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

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

March 3, 2011

New Page 1

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 3, 2011

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:40 PM

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Erika Jackson, Tara Sullivan, Aaron Starr, Diego Sanchez, Glenn Cabreros, Michael E. Smith, Kevin Guy, AnMarie Rodgers – Acting Commission Secretary

 

A.            CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date.  The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

 

1a.        2010.0367DDV                                                                          (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

54-62 Peralta Street - Requests for Discretionary Review for Building Permit Application Nos. 2009.1231.4050 and 2009.1231.4052 proposing to construct two new three-story, two-family dwellings on two adjacent down-sloping lots, in a RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family House) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.         

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Not Take Discretionary Review and approve as proposed.    

(Proposed for Continuance to March 17, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

1b.       2010.0367DDV

54-62 Peralta Street - Request for off-street parking Variance pursuant to Planning Code Section 242(e)(4) for the proposed construction of two new three-story, two-family dwellings on two adjacent down-sloping lots, in a RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family House) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

                        (Proposed for Continuance to March 17, 2011)

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

            2.         2011.0105T                                                                 (K. DISCHINGER: (415) 558-6284)           

Amending Planning Code Inclusionary Housing controls to Add New Alternative in Market and Octavia Plan Area  [BOS FILE NO. 11-0085] - Hearing of a proposed Ordinance that would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 415.5 to provide for a new land dedication alternative in the Market and Octavia Plan Area in lieu of payment of the Affordable Housing Fee; and adding Section 415.10 to provide for the requirements of such land dedication; and making various findings including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 101 and 302 findings, and General Plan consistency findings.  The Commission will consider the proposed Ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Dufty, which would amend the Planning Code as described with additional modifications as recommended by the Planning Department.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

                        (Proposed for Continuance to May 5, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

3.                                                                                                  (L. AVERY:  (415) 558-6407)

            COMMISSION’S RULES & REGULATIONS – The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to discuss and consider amending its Rules and Regulations that could include, but is not limited to, establishing parameters for the length of its public hearings; consider amendments to the public’s requests for blocks of time; and consider possible amendments for the submitting of documents.

                        (Proposed for Continuance to March 17, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

 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.         2011.0010C                                                                     (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

1493 VALENCIA STREET - east side between 25th and 26th Streets; Lot 043 in Assessor’s Block 6530 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 726.1, and 790.60, to convert the ground floor of an existing building to a new massage establishment, within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District (Valencia NCT) and a 55-X Height and Bulk District.  The project proposes a new foot massage business (dba Relax Feet Massage) in a 1,000 square foot commercial space on the ground floor.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           12286

 

 

5.         2011.0021U                                                                   (T. Sullivan: (415) 558-6257)

2011 Large Tourist Hotel Annual Inventory - Section 41F.3(g) of the Administrative Code requires that an annual inventory of the number of rooms commercially available for rent as of March 1, 2011 in Large Tourist Hotels (hotels with over 100 rooms) be adopted by the Planning Commission. The Commission adopted a Baseline Inventory in Resolution No. 17822 on February 5, 2009. The Administrative Code further requires that an annual inventory of the number of Tourist Hotel Rooms commercially available for rent be updated each year thereafter. This hearing is for the Commission to consider adoption of the 2011 Annual Inventory to update the Baseline Inventory.  More information is available at http://www.sfgov.org/site/planning_index.asp?id=81515.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption of Baseline Inventory.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Although this item was pulled off the Consent Calendar by staff to update, the Commission approved the Adoption of Baseline Inventory

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

MOTION:           18925

 

C.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

6.         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:

Following up our discussion on the Housing Plan the other week, in an international survey, the statistics say that Australian homes are the most [the rest of the comment was not clear.]  It goes on to say that the United States in general is seen as the cheapest country given the amount of mass production we have in housing.  However, when it comes to looking at the prices in the United States, the most expensive communities in the country are San Francisco and San Jose, which toped the survey list as the least affordable housing market with home prices 5.1 times the household income, which is considered severely unaffordable.   I that that was very interesting because it puts another level of complexity in how we discuss affordable housing, and how we discuss housing per say.  I just wanted to bring that to your attention and I would be happy to email that to you. 

