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

April 7, 2011

New Page 1

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 7, 2011

***1:00 PM***

Regular Meeting

 

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

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 1:16 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Daniel Sider- Assistant Zoning Administrator, AnMarie Rodgers, David Alumbaugh, Mat Snyder, Sophie Hayward, Chelsea Fordham, Michael Smith, Joshua Switzky, 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.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

Adoption of Commission Minutes – Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission.  Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

 

1.         Consideration of Adoption:

 

·         Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 20, 2011

·         Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 27, 2011

·         Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 17, 2011

·         Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 10, 2011

·         Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of March 10, 2011

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           1/20/11, 1/27/11, and 3/10/11 (both Regular and Special) were approved as drafted; 2/17/11 was approved as corrected on page 8, item 10 – following 2) ACTION, delete the AYE votes

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

 

2.         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:  [Although the tape malfunctioned prior to and during Commissioner Miguel’s comments, they were regarding census data information.]

Commissioner Antonini:  I met with representatives of Treasure Island regarding the changes that are coming forward.  I met with representatives of the Academy of Art University today and on Monday I met with representatives of AT&T.  I also want to thank staff, Theresa Ojeda particularly, for a very good summary of the census and changes.  It was interesting to me that we are seeing similar movements as we saw generations ago of the different ethnic groups moving from the inner city to the outer parts of San Francisco, which is what we would expect, because as people look for situations where they can have home ownership; where they can have a garage; where they can have more space for their children and an opportunity presents itself, it’s normal to see this kind of movement.  The good news is, unlike what we did in the ‘60’s, we are not demolishing the inner city from whence they came, and we are in fact saving improvements in these areas where areas are being upgraded and there is a great interest.  I hope that will continue and we’ll do what we can to continue that sort of process.

Finally, another fire today in a building in the Mission District – it seems like there is one of these every month, if not two or three of them – people being displaced.  I think we need a solution to figure out a way to provide incentives, probably through changes in some laws in San Francisco, to allow people to invest into these buildings; to upgrade them seismically to make them safe for their inhabitants, and perhaps in return for providing for some affordable housing at a different site, this might be a doable thing.  It would take some work by the Board of Supervisors, but I think this would be a great way to solve the problems we have in some of our historical but challenged built forum.  

Commissioner Borden: I volunteer regularly with the Red Cross and there was a fire in the Tenderloin and 20 to 30 units were affected including a 5 unit SRO residential hotel.  Right now 60 people from the units are in shelters.  We also had 12 people displaced from a fire in the Mission District.  All of those displaced people have found a place to stay.  I just want to remind people that the Red Cross, in addition to the major national disasters that we know of, are first responders and are there for the silent disasters.  So when you hear about the fire in Chinatown, or the Tenderloin, it’s the Red Cross that is there to make sure that people have shelter, food, and clothing until they can transition to a more permanent residence.  To that point:  next Friday on Union Square, we are going to have Disaster Preparedness Day.  The Red Cross is going to launch a new three-year initiative along with Mayor Lee and the Fire Chief to build a model that is resilient focusing on our most vulnerable communities in San Francisco and make sure those communities are prepared.  We are really worried about the older housing stock.  I really want to encourage people to come out next Friday, April 15, at Union Square.

Commissioner Sugaya:  Following up from Commissioner Miguel:  I did read the staff memo on the census and I’m looking forward to more information.  About the same time I was reading that, I saw this supervisorial district map with statistics on District 10.  I frankly couldn’t figure out what it was trying to tell me even though it says it’s from the San Francisco Elections Task Force.  I was trying to compare these numbers to the numbers in the memo.  Maybe staff can take a look at this.

Secondly, parklets seem to be in the news lately.  Maybe we can have a staff report.  I think it was in the Examiner that DPW has upwards of 40 or 50 applications of people who have expressed interest.  They have issued a number of permits for parklets.  And then there has been controversy over parklets – the last one being that you can’t provide food service across the sidewalks.  So maybe if staff could put together a report for us that would be great. 

