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

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

March 24, 2011

New Page 1

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 24, 2011

 

* * *12:00 PM* * *

(NOON)

Regular Meeting

 

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

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 12:05 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez- Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, Adrian Putra, Lily Langlois, Pilar LaValley, Jeanie Poling, Rick Crawford, Kevin Guy, Chelsea Fordham, Diego Sanchez, Jessica Range, Kearstin Dischinger, and Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

 

 

NOTE:  For the next few weeks, the Commission’s Order of Business has been altered to accommodate the new start time and honor the 1:30 p.m. noticed time for most cases.

 

 

A.         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:

Calvin Welch

Re:    Possible replacement of Redevelopment tax-increment financing for Treasure Island project with another state instrument aimed at developing infrastructure.

Dean Preston

Re:    Proposed Chase Bank on Divisadero

Halley Albert

Re:    Proposed CHASE Bank on Divisadero

David Tournheim

Re:    The proposed CHASE Bank on Divisadero should require a CU

Alece Maggie

Re:    Proposed CHASE Bank on Divisadero

 

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

1.         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:  AT&T has announced that it has agreed to buy T-Mobile in cash and stock.  I would like this Commission to have a separate discussion about the extensiveness of the joint networks which we have basically supported but now I think this poses another challenge to us.  I would like to understand the challenge comprehensively with some knowledge from the Board [of supervisors] because they will probably be asking themselves the same question.  I would like to suggest that we all step back and understand what that means to us.

On another point:  I talked to you last week about the numbers of the U. S. Census.  I was able to get some additional information on that and that information made me a little bit more concerned.  There is an increase in vacancy from 4.8% in 2000 to 8.3% in 2010.  That is something we need to think about particularly as we are continuing to approve and approve.  We are creating theoretically additional vacancies – and I’m not saying don’t approve – but I would like to bring some more intelligence to how I look at the vacancies, what opportunities they offer, and what challenges they pose to us in decision making.

With respect I heard from Public Comment a few minutes ago, I sit on the Treasure Island Citizen Advisory.  This group together tries to find information on what infrastructure financing district means.  There isn’t really a lot around.  There might be some experts who know something about it, but it still a pretty uncharted tool from what I understand in the state of California.  I think Florida has practiced it.  But the question that Mr. Welch raised for me is why we all will be struggling to look for new tool in lieu of Redevelopment, because we all need them in city governance.  I think we all need to understand what that really means so that we can support it in whatever way we support needs to be brought forward particularly in light of the fact that we have policy which is through the state.  But if that policy is challenged by new tools, we need to figure out how we formulate new policy to supplement, or re-define, or what the new tool needs to do if we use it.  Other projects will need to use this – Bay View Hunters Point comes to mind.  So I am asking this Commission to consider Mr. Welch’s suggestion to ask Mr. Morales to join us.  Commissioner Olague, is that something you would consider?

Commissioner Olague:  Yes.  If Jim Morales would come and add his expertise to the discussion, I think it would be great.  I just don’t know what his availability is.  In addition to Mr. Blackwell if he has the time, and Mr. Hillis so that we can have a robust discussion about what this means.

Commissioner Sugaya:  I think that’s fine, but it seems like they are all in-house people.  I think from what Mr. Welch is suggesting, there might be some other expertise around who can look at if from a little different perspective.  I don’t know who those people are, but a little searching around they might be outside consultants – someone other than Redevelopment Agency staff

Director Rahaim:  I am talking to Rich about getting someone from outside the city government to talk to us.

Commissioner Antonini:  I think that’s a good idea.  Maybe [we can get] someone from the Governor’s Office.  They certainly would have a perspective on it.