Commissioner Miguel:

This week I’ve met with some of the Bartlet Street neighbors regarding an item that is on today’s calendar.  On Monday and Tuesday, I had the pleasure of being a speaker at an international conference here in San Francisco on Electric Vehicle Infrastructure.  It has implications to an extent for Planning and to an extent for DBI because of our very old infrastructure in San Francisco of trying to shoehorn in what is going to be necessary to the roll out of electric vehicles.  It’s interesting that they are presuming that the electric vehicles will be picked up by what they term early responders in the public.  But what they are looking at are the figures on Prius sales and other hybrid sales.  25% of all hybrid sales in the United States are in California.  We are dubbed the “early adapters.”  Therefore, it is less of a problem in an area where it is ¾ single-family homes and you charge in your garage at night, but when you get into San Francisco where the majority of our population lives in rental housing and the majority of the rental housing is in multi-family buildings, we run into a very different situation.  It was a very interesting conference and something I’m sure will come before us in the near future.

 

 

Commissioner Sugaya:

This last week I attended two meetings in Japantown.  One had to do with a community meeting on the issue of historic landmarks in the Japantown area.  It was informational to get input.  There was no consensus or decisions made at that point.  That will be fed into the Japantown Better Neighborhoods Plan that will be forth coming at the end of this year I think.  Secondly, it was more of a tour put on by Supervisor Mirkarimi to acquaint Mayor Lee with the issues in Japantown.  We had a walking tour of the area followed by a lunch at which different issues were discussed.  It was quite interesting because at the end of the lunch, the Mayor had taken notes on each of the issues and surprisingly committed himself to working on four of those issues and said that he would be following up with the community.

Commissioner Antonini:

Yesterday, Commissioner Sugaya and I were able to participate in one of the Design Review team’s sessions.  It was very impressive.  They went through three projects very quickly and I think, very efficiently.  I got some idea about what kind of changes they will recommend on these.  Afterward we met with David Alumbaugh and other staff members regarding the public safety building on 3rd and Mission Rock.  Because it is a public building, it will not be before us for design review unlike other Mission Bay properties which are private.  But having seen some sketches in the Chronicle I thought it was important to weigh in if possible and the involved parties were very receptive to our comments.  I’ve already met with one of the architects that is involved.  If the public is interested, it is going to be before the Design Team of the Arts Commission.  It would be good to get in early on this; take a look at it; see if you like the way it looks; and comment accordingly so they can help to build something because it will stand out.  It will be something that will be very visible there.  It will include the Southern Station of the Police headquarters; a new fire station; the historic fire station will be renovated there.

Commissioner Borden:

I was just in Washington D.C. and I saw that they have installed their bike-sharing stations.  I know that the city had talked about bike sharing, and I just wondered if maybe we can have someone from MTA talk about their plans there.

Commissioner Moore:

I had to cancel the meeting with the Design Review team yesterday, but will reschedule.  This will allow other commissioners that haven’t had the opportunity to also attend or participate with me.  She will come back with other dates for those who are interested. 

 

D.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

7.             Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:

I just want to remind you that if you have any final comments on the Housing Element to try to get those to staff in the next few days if possible.  We would like to get you the final edited version about two weeks in advance of the hearing, which would be next Thursday.  Also, I’d like to remind you that there is a special morning meeting on March 17th – two weeks from today – as an informational hearing on Executive Park.  Last, I believe there was no Board of Appeals meeting this week so there is no report.

 

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

 

LAND USE COMMITTEE of the BOARD OF SUPPERVISORS:

·         Area Plan Waiver Criteria for Affordable Housing-.  This proposed Ordinance would amend the existing waiver of certain Area Plan fees under certain conditions including if a project has affordable housing. The proposed changes contained in this Ordinance were considered by the Planning Commission on December 9, 2010, as part of a proposed Ordinance to amend to the Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fee and Fund (Board File No. 101247). At that time, the Planning Department recommended that the legislation be approved as proposed but the Commission did not pass a recommendation other than a respectful recommendation that Supervisor Maxwell continue working with all parties on the issue of fees. This week the Committee recommended approval of the Ordinance to the Full Board.