Then lastly, I’m going to put on Commissioner Lee’s hat for a moment.  Commissioner Lee was always reminding us of the importance of tourism [we’ll pass that on to Commissioner Fong here], but several weeks ago, I think Commissioner Miguel mentioned it, that tourism was up in the city 3% number wise and up 6% in terms of revenue.  Statistically that meant that 8.34 billion was spent, in which $385 million came to the city of San Francisco.  But of interest to me was the information further in the article that one of the notable positives was the high percentage of repeat visitors (74.3%), which I think everyone in this industry strives for.  The question:  why do they come?  [The first answer is] overall ambiance and atmosphere.  I think that speaks to the work that the Planning Department and the Commission are trying to do, not just with Historic Preservation in neighborhoods, but overall quality of design, which Commissioner Moore is always advocating for.

Commissioner Olague:  I also was going to suggest that we have a discussion on the census results after our calendars clear in June or July.  Also, I notice that when I talk to other folks that work doing outreach with families,, that families have felt the pressure of living in the Mission and other neighborhoods from development, higher rent, all those pressures, a lot of folks have migrated into the Tenderloin and the SOMA area.  So we are seeing an immigrant increase in some of those families in some of those districts as well.  I think it would be really good to have a discussion about all of that.  I thank Ms. Ojeda for her work with that. 

Manufacturing is something I think is interesting.  I think it might be interesting at some point to look at the economy in San Francisco; where the jobs are; what people are doing.  I know SPUR has started to schedule a different walk or tours of different types of manufacturing.  I missed one this week, but they are going to have a few more that will look at places where certain breweries and other types of manufacturing that take place on a smaller scale.  Later on, maybe we can look at that a little bit – where the jobs are.

Also, speaking of tourism and what draws people to San Francisco, I know that years ago it used to be really easy to see live music in San Francisco.  It seems to be dwindling on some level.  Before you could go to 11th Street; you could go to Paradise Lounge and see poetry; hear a local band; folk music, metal music; and all these different types of entertainment.  In the ‘80’s it was so accessible and I’m just hoping that there are certain protections when we make decisions up here that we think about – how do we make sure that these businesses that are adjacent to residences that have been sort of creeping up in the different regions – Slims just had their license revoked for about a couple of weeks – I just think that when we are talking about protections for neighbors, we should also think about some of these businesses that keep San Francisco vibrant and fun and artistic and affordable.

Commissioner Moore:  I just want to express my support for scheduling a meeting on the census.  There are different sources and information coming in from all kinds of people I think that expresses their common field that if nothing else, can create some clarity across the board.  We should consider saving the information we have and then putting it together and sorting it out. 

 

B.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

3.         Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:  I just want to respond quickly to a couple of your requests.  We had been looking at a hearing date for the census.  I think we will pick a date in early July.  On that note about the American Community Survey, that essentially replaces what used to be called the Long Form that a certain percentages of households used to get during the regular census years.  They quit doing that in 2000 and replaced it with this, which actually goes out to a smaller number of people every two years.  One of the concerns that we have had about this process is that people tend not to take it seriously because it does not come in regular census years.  Staff is concerned about the accuracy of some of the data because tend not to respond.  It is one of those things that we are looking.  Theresa is really our expert on that.  

About the parklets:  I think it is time to do a memo about the status of the parklets.  I think there are about 40 of them that were applied for, which is generally a good thing.  There is some controversy about how they are used and whether or not there is a perception that they are being privatized or not.  We can address that in the memo as well.

I wanted to mention that I will be going to the annual Planning Conference tomorrow in Boston this year.  I will be there from tomorrow until next Wednesday.  I will be here for next week’s meeting, but while I am out, Bill Wycko will be in charge of the Department.  I will be doing what I have been doing for the part several at the conference, which is participating in what is called the Faculty of New Director’s Institute.  It is an all-day training session on Saturday for new and perspective Planning Directors in other cities.  It is a very interesting event.

I also want to mention that I will be out the last week in April, partially for a symposium at the Garrison Institute north of New York City.  The symposium is called Climate Cities and Behavior.  It is a small group of public officials.  In this case, I received a full scholarship including room and board to attend the symposium.