Many of you may have been watching the NC2A Division Championship basketball last weekend.  The sites of this tournament – not just the final four – but all the games beginning with last weekend are located in 12 different cities.  They include Dayton Ohio, Newark New Jersey, Tulsa, Tucson, Tampa Cleveland, Washington D. C., Denver and Chicago – all of which have lower populations than San Francisco.  Two have higher populations – Chicago and Huston – where the final 4 will play.  But the reason why we won’t host anything here is because we have no arena, and we haven’t had one.  And this precludes us from any major concerts because capacity is too small, from National political conventions, from the NBA, or the NHL, or a lot of sources of revenue.  It is one of the things I comment on frequently and there are some plans afoot to do something.  In times when we are challenged for revenue, and we are all trying to figure out ways to get more revenue in San Francisco, this is a source of huge amounts of revenue for events that can occur virtually 365 days or nights a year.  So it is something that we should pursue publicly and privately to see what can be done.

Commissioner Borden:  I want to pick up on a theme from Public Comment had related to the formula retail issue and the financial services.  I know that this commission and the department has always considered financial services and institutions to be separate from the formula retail legislation.  I think it might be worthwhile having a discussion here at the commission about the formula retail legislation in general and a look back I think nearly 10 years – and look at the impact and what has happened; and if there are any necessary needed updated related to it based upon the realities.  I think it would be useful to have a clarifying discussion.  In some cases it might be if people want to go the Board to make change etc., but I think it is worth looking at if it has impacted positively or negatively neighborhoods and what has been the outgrowth and the consequence.  I think one of the trends we have seen is more stores that do not necessarily have locations in the United States, but stores that have locations in Europe and other places opening up in San Francisco.  I know that there are other concerns that people have brought up that have arisen since we initially conceived the legislation.  I think it would be worthwhile having that discussion and looking at all the ramifications.

Commissioner Sugaya:  I’d like to support Commissioner Borden on that and it’s partially based on an article I read a number of years ago maybe that had to do with concerns in New York city about the proliferation of branch banks in neighborhood areas and the fact that they didn’t have a mechanism to address those issues.  So I would like to have something before us to discuss.

Commissioner Moore:  I would like to voice my support for what Commissioner Borden has suggested because partially I have seen one of the most unusual combinations of formula retail and formula banking just a few weeks ago – where you walk into a Starbuck and on the other side of the Starbuck you are complemented by a full set of banking services provided by Wells Fargo.  I find that is really a little bit over the top.

Commissioner Olague:  A couple of weeks ago we had that conversation on SB375 and I believe there was a follow-up meeting that people in the community was invited to.  I understand it was a really good discussion.  Is there going to be a follow-up to that?

Director Rahaim:  Nothing is scheduled right now, but I am happy to do that.  The staff that is working on that is working on the Housing Element too.  Once you adopt the Housing Element today, we are happy to work on that.

Commissioner Olague:  Great.  At one of our Monday meetings, we will check in with you on that.  I know that market and Octavia had a list of things that they wanted staff to look at and possibly bring back to us for amendment.  So I also want to get a status on that.  On the census, we should be scheduling a hearing here.  Maybe we will have some questions in advance so she (Theresa Ojeda) doesn’t have to come here without that information.  As Commissioner Moore mentioned the vacancy rate and where are those, that sort of thing might be interesting to have.  I would also like to discuss a little bit about the shift in demographics in areas like South of Market and some of those districts.  I guess we should look at the calendar because I think we are starting to get a little bit behind in some of these hearings.  After May, we should start to schedule some of these policy discussions here – like the formula retail, like the census.  I think these other meetings are more community meetings with staff.  In the past we’ve mentioned even tourism, and there are others that we can catch up on.  I was a little bit interested in this whole twitter discussion – it led me to think about manufacturing and some of these artisan type of businesses we are seeing here in the city.  I know that SPUR is having a series of walks on that subject.  But I would like to get a sense of where are the jobs for people in certain communities.  What is the state of manufacturing, or trends and workforce trends in San Francisco?

Commissioner Miguel:  On the formula retail discussion, I would be very interested in knowing as far as financial services is concerned, whether the City Attorney has ever given any weigh in on definitions as to the way the Code is written, because I think that is extremely pertinent.  All things are interpretive.  I would be interested to know what the City Attorney’s interpretation of that is.  I don’t think there is anything this commission can do without that. 

