  1. There were two discussions. It was about the overall number of parking spaces. But it did focus on that discussion. The Zoning Administrator is correct, 151.1(f) has nine criteria that the Planning Department must find and on this particular project at 299 Valencia five of the nine findings didn't apply to the project because of its modest size and limited commercial use. There were four findings that did apply to this project; the Department made that case and the Commission found that those four criteria did apply. There was a large discussion about the overall policy issue in terms of the review of these criteria under the new plan... It was interesting because there were comments because the plan was recently passed and it went through a lot of negotiations at the Board level. So there was a lot of larger policy discussion as well. But ultimately it did focus on the additional parking spaces that were permitted via a CU to get to the .75. But the criterion was met.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. Procedural question on  tabling: what happens when something is tabled?

Tara Sullivan-Lenane

  1. This was never really in Committee. I will defer to the City Attorney, but ultimately a CU can only be overturned by the Board by a 2/3 vote. There was a vote of +7 -4. They could not get that additional vote to get the 2/3 vote. So there was a unanimous +11 -0 vote to table the item altogether. Essentially tabling isn't a withdrawal. It's just filing it and won't get taken up. I actually will defer to the  City Attorney for the specifics. But it did get tabled. Which means the project can move forward because the CU was not acted upon and is still valid.

Deputy City Attorney Susan Cleveland-Knowles

  1. is correct in this case that a tabling effectively means that the appeal is denied. But there are other cases at Committee where an item could be tabled and brought back at a later date. But in this instance the appeal is effectively denied.

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:

Jason Henderson

  1. Re: 299 Valencia CU appeal – The Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association is disappointed in what has transpired and feels this is a dead give away of conditional uses.
  2. Something needs to be worked out between the use, which we support, and the feature (excess parking), which we do not support.

Robin Levitt

  1. Thanked the commissioners for their service and congratulated the new officers of the Commission
  2. Re: 299 Valencia -- this CU give away on parking undermines the Market and Octavia plan. We have to come up with some sort of criteria for future projects that come before you for CU for additional parking.

Ernestine Weiss

  1. Congratulated Ron Miguel on being elected President and thanked Christina Olague for all her input.
  2. Please get on with the Ferry Park renovation. It's been going on since October 2007.

Peter Cohen

  1. Re: 299 Valencia – It was a loss that the CAC was not in place and if they had been this project would not have caught the community off guard.
  2. This project sits on two boundaries – Market and Octavia and the Mission. When that happens, the project impacts should be looked at in the context of both plan areas.

Sue Hestor

  1. I want to support Peter, Jason and Robin.
  2. I think there is an unfortunate bifurcation in the Planning Department between environmental review and project review. I don't think anyone looks at the cumulative traffic congestion, because parking equals cars and cars travel on streets. I don't think anyone reads the environmental documents.

Commissioners Borden, Moore, Olague, Antonini, Sugaya, and Lee requested and/or supports a scheduled meeting with representatives of residential building construction, bank financing, and parking. They want to get some understanding of how bank financing impacts what residential or mixed use developers are asking the Commission for (how they affect each other), which should open the door on a more honest dialog on parking that includes a discussion of MUNI, congestion pricing, and an analysis of traffic – how much is from residential in the area and how much is passing through? They would also like staff to keep them informed of when the CAC finally starts meeting and how that is proceeding.

Commissioner Lee

  1. Suggested that the Commission invite Von Bond Yee who runs the Department of Parking and Traffic for the city to provide an overview of where they are because he thinks the commission needs a baseline when they talk about parking and cars.

Director Rahaim

  1. The Department is organizing a briefing on transportation. It will probable take us a couple of months. We are proposing to have MUNI, Department of Public Works, and the Transportation Authority here to talk about a variety of transportation issues. We will schedule a special meeting for that in late March or early April.

Commissioner Olague

  1. That would include MEA right? Because I would really like to understand how they arrive at some of their conclusions when it comes to their analysis of transportation and parking.

  1. REGULAR CALENDAR

11. 2008.1265C (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1424-1428 Bush Street - between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street, Lot 004 of Assessor's Block 0667 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the relocation of an existing non-conforming Adult Entertainment use (dba "Frontlyne Inc.") from 1259 Polk Street (Lot 026 of Assessor's Block 0670) to 1424-1428 Bush Street, within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and the 65-A Height and Bulk District. Minor interior changes are proposed for the property at 1424-1428 Bush Street, however, the exterior of the building will not be altered.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

(+) Henry Silberberg – owner of Frontlyne Inc. and project sponsor – We feel like we've been part of the neighborhood for the last 20 years and hope we can be part of the neighborhood for the next 20 years.