 

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

 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

 

Land Use Committee:

·         110147 Mission Streetscape Plan. This item is a General Plan Amendment of the Mission Area Plan to reflect the Commission’s adoption of the Mission Streetscape Plan.  On January 20, 2011 the Commission adopted the Plan and adopted a resolution to amend the General Plan with this Ordinance.  While no Board action was required for the adoption of the streetscape plan itself, the Board does need to adopt the Ordinance to amend the General Plan.  This week the LU Committee recommended approval of the Ordinance to the Full Board.

 

Full Board of Supervisors:

§  Urban Agriculture.  This week the Full Board heard the ordinance that would ease regulations on gardening and farming in San Francisco.  At the February 17th hearing, the Commission voted to recommend Approval with 7 Potential Modifications of the proposed Ordinance. The modifications included:

1)     Further clarify that sales of produce grown on site may occur.  This was incorporated into the ordinance.

2)     Modify the compost setback to at least three feet from structures. Again, accommodated.

3)     Renumber the Section for Urban Agriculture from 102.34 to 102.35.  Done.

4)     Clarify that the fencing requirement is optional and that should fencing be used that it need not be completely opaque.  In this case, Legislative Sponsor, Supervisor David Chiu, chose to expand the fencing options for agricultural uses to include chain link fencing WHEN the fencing is covered with plantings.

5)     Continue working to keep permit and change of use fees for urban agriculture minimal and to compare permit fee differences between short-term and long-term uses of land for Urban Agriculture.  Staff looked into this issue and shared the costs of temporary use fees with the Urban Ag. Working Group.  This group consisted of the Legislative Sponsors: Mayor Lee, Supervisor David Chiu, various city departments and various representatives of urban agricultural business operators.  In the end, the group did not feel the fees for temporary or seasonal use provided enough relief to warrant use and instead preferred the regular entitlement process.

6)     Consider looking into adding language into the proposed Ordinance to allow value added sales.  In this case, the Mayor amended the Ordinance to allow Limited Sales of value-added goods in all districts except “R” districts, and only then in the case where the primary ingredients are grown on site.

7)     Explore the use of soil testing to clarify concerns related to soil toxicity.  In this case, there are preemptive state and federal laws that govern the growing conditions for food to be sold to the public.

In addition to these changes recommended by the Commission, Mayor Lee amended the legislation to incorporate the PUC’s amendments for Water Conservation.  Supervisor Chiu changed the name of "Industrial Agriculture" use to "Large Scale Urban Agriculture."  After making these amendments Supervisor Cohen signed on as the third sponsor.  This week the Full Board passed the Ordinance on first reading.

 

Three Ordinances were before the Board for Second Reading.  Each of these passed their Final Reading. 

§  Zoning Map Amendment - Correction to Market and Octavia Area Plan.  This proposed Ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Mirkarimi, would amend the Zoning Map to reflect the actions by the Commission from 2007.   The Planning Commission approved the Market & Octavia Plan on April 5, 2007. After this action by the Commission, the Board’s Land Use Committee made some additional amendments.  At some point after transmittal of the Commission’s recommendation 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.  This week the Board approved the Ordinance that would merely correct this error. 

§  Upper Fillmore NCD Changes.  This proposed Ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Farrell, would remove the current prohibition against new restaurants in this NCD.  Under the proposal, restaurants would be allowed by CU.  This Commission considered the Ordinance on 1/13/10.  At that time you recommended approval but with the recommendation to also allow large fast-food restaurants by CU.  Since your recommendation, the Supervisor worked with the Department and appropriate merchant and neighborhood groups.  The Supervisor then amended the legislation in three ways.  First, per your request the Ordinance would now allow large fast food restaurants.  Second, the legislation was also amended 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. Lastly the Ordinance 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.