As far as Commissioner Moore’s comments on the vacancy rates, I get confused by seeing figures all over the place and I have yet to see a definition or a methodology by which those figures are put together.  I don’t know how that’s counted.  I don’t know if that is directly from the census figures and whether it’s ‘well we rang the bell four times on four different days and we sent out two pieces of mail and no reply, so therefore it must be vacant;’ I don’t know what the criteria is for considering something vacant.  Without that the statistics are meaningless to me.  I think there is a great deal of actual fact that has to be gotten into.  I’m not disputing the number; I just have no basis for believing it at the moment.    

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

2.         Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:  I have a call into AT&T specifically to ask the question about what the implications are for their plans given their acquisition of T-Mobile.  I will get back to you on that.        We have talked to President Olague and Vice President Miguel about how to move forward with a plan with the carriers.  If you recall, the carriers do have a five-year plan that they submit to us.  But what seemed clear to us is that they should try to break that plan down into one-year increments to get a more immediate example of what all the carriers plans are so that we can see how they overlap.  We are working on that.

Just for your information – and I’ll send you the link from San Francisco Travel Now (the old San Francisco Visitor’s Bureau), they submitted their Annual Report on tourism statistics.

I signed a memo yesterday that Theresa Ojeda prepared on the census.  If you don’t have that today, you will have that in the next day or two.  That question on the definition of vacancies is a very good one.  I had asked her the same thing.  The memo does not address that, but we will address that in the future.  I think it is a good idea.  I will work with Linda on scheduling a hearing on the census information in the future.

Commissioner Olague:  Years ago we had a hearing on it and we invited Realtors and I don’t think we got to the heart of the nature of our questions.  I don’t think that is necessarily the source that should be invited to that discussion.

 

3.         Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals, and Historic Preservation Commission.

 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

 

Land Use Committee:

·         Supervisor Mirkarimi sponsored an ordinance on Active Uses in NC-3 for certain parts of Fillmore Street – this would requie that only active uses be permitted on the ground floor for certain part of Fillmore Street.  On 3/3, you recommended approval and requested expanding the definitions of active uses to include a new restaurant definition as “self-service specialty food’ and “outdoor activity area.”  Supervisor Mirkarimi has amended the ordinance to incorporate your recommendations.  This week the Committee recommended approval of the ordinance to the full Board.

·         Supervisor Mirkarimi sponsored an ordinance on Consistent Street Frontages – this legislation seeks to revise parking, use, and street frontage regulations in select areas to conform with more contemporary policies in San Francisco.  All told, the proposed ordinance amends or repeals 28 separate portions of the Planning Code.  When you heard this on January 13, you suggested over a dozen revisions and also asked for staff to work with the Supervisor’s office on refining controls for what was called “snout houses” or houses where the garage extended out in front of the house.  Since your hearing, staff and the Supervisor have worked to incorporate all of your suggestions.  This week the Committee recommended approval of the ordinance to the full Board.

Full Board of Supervisors:

·         Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees – This ordinance is sponsored by the Mayor and would amend Article 4 to clarify language, eliminate confusion as to when the requirements must be met, increase consistency between the way impact fees are administered and correct errors in cross-referencing.  This commission heard this on 12/16/10 and recommended approval.  Since then the Mayor has amended it to include suggestions from both the mayor’s Office of Housing and the Controller’s Office.  Among these changes was the addition of an uncodified section that will allow this year’s adjustment of all fees for inflation within 30 days of the effective date of the ordinance.  The Board made this last change as an amendment on Tuesday and then approved the ordinance on first reading.

·         Zoning Map Amendment – Correction to Market & Octavia Area Plan – This proposed ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Mirkarimi, would amend the Zoning Map to reflect the actions by the Commission.  This Commission approved the Market & Octavia Plan on 4/5/07.  The Board’s Land Use Committee made some additional amendments.  As some point after transmittal of the commission’s recommendations to the Board and prior to final action by the Board, some of the pages of the Zoning Map ordinance were inadvertently omitted.  Although the Board voted on zoning maps that were consistent with the Commission action, some of the pages that listed the zoning changes were not included.  The proposed ordinance heard by the Land Use Committee would merely correct this error.  The Board approved the ordinance on first reading this week.