(-) Stuart Smith

  1. I have a young child and we (my wife and I) find that this is neither necessary nor desirable

(-) Jerry Adams, elected member of the Residence Council of the San Francisco Towers, a retirement complex of some 300 people on Van Ness, around the corner from this proposed location

– The Council wishes to remind the Commission that it was the Department that rezoned Van Ness Avenue to a residential use and also provided for ground floor retail. The Council is of the opinion that the move of this retail business selling pornography any closer to Van Ness Avenue would have a negative affect on that zoning as well as to a neighborhood that is increasingly characterized as one of frail, handicapped, and elderly people.

(+) Chris Schulman – Office of Economic Development, Polk Corridor Manager

  1. Frontlyne Inc. has been a very good neighbor for 20 plus years and has strong ties to the neighborhood. If you walk down Polk Street, most people do not know that it is an adult video store.

ACTION: Approved as proposed

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Olague

MOTION: 17803

12a. 2006.1294BKMXZ (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

110 The Embarcadero - west side between Mission and Howard Streets, Lot 002 of Assessor's Block 3715 - Request for Allocation of Square Footage under the Annual Office Development Limitation Program. The proposed project is to demolish an existing office building and to construct a new 10-story over basement building containing approximately 52,890 square feet of office uses, 2,490 square feet of ground floor retail space, 2,670 square feet of rooftop open space, and no parking spaces. The project site is located within the C-3-O Zoning District, and the 84-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2008)

SPEAKERS:

(+) Paul Paradis, Senior Vice President, Hines

  1. We don't have a formal presentation, but want to thank you for working with us over the past weeks. We have eliminated all of the parking as requested and retained a LEED-Platinum rating.

(-) [Name unclear]

  1. We oppose any reduction and/or shadowing of downtown open space.

(-) Nan Roth

  1. Please reconsider your decision to grant a 46 percent height bonus as a reward for a LEED certified building.

(-) Bill Sauro, President, Barbary Coast Neighborhood Association

  1. Go green and get spot rezoning. That is a terrible precedent you will establish with this project.

(-) Diana Taylor

  1. Our neighborhood association has strong opposition to any increase in height along the waterfront and we do support a full EIR.

(-) Katie Hopkins

  1. I'm here to support the staff's original recommendation from November 30, 2008 to disapprove the rezoning of this site because the height increase is in conflict with the current zoning; the proposed design is inappropriate with surrounding buildings; and the new building will cast new shadows on open space.

(-) Kathleen Dooly

  1. It is a dangerous precedent to allow any development along the Embarcadero to have an exemption to the height limit. Developers will be happy to develop their projects as green to get that bonus. We'll end up with Miami Beach down there.

(+) Ernestine Weiss

  1. I live in the area and I'm here to support the project. The building is a jewel box and will enhance the Embarcadero.

(-) Vedica Puri

  1. We are so worried about you approving this because of the spot zoning.

(-) Nancy Shanahan

  1. Follow the Department's original recommendation and disapprove the rezoning of this single site to accommodate this project.

(-) Andy Katz

  1. I am in strong opposition of the rezoning of 110 The Embarcadero from 84 feet to 130 feet. Spot zoning sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the very purpose of the city's Waterfront and General Plans. Please require a full EIR

(-) Paul Wermer

  1. I'm here to speak against the spot rezoning. The Waterfront Plan might be an old document, but it can be reviewed with broad public input and updated if need be. That has not been done.

(-) Dave Osgood, Rincon Center Tenants Association

  1. We oppose this high rise. It is out of place in this special and important area in this city. It is out of scale with the Audiffred building.

(-) Catherine Haydn, resident of Rincon Towers

  1. The current vacant building is an eyesore and something needs to be done and it's nice that a developer is doing something with the space and its wonderful that the parking has been removed. Why does the building have to be so large and why are we going against the city guidelines and policy?

(-) Joe Butler

  1. I urge you not to reclassify 110 The Embarcadero for new bulk and height.

(-) Zach Stewart

  1. We are unique and we should not let developers go against our General Plan

(-)Jan Wood

  1. I oppose this exception to the General Plan and the Waterfront Plan. It's a bad idea to grant this spot zoning.

(-) Jennifer Clary – SF Tomorrow

  1. Offered to take the commission on a tour of the waterfront.
  2. Do not pit the environment against the neighborhood. That is what you would be doing with this project. If you give people a density bonus for LEED buildings, you're going to have a fight between greening the city and over building the city.

(-) P. K. Cannon

  1. This is a project of spot zoning and spot zoning is generally not a good idea.

(-) Gerry Crowley

  1. We ask that you reconsider your decision and require that a full EIR be done for this project.

(-) Brad Paul

  1. An 84 foot tall building with mechanicals is tall enough. I urge you to disapprove this reclassification. This would be a terrible precedent and why? What decisions have they made to make this building so expensive?