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

·         136 Ord Street Cat Ex Appeal.  This item was before the Planning Commission as a Discretionary Review.  The Commission approved the project on DR.  At the Full Board, the Corbett Heights Neighborhood Association and a neighbor were the appellants. They made three primary charges against the issuance of the Cat Ex.  I will summarize those charges and the Department’s response:

 

1.     The Planning Department failed to conduct proper historic review of the subject property and the proposed project. The Department conducted an historic resource evaluation of 136 Ord Street in 2008.  At that time, Preservation staff conducted a thorough analysis based upon research and historic records and concluded that the existing cottage is NOT a historic resource nor is the subject property located in a potential historic district. In 2009, when the project sponsor submitted his building permit application, he changed the scope of work from altering the existing cottage at the rear to constructing a new dwelling structure near the front of the property.  Since the Department had already conducted an historic resource evaluation in 2008 and already concluded there is no historic resource or a potential historic district present, there was no need to conduct another historic resource evaluation. 

2.     136 Ord Street is a historic resource.  In order to qualify as a historic resource, the building must be significant under the California Register.  With the inability to meet any of the four criteria set forth under the California Register, 136 Ord Street is NOT a historic resource or that there would be a significant impact to off-site resources[1]

3.     The proposed project will have a negative and “cumulative” impact to off-site historic resources.   There is no substantial and/or credible evidence provided by the Appellant or in the record to support the conclusion that 136 Ord Street is located in a potential historic district[2].   

Conclusion:  The item had a lot of public comment, many in opposition as well as in support of the project.  The Board stated that the review process conducted by Planning could have been better but in the end the Board believed that Planning performed adequate analysis of the site and the neighborhood before arriving to their conclusion that the subject property is not a historic resource.  The Board upheld the Cat Ex 11-0.

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTIONS: 

·         Mayor Lee introduced Various Ordinances to Implement the Treasure Island Yerba Buena Redevelopment – Included among the legislation introduced is the Planning Code Amendment, the General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Map Amendment as well as the Development Agreement and the Redevelopment Plan Amendment.  These items are currently planed to be before this Commission in April.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS:

·         The Board of Appeals heard a rehearing request for a variance at 1269 Lombard Street (note this is across the street from an item on your calendar for later today at 1268 Lombard).  The case at the B of A, 1269 Lombard, was subject to a joint DR and variance hearing on June 24, 2010 - the Commission approved the project and Acting Zoning Administrator Rahaim granted the variance. 

On December 15, 2010, the Board of Appeals upheld the subject variance (4-1).  The rehearing request was filed on December 27, 2010 and initially scheduled for January 12, 2011.  The Appellant subsequently appealed the CEQA determination for the project, which was unanimously upheld by the Board of Supervisors.

Last night, the Board of Appeals denied the jurisdiction request (3-1-1).

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

            No report

 

E.         GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

 

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.  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: Kathleen Courtney

Re: 1945 Hyde Street – EIR

 

F.             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 agenda items that have 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.

 

                        None

 

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

 

9a.        2009.0175C                                                                            (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)          

5495 CALIFORNIA STREET & 214-216  17th AVENUE - southeast corner of California Street and 17th Avenue; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1417 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 317, 710.11 and 710.39 to allow the demolition of a 2-story, 2-unit building and the construction of a 4-story, 3-unit building and to allow the development of a lot greater than 4,999 sq. ft. in area within the Neighborhood Commercial – Cluster District (NC-1) and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project also includes demolishing a rear portion of the commercial buildings on the corner of California Street and 17th Avenue, subdividing the 5,088 sq. ft. subject lot into two lots, and constructing a vertical addition (that will contain one residential unit) above the existing commercial building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2011)

NOTE: On January 27, 2011, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 3/3/11 by a vote of (+5 -0), directing the project sponsor to work with Department staff to refine the project's design.  Fong was absent; Antonini was recused. 