·         Upper Fillmore NCD Changes – This proposed ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Farrell, would remove the current prohibition against new restaurants in this NCD.  Under this proposal, restaurants would be allowed by CU.  This commission considered the ordinance on 1/13/10 recommending approval but also with the recommendation to allow large fast-food restaurants by CU.  You also respectfully requested that the Supervisor continue additional public outreach.  The Supervisor has worked with the Department and appropriate merchant and neighborhood groups and has amended the legislation to allow large fast-food restaurants by CU; to specify that when the Commission considers restaurants in this area, the Commission shall consider whether the use would propose lunch service or other daytime usages in order to limit the number of such businesses that have no daytime activity; and lastly it would allow a new bar via CU when that bar is provided in conjunction with a full-service restaurant.  With these amendments, the Board approved the ordinance on first reading.

·         CEQA Appeal of 795 Foerster Street, 203-213 Los Palmos Drive – This week the Full Board heard a CEQA appeal of the Department’s Cat Ex determination for these properties.  The proposed project involves a subdivision of two lots into four and construction of three new single-family dwellings on three of the newly subdivided lots.  No changes are proposed to the existing single-family dwelling at the corner lot.  Despite the appellant’s arguments, the Department maintained its position.  The Board unanimously rejected the appeal and upheld the CEQA determination on a 9 to 0 vote.

Introductions:

·         There was one hearing request by Supervisor Cohen – On the proposed neighborhood plan for the Executive Park area.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS:

 

·         401 Divisadero Street – CHASE Bank – The Board did side with the Planning Department and our interpretation of the Code.

·         281 Turk Street This was a re-hearing request for a building permit that authorized a pharmacy.  The Board had initially denied the application, but when it came to the adoption of findings, the decision changed and the permit was upheld.  The re-hearing request will allow both sides to have council represent them through the whole hearing process.

·         731 Commercial – This was of a letter we had releasing suspension of the permit.  That item was continued to May to give us some time to work with the neighbors.

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

 

No report

 

            4.                                                                                                  (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

Informational Item: Update on previous entitlements for office development at 524 Howard Street (Case Nos. 84.199BEKRX and 98.843BKX).

 

SPEAKERS:     Sue Hestor and Brett Gladstone

ACTION:           Although informational and Commission action is not required, the Commission did direct that the item be scheduled for a revocation hearing on June 2, 2011

 

5.                                                                                             (J. RAHAIM: (415) 558-6411)

Governor Brown’s Proposed Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Informational only – no action

 

D.            PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

 

            At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on an agenda item (item 12) that has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

SPEAKERS:  None

 

 

1:30 P.M.

 

E.            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.

                                                                                                                                                                                               

6.         2011.0248K                                                                   (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

Gene Friend Recreation Center - block bounded by 6th, Folsom and Harriet Streets, Lots 10, 11, 12 and 111 of Assessor's Block 3731 - Request to Consider jointly with the Recreation and Park Commission an increase of the cumulative shadow limits for Gene Friend Recreation Center as established in a jointly-approved Section 295 implementation Memo adopted in 1989, in order to accommodate new shadow cast by the 36 - 38 Harriet Street Project. The Gene Friend Recreation Center is a park referred to as "South of Market Park" in the 1989 Implementation Memo. The impacted park is located within the P (Public) Zoning District and the 45-X, 65-X, and OS Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation (Planning Commission): Adoption of the Resolution raising the cumulative shadow limit for Gene Friend Recreation Center.