(-) Sue Hestor

  1. The rational for the height is the building. That is a rational for spot zoning. It should be what is the context for the heights in the Downtown Plan?

(+) Michael Burk – representing the Project Sponsor

  1. As far as shadow and wind impacts being significant, based on shadow and wind studies in the Mitigated Neg. Dec, they are found not to be significant. As far as inadequate public review, there was public notice of the availability of the Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration and of the underlying studies and anyone who had an interest could review them. This is not spot zoning. This is a single site rezoning. We already have a LEED-Platinum certification and it's in the materials sent to you. We do comply with the Downtown Plan policies.

ACTION: Approved per errata sheet and the following modification read into the record by Commissioner Borden: "Project sponsor shall make best efforts to achieve a LEED-Platinum rating or equivalent. Failure to pursue a LEED-Platinum rating through the construction process shall constitute a significant modification of the project and shall be presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing. If post-occupancy, the project fails to meet a LEED-Platinum rating, the project sponsor shall report to the Planning Commission what measures are necessary to achieve the rating, and shall include a feasibility analysis and timeline of implementing such measures."

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Lee

ABSENT: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17804

12b. 2006.1294BKMXZ (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

110 The Embarcadero - west side between Mission and Howard Streets, Lot 002 of Assessor's Block 3715 - Review under Planning Code Section 295 Regarding Shadow Impacts to Public Parks. The proposed project is to demolish an existing office building and to construct a new 10-story over basement building containing approximately 52,890 square feet of office uses, 2,490 square feet of ground floor retail space, 2,670 square feet of rooftop open space, and no parking spaces. The project site is located within the C-3-O Zoning District, and the 84-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2008)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for 12a.

ACTION: Approved per errata sheet and the following modification read into the record by Commissioner Borden: "Project sponsor shall make best efforts to achieve a LEED-Platinum rating or equivalent. Failure to pursue a LEED-Platinum rating through the construction process shall constitute a significant modification of the project and shall be presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing. If post-occupancy, the project fails to meet a LEED-Platinum rating, the project sponsor shall report to the Planning Commission what measures are necessary to achieve the rating, and shall include a feasibility analysis and timeline of implementing such measures."

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Lee

NAYES: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17805

12c. 2006.1294BKMXZ (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

110 The Embarcadero - west side between Mission and Howard Streets, Lot 002 of Assessor's Block 3715 - Request for a General Plan Amendment to amend certain exhibits of the General Plan to reclassify the subject property from the 84-X to the 130- Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is to demolish an existing office building and to construct a new 10-story over basement building containing approximately 52,890 square feet of office uses, 2,490 square feet of ground floor retail space, 2,670 square feet of rooftop open space, and no parking spaces. The project site is located within the C-3-O Zoning District, and the 84-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2008)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a.

ACTION: Approved per errata sheet and the following modification read into the record by Commissioner Borden: "Project sponsor shall make best efforts to achieve a LEED-Platinum rating or equivalent. Failure to pursue a LEED-Platinum rating through the construction process shall constitute a significant modification of the project and shall be presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing. If post-occupancy, the project fails to meet a LEED-Platinum rating, the project sponsor shall report to the Planning Commission what measures are necessary to achieve the rating, and shall include a feasibility analysis and timeline of implementing such measures."

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Lee

NAYES: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17806

12d. 2006.1294BKMXZ (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

110 The Embarcadero - west side between Mission and Howard Streets, Lot 002 of Assessor's Block 3715 - Determination of Compliance under Planning Code Section 309 (the Downtown Plan), with exceptions to the requirements for "Freight Loading Maneuvering" and "Reduction of Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 Districts". The proposed project is to demolish an existing office building and to construct a new 10-story over basement building containing approximately 52,890 square feet of office uses, 2,490 square feet of ground floor retail space, 2,670 square feet of rooftop open space, and no parking spaces. The project site is located within the C-3-O Zoning District, and the 84-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2008)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a.

ACTION: Approved per errata sheet and the following modification read into the record by Commissioner Borden: "Project sponsor shall make best efforts to achieve a LEED-Platinum rating or equivalent. Failure to pursue a LEED-Platinum rating through the construction process shall constitute a significant modification of the project and shall be presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing. If post-occupancy, the project fails to meet a LEED-Platinum rating, the project sponsor shall report to the Planning Commission what measures are necessary to achieve the rating, and shall include a feasibility analysis and timeline of implementing such measures."