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

RECUSED        Antonini

MOTION:           18287

 

      9b.       2009.0175CV                                                                          (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)          

5495 CALIFORNIA STREET & 214-216 – 17th AVENUE - southeast corner of California Street and 17th Avenue; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1417 - Request for Rear Yard and Active Street Frontage Variances pursuant to Section 134, 710.12 and 145.1 of the Planning Code for the construction of a 4-story, 3-unit building and constructing a vertical addition (that will contain one residential unit) above the existing commercial building within the Neighborhood Commercial – Cluster District (NC-1) and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project also includes the demolition of a 2-story, 2-unit building, the demolition of a rear portion of the commercial buildings on the corner of California Street and 17th Avenue, and subdividing the 5,088 sq. ft. subject lot into two lots.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2011)

NOTE: On January 27, 2011, The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing on the related Variance request and continued the item to March 3, 2011.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 9a

ACTION:           The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variance request

 

H.            REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

10.        2011.0046T                                                                     (A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)           

Amending Planning Code CONTROLS for the NC-3 District of Fillmore Street between Bush and McAllister Streets  [BOS FILE NO. 11-0010] - Hearing of a proposed Ordinance that would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 145.4 of the Code to require active ground-floor commercial uses in properties fronting on Fillmore Street between Bush and McAllister Streets in the NC-3 District; and making various findings including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 101 and 302 findings, and General Plan consistency findings.  The Commission will consider the proposed Ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi, which would amend the Planning Code as described with additional modifications as recommended by the Planning Department.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

 

SPEAKERS:     Tom Radulovich

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18288

 

            11.        2010.0628C                                                                   (D. Sánchez:  (415) 575-9082)

2740 Mission Street - west side between 23rd and 24th streets - Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 3643 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 703.4, 736.24 and 303 to establish a full service restaurant (dba Pollo Campero) identified as a formula retail use with an outdoor activity area not contiguous to the front property line within the Mission Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District with a 80-B Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Timmy Lai, Mark Quinlan, Jeremy Decker, George Rodgers, Casey Holtz, Katherine Dans, Luis Aguilar, Yishi Lerner, Beth Burkhart, Paul Knudsen, Sean Flanagan, J. Carlos Zorrilla, Dennis Thoele, Tami Jew, Tim Ehertide, Wendy Weiden, Zahavah Levine, Nancy Adams, Nina Hollman, Craig Powers, Ben Calderon, Debra Jue, Jorge Garcia Linares, Philip Lesser, Jeffrey Cluett, Drane Robbins, Dennis Marzan, Ramiro Torrico, Theodore Ordon-Kanssi, David Blattess, Matilde Tellez, Jose Canseco, Melquis Naveo, Oscar M. Grande, Alicia Briceno   

ACTION:           1) entertained motion to modify conditions – motion failed; 2) motion to cont. to             5/19/11 passed (+4 -3)

AYES:              Miguel, Borden, Moore and Sugaya

NAYES:                        Antonini, Olague, Fong             

                       

12.        2010.0802D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2774-2776 Filbert Street - north side between Baker and Broderick Streets; Lot 014A in Assessor's Block 0942 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.09.09.6467 proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition to the existing three-story, two-unit building resulting in a four-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with                                             modifications

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of December 16, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     Patricia Vaughey, David Thompson, Patricia Houden,

ACTION:           Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications

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

RECUSED        Fong

DRA:                0200

 

13.        2011.0100D                                                                         (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

422 DAY STREET - north side between Castro and Noe Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 6630 - Staff Initiated Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.09.14.0807 proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition to the existing two-story, single-family dwelling resulting in a three-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

 

SPEAKERS:     Jennifer Hwang. Mary Ellen O’Connor, David Davidovic, John Teerlink, Jean        Craig-Teerlink, Erica Davidovic, Mary Macy

ACTION:           Take Discretionary Review and approve with Department’s modifications.