(Proposed for continuance to April 21, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

7.         2010.0128K                                                                   (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

36 - 38 Harriet Street - Request to consider, with a recommendation of the General Manager of the Recreation and Parks Department in consultation with the Recreation and Parks Commission, whether the shading or shadowing on Gene Friend Recreation Center from the proposed project will be significant or adverse, pursuant to Planning Code Section 295 (The Sunlight Ordinance). The proposed project will construct a four story, 23 unit multifamily SRO building on an existing vacant lot. The finished roof of the building would reach a height of approximately 45 feet, while the parapet would reach a height of approximately 48 feet. The project site is located within the MUG (Mixed use General) and RED (Residential Enclave District) Zoning District and the 45-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation (Planning Commission): Adoption of the Motion finding that net new shadow from the project is not adverse, and authorizing the allocation of the cumulative shadow limits for Gene Friend Recreation Center to this project.

(Proposed for continuance to April 21, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

8.         2008.0723E                                                                   (C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)

1255-1275 COLUMBUS AVENUE – east side Columbus Avenue at the northwest corner of the intersection of Columbus Avenue, North Point, and Leavenworth Street; Lot 014 of Assessor’s Block 0028 – Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project is demolition of an existing 15,852-square-foot, 32-foot-tall office building built in 1954 and construction of a new 54,420-square-foot, 40-foot-tall, mixed-use building containing 20 residential units and 6,215 square feet of commercial space. The project site is located in a C-2 (Community Business District) Use District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Proposed for Continuance to May 12, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

F.         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

 

9.         2010.0797C                                                                           (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)

1799 19TH AVENUE - northwest corner of 19th Avenue and Noriega Street; Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block 2030 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.83, and 303 to establish a macro wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility by replacing two omni antennas with 12 new panel antennas to be located within an expanded cupola of a building containing an automotive repair use (dba "Pennzoil 10 Minute Oil Change") with related equipment cabinets on the ground, as part of the AT&T wireless telecommunications network in a NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-scale) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

NOTE:              Pulled from the Consent Calendar and followed item 15

SPEAKERS:     Mike – representing AT&T

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague

NAYES:            Moore

MOTION:           18304

 

10.        2011.0087M                                                                      (L. Langlois (415) 575-9083)

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT- MINOR TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY SAFETY ELEMENT - Request to amend the Community Safety Element by adding language to reference to the most recent Hazard Mitigation Plan.  This amendment would allow the City and County of San Francisco to qualify for additional funding for certain disaster recovery projects per California Assembly Bill AB 2140.  The Planning Commission will consider environmental findings and consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18298

 

11.        2011.0103U                                                                      (P. LAVALLEY:            (415) 575-9084)

201 VAN NESS AVENUE (aka 270-290 HAYES STREET) - block bounded by Hayes, Grove, and Franklin Streets and Van Ness Avenue, Assessor’s Block 0810, Lot 001.  Request for Sign Approval pursuant to Planning Code Section 605 to install signs in a P (Public) District on the Louise M. Davies Symphony Hall.  Planning Code Section 605 requires that all applications to erect business signs in P Districts shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval or disapproval.  The subject property is located within a P (Public) Zoning district and a 96-S/130-G Height and Bulk district and is a non-contributing structure to the Civic Center Historic District.  The Historic Preservation Commission approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed project at their regular hearing on March 16, 2011. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18299

 

G.            CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

12.        2005.0869E                                                                             (J. POLING: (415) 575-9072)

121 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE/St. Anthony Foundation and Mercy Housing Project - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - Assessor’s Block 0349 Lot 001 - The proposed project would demolish a 2-story 42,468 sq. ft. building containing dining hall/philanthropic uses, and construct a 10-story, 109,375 sq. ft. building that would replace and expand the dining hall/philanthropic uses and add 90 affordable senior housing units. No off-street parking exists or is proposed. The 14,156 sq. ft. project site is located in an RC-4 zoning district, an 80-120-T height and bulk district, and the North of Market Residential Special Use District, Subarea No. 1. 

NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on January 24, 2011. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved Final EIR Certification

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

MOTION:           18300

 

H.            REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

13a.      2005.0869ECV                                                               (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

121 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - southwest corner of Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0349 - Adoption of Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) particularly Section 21081.5, the Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. (“CEQA Guidelines”), particularly Section 15091 through 15093 and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code for a project that proposes to demolish the existing two-story building on the property and construct a 10-story, 99-foot-high building with a dining hall/kitchen and philanthropic/social services in the basement and ground and second floors, 90 senior affordable dwelling units and approximately 21,864 square feet of non-residential interior space and no parking facilities.  The project site is located within the RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, North of Market Residential Special Use District, and 120-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Adopt CEQA Findings

 

SPEAKERS:     In support:  Harriett Sebastian, Susie Wong, Noriel Nanagca, and Mark Fisher; In opposition:  Picanello

ACTION:           Approved adoption of CEQA Findings

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

MOTION:           18301

 

13b.      2005.0869ECV                                                               (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

121 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - southwest corner of Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0349 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization with exceptions as provided under Planning Code Section 249.5, pursuant to Planning Code Sections, 249.5, 253, 161(h), 253, and 303 to allow construction of a building exceeding 40 feet in a Residential District, allow elimination of off street parking, with exceptions including but not limited to exceptions from Section 249.5(c)(9) Setback Requirements, Section 249(c)(10) Rear Yards, Section 209.3(d) Establishment of a Social Service or Philanthropic Facility Above The Ground Floor, and Section 271(b) Bulk Requirements.  The project proposes to demolish the existing two-story building on the property and construct a 10-story, 99-foot-high building with a dining hall/kitchen and philanthropic/social services in the basement and ground floor, 90 senior affordable dwelling units and approximately 21,864 square feet of non-residential interior space and no parking facilities.  The project site is located within the RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, North of Market Residential Special Use District, and 120-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18302

 

13c.      2005.0869ECV                                                                (R.CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

121 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE - southwest corner of Golden Gate Avenue and Jones Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0349 - Request for Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 152 to construct a building exceeding 100,001 square feet in area without off-street loading where one off-street loading space is required.  The project proposes to demolish the existing two-story building on the property and construct a 10-story, 99-foot-high building with a dining hall/kitchen and philanthropic/social services in the basement and ground floor, 90 senior affordable dwelling units and approximately 21,864 square feet of non-residential interior space and no parking facilities. The project site is located within the RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, North of Market Residential Special Use District, and 120-T Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 13a

ACTION:           The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance subject to the standard conditions of approval

 

14.       2009.0646C                                                                                   (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

524 HOWARD STREET - north side between First and Second Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 3721 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 156 and 303, to allow the continued operation of an existing temporary surface parking lot within the C-3-O (SD) District and the 450-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Brett Gladstone – representing the Project Sponsor

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18303

 

 

15.        2009.0418E                                                                      (C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)

PIER 36/BRANNAN STREET WHARF - the east side of The Embarcadero, in proximity to Brannan Street and Townsend Street, Lot 034,036 in Assessor’s Block 9900 - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project involves the demolition of Pier 36, including 133,000 square feet of pile-supported decks and piles, the 35,000 square foot Pier 36 warehouse building, and 18,800 square feet of bulkhead wharf sections which runs between Piers 30-32 and Pier 38, and construction of a 57,000 square foot open space park, “the Brannan Street Wharf”, which would be approximately 830 feet long, and would vary in width from 10 feet to 140 feet. The park would consist of a raised lawn and a 2,000 square-foot craft float. The construction of the Brannan Street Wharf would require driving 269 new piles and reinforcing the adjacent seawall. The existing Pier 36 and bulkhead wharf sections 11a, 11, and 12 are historic resources. The project site is located in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District and 40-X height and bulk district. Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department’s offices until the close of business on March 28, 2011.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Public hearing on the Draft EIR – no action

 

16.        2010.0386C                                                                      (D. Sánchez: (415) 575-9082)

3438 Mission Street - west side of Mission Street, between Kingston Street and Cortland Avenue, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 6660 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 712.83 and 303 to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of five panel antennas and associated equipment and having a Location Preference of 5 on a three story mixed use building as part of the T-Mobile wireless telecommunications network within the Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial District (NC-3) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Rick Hirsh – representing T-Mobile