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Lee

NAYES: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

MOTION: 17807

12e. 2006.1294BKMXZ (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

110 The Embarcadero - west side between Mission and Howard Streets, Lot 002 of Assessor's Block 3715 - Request to Reclassify the subject property from the 84-X to the 130- Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is to demolish an existing office building and to construct a new 10-story over basement building containing approximately 52,890 square feet of office uses, 2,490 square feet of ground floor retail space, 2,670 square feet of rooftop open space, and no parking spaces. The project site is located within the C-3-O Zoning District, and the 84-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 4, 2008)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 12a.

ACTION: Approved per errata sheet and the following modification read into the record by Commissioner Borden: "Project sponsor shall make best efforts to achieve a LEED-Platinum rating or equivalent. Failure to pursue a LEED-Platinum rating through the construction process shall constitute a significant modification of the project and shall be presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing. If post-occupancy, the project fails to meet a LEED-Platinum rating, the project sponsor shall report to the Planning Commission what measures are necessary to achieve the rating, and shall include a feasibility analysis and timeline of implementing such measures."

AYES: Miguel, Antonini, Borden, and Lee

NAYES: Olague, Moore, and Sugaya

RESOLUTION: 17808

13. 2008.0743D (G. Cabreros (415) 558-6169

1527 BEACH STREET - south side between Webster and Buchanan Streets; Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 0445A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.11.13.8019, proposing to construct a partial fourth floor within the footprint of the existing two-unit, three-story building to create additional habitable space for the upper dwelling unit in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Prior to the hearing, the DR was withdrawn

14. 2008.0147D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

763 University Street - east side, between Dwight and Olmstead Streets; Lot 056 in Assessor's Block 6131 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.04.13.8788 proposing to modify a previous approval for alteration, by expanding the depth of an existing single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (Residential, House – One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.

SPEAKERS: Note: For DR cases (-) = opposition to the project; (+) = support of the project

(-) Lisa Wong – DR requestor

  1. My house is north and down hill from the project sponsor. The addition will block my southern light for most of the day. I would not be here if the project sponsor had been cooperative and made compromises. None of us received notification of the original project. If we had, we would have asked them to lower and shorten their project. Even without neighbor review/approval, they built their project looking nothing like the city approved drawings. They raised the parapet on the sides, moved the stairs in the rear; and put a parapet in the rear.

ACTION: Took discretionary Review and approved the project with modifications to require the front parapet to rap around the sides for three (3) feet; lower the remaining sides and rear parapets to six (6) inches; one hour fire rated roof; and require light reflective or white paint in light wells and on rear wall

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Antonini, and Borden

NAYES: Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

DRA #: 0057

15. 2006.0203E (C. Dovzak: (415) 575-9030)

San Andreas Pipeline No.3 Installation Project - Public Hearing in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is sponsoring a proposed project that requires the installation of approximately 23,400 feet (4.4 miles) of new pipeline to extend the existing San Andreas Pipeline No. 3 (SAPL3) from the San Pedro Valve Lot (SPVL) in Daly City to Merced Manor Reservoir (MMR) in San Francisco. For approximately half its length, the pipeline would follow the alignment of the Baden Merced Pipeline, which has been taken out of service because of its deteriorated condition. For the other sections of the pipeline, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) has chosen alternative routes to minimize environmental impacts. Where the proposed SAPL 3 alignment differs from the existing BMPL alignment, the BMPL would either be filled with a concrete slurry mixture or would be capped. The alignment follows city streets, except in two locations (the San Francisco Golf Club and the Lake Merced Golf Club). The Project would be constructed using the open-trench method ( cut and cover ) for most of the pipeline and a trenchless ( jack and bore ) method at high-traffic intersections (at John Daly Boulevard and Sheffield Drive in Daly City, at 19th Avenue and Crespi/Holloway Avenue in San Francisco, and at 19th Avenue and Eucalyptus Drive in San Francisco). In addition to the pipeline main, the Project also includes the installation of crossover pipelines, five customer service connections, various underground vaults, appurtenances, and a cathodic projection system. Key features of the proposed Project include:

  • Requires the installation of 4.4 miles of new pipeline;
  • Entails open trench construction for most of the alignment, but will use  Jack and bore' construction at three busy intersections; and
  • The alignment will pass through the Lake Merced Golf Course and the San Francisco Golf Course.

Written comments on the DEIR will be accepted at the Planning Department's office until the close of business on January 28, 2009.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required. Public hearing to receive comments only.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Hearing held to receive public comment only. No Commission action

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

  1. directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 6:47 p.m.

These minutes were proposed for adoption at the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on Thursday, April 9, 2009.

SPEAKERS: None

AYES: Miguel, Olague, Borden, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Antonini

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:37 PM