AYES:              Miguel, Olague, Fong, and Moore

NAYES:            Antonini, Borden, and Sugaya

DRA:                0201

 

             

5:00 P.M

           

14a.      2007.0903                                                                                (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

TREASURE ISLAND/YERBA BUENA ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - INFORMATIONAL ONLY; Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor's Block 1939 - Informational  presentation to provide an overview regarding the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project and associated components including: (1) Parks and Open Space Plan, (2) Sustainability Plan, (3) Infrastructure Plan, and (4) Financing Plan. The project proposes approximately 8,000 dwelling units, 140,000 square feet of retail uses, 100,000 square feet on commercial office space, 500 hotel rooms, 300 acres of open space, and various public services, civic, and institutional uses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation Only

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           INFORMATIONAL – NO ACTION REQUIRED

 

14b.      2007.0903MTZ                                                                          (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

TREASURE ISLAND/YERBA BUENA ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor's Block 1939; Request to Initiate Amendments to the General Plan, in order to incorporate into the General Plan policies and figures that facilitate the development of the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project, including the Commerce and Industry Element, Community Facilities Element, Community Safety Element, Housing Element,  Recreation and Open Space Element, Transportation Element, Urban Design Element, and Land Use Index, and maps and figures in various elements. The Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project proposes approximately 8,000 dwelling units, 140,000 square feet of retail uses, 100,000 square feet on commercial office space, 500 hotel rooms, 300 acres of open space, and various public services, civic, and institutional uses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Resolution to Initiate

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

RESOLUTION:   18291

 

14c.      2007.0903MTZ                                                                         (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

TREASURE ISLAND/YERBA BUENA ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor's Block 1939; Request to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code, to amend Section 105 relating to height and bulk limits for Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, establish the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Special Use District, establish the "TI" Height and Bulk District, including special height provisions for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Special Use District and the "TI" Height and Bulk District, and amend the bulk limits table associated with Section 270 to recognize this district. These amendments are related to the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project, which proposes approximately 8,000 dwelling units, 140,000 square feet of retail uses, 100,000 square feet on commercial office space, 500 hotel rooms, 300 acres of open space, and various public services, civic, and institutional uses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Resolution to Initiate

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

RESOLUTION:   18292

 

14d.      2007.0903MTZ                                                                          (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

TREASURE ISLAND/YERBA BUENA ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor's Block 1939; Request to Initiate Amendments to the Zoning Map, to show the zoning designations of Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, establish the "TI" Height and Bulk District for Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island, and establish the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Special Use District add new Sectional Map SU14 to establish the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Special Use District. These amendments are related to the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project, which proposes approximately 8,000 dwelling units, 140,000 square feet of retail uses, 100,000 square feet on commercial office space, 500 hotel rooms, 300 acres of open space, and various public services, civic, and institutional uses.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve Resolution to Initiate

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

RESOLUTION:   18293

 

I.          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:     None

 

Adjournment:  8:25 PM

 

Adopted:          April 21, 2011


 

[1] According to the appellant, the existing front garden is an “unusual circumstance" and should be preserved.  It is the Department's belief that development of small cottages at the rear of the property and leaving the front as open space is actually a common occurrence as it is typical for many owners to build small cottages at the rear first and build a larger and more substantial dwelling at the front of the property later when they are financially ready.  The Department believes 136 Ord Street is one such case and therefore is not unique, exceptional, or unusually. 

[2] As stated, development at the rear of the property, leaving the front for development in the future is a typical pattern of residential development in the City and does not represent a significant trend in local or regional history.  From an architectural and/or urban design standpoint, the subject block lacks visual continuity with varying building shapes, sizes, and architectural style, and building front setbacks.  Contrary to the Appellant’s belief, developing near the front of the property is actually more consistent with the development pattern on the street and neighborhood.  As for impact to off-site historic resources, the Planning Department acknowledges that the adjacent property to the south at 140 Ord Street is a historic but disagrees with the Appellant that the proposed project will be an adverse impact.

Last updated: 4/25/2011 9:36:23 AM