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya, Miguel and Olague

NAYES:            Moore

MOTION:           18305

 

17.        2010.0492C                                                                     (D. Sánchez: (415) 575-9082)

650 5th StreeT - southeast corner of Bluxome and 5th Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 3785 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 818.73 and 303 to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of eight panel antennas on an existing commercial building having a Location Preference of 4 as part of the T Mobile wireless telecommunications network within the Service/Secondary Office District and a 65-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     In support:  Marion Mystead – representing T-Mobile; in opposition:  Eric Barnes

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya, and Miguel

NAYES:            Moore and Olague

MOTION:           18306

 

 

 

 

6:00 P.M.

 

I.              PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

 

            At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on an agenda item (item 18) that has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

SPEAKERS:     In opposition to EIR certification:  Bernie Chodin, Mary Miles, Kathy Devincenzi, Joan Girardot, Rose Hillson, Helen Picard Judy Berkowitz, George Woody, Hiroshi Fukuda, Marc Salomon, [name unclear]

 

J.             CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

18.        2007.1275E                                                                             (J. RANGE: (415) 575-9018)

San Francisco 2004 and 2009 Housing Element - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report The proposed project is the 2004 and 2009 Housing Elements. The Housing Element is a public policy document that addresses issues relating to housing needs for San Francisco residents. The Housing Element is prepared in response to Government Code section 65580 et seq., California housing element law, which requires local jurisdictions to plan for and address the housing needs of its population for attainment of state housing goals. The California Court of Appeals has determined the environmental document prepared for the 2004 Housing Element inadequate, and has directed the City to prepare an EIR for the 2004 Housing Element. The City must also comply with state housing element law and prepare another periodic update of the Housing Element. The City has undergone a community planning process and prepared the draft 2009 Housing Element. This EIR satisfies the City’s legal requirements for preparing an EIR on the 2004 Housing Element and also analyzes the environmental effects of the 2009 Housing Element.

Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on August 31, 2010. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved Final EIR Certification

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

MOTION:           18307

 

K.            REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

19a.      2007.1275EM                                                               (K. Dischinger: (415) 558-6284)  

2009 Housing Element Update - Adopting CEQA Findings on approval of the 2009 Housing Element Update of the General Plan - and associated actions, including repealing the existing Housing Element of the General Plan, adopting the 2009 Housing Element update, and related actions.  Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval

 

SPEAKERS:     In opposition:  Kathy Devincenzi, Bernie Chodin, Marc Salomon, Rose Hillson, Hiroshi Fukuda, George Woody, and Judy Berkowitz; In support:  Sarah Karlinsky – SPUR, Tim Colen – SFHAC, Jason Henderson, and Linda Chapman

ACTION:           Approved as amended

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

MOTION:           18308

 

19b.      2007.1275EM                                                                 (K. Dischinger: (415)558-6284) 

2009 Housing Element Update - Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Amending to the General Plan - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340 (c), the Commission will consider adopting amendments to the General Plan, including repealing the existing Housing Element of the General Plan, adopting the 2009 Housing Element update, and related actions, making Planning Code Section 101.1 findings, and recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Ordinance approving the amendments.  The 2009 Housing Element Update is required by State Law, and includes Part 1: Data and Needs Analysis, which contains a description and analysis of San Francisco’s population, household and employment trends, existing housing characteristics, and housing needs; Part 2: Objectives, Policies; and a series of Appendices including Implementing Programs, which sets forth actions to help address the City’s needs. 

Preliminary recommendation: Approval

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 19a.

ACTION:           Approved as amended

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

RESOLUTION:   18309

 

 

L.         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))

 

SPEAKERS:

Joan Girardot

RE:       The Planning Commission should have a joint hearing with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission regarding water supplies

Tim Colen

RE:       The house shown earlier as his was not his, but a neighbors house.

 

Adjournment:     8:19 p.m.

 

Adopted:  April 14, 2011

 

Last updated: 4/15/2011 1:54:28 PM