·         101053 Consistent Street Frontages.  This proposed Ordinance, also introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi is a larger, bolder piece of legislation that 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 twenty-eight separate portions of the Planning Code[i]. When the Commission heard the Ordinance on January 13th, you suggested over a dozen revisions and also asked for staff to work with Supervisor Mirkarimi’s office on refining controls for houses where the garage extends out in front of the house.  Since your hearing, staff and the Supervisor have worked to incorporate all of your suggestions.  This week the LU Committee recommended approval of the Ordinance to the Full Board.

Introductions:

·         There was one hearing request by Supervisor Cohen – Supervisor Avalos requested a hearing on the City’s plan or preparations in the event that the State eliminates Redevelopment in California.  Specifically, the hearing would discuss what the City would do to ensure continuity of comprehensive community development strategies such as affordable housing, workforce, and commercial development.  This was referred to the Budget & Finance Committee.

§  Mayor Lee introduced a series of Ordinances to implement the Treasure Island / Yerba Buena Island Project:  including:

o    110230 Subdivision Code Amendment

o    110228 General Plan Amendment

o    110227 Zoning Map Amendment

o    110226 Development Agreement.

 

 

BOARD OF APPEALS:

 

            No report

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

 

·         HPC Landmark Designation Work Program – Of the 12 properties identified for the work program, the Commission directed staff to replace two properties:  (Roos House at 2660 Divisadero Street and the Forest Hill Club House at 381 Magellan Avenue with two other properties:  the Doelger Sales Office at 326 Judah Street and the structure at 3655 Clay Street).

 

C.         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:

Andy Endom – CHASE Bank

Re:       The CHASE Bank on Divisadero

Mary Robinson – representing the Olone Tribe

Re:       Invited the Commission to the Ethnic Jazz Festival on 6/3 at City Hall

Clark Mannus – for the National Disaster Agency

Re:       San Francisco needs to be prepared for a major disaster

Judy

Re:       CHASE Bank on Divisadero Street

 

1:30 P.M.

 

D.            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.

 

 

                5.            2007.0903E                                                                         (R. Cooper: (415) 575-9027)

Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report The Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA) is proposing a Redevelopment Plan for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Project that would provide the basis for redevelopment of portions of Naval Station Treasure Island. The project site is located on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island and the immediately surrounding waters (Assessors Block 1939, Lots 1 and 2). The proposed project would include development on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island of up to 8,000 residential units; up to 140,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of new commercial and retail space; up to 100,000 sq. ft. of new office space; adaptive reuse of three historic buildings on Treasure Island with up to 311,000 sq. ft. of commercial, retail, and/or flex space; about 500 hotel rooms; rehabilitation of the historic buildings on Yerba Buena Island; new and/or upgraded public and community facilities; new and/or upgraded public utilities; about 300 acres of parks and public open space including shoreline access and cultural uses such as a museum; new and upgraded streets and public ways; bicycle, transit, and pedestrian facilities; landside and waterside facilities for the Treasure Island Sailing Center; landside services for an expanded marina; and a new Ferry Terminal and intermodal Transit Hub.  Infrastructure improvements would include geotechnical stabilization to improve seismic safety.  The proposed project would also include green building specifications, programs to encourage transit use, design standards that would enable photovoltaic panel installation on most roofs, recycled water use, and other features promoting sustainability. Construction and build-out would be phased and would be anticipated to occur over an approximately 15- to 20-year period. The proposed project would require amendments to the San Francisco Planning Code and the San Francisco General Plan.  The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant, unavoidable environmental impacts on aesthetics, historic architectural resources, transportation, noise, air quality, wind and biological resources. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR

(Proposed for Continuance to April 21, 2011)

           

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

6.         2004.0891E                                                                           (J. BATTIS: (415) 575-9022)

                        899 Valencia Street - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration - The proposed project would demolish the existing service station, now used for surface parking, and would construct an approximately 50,000-square-foot (sq-ft), five-story, 52 1/3-foot-high residential building containing 18 3-bedroom dwelling units, with 7,100 sq ft of ground-floor retail space. The proposed building would have a below-grade parking garage accessible from 20th Street with 14 residential and four retail off-street parking spaces. The 10,925-sq ft project site (Assessor’s Block 3596, Lot 113) is within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT) zoning district and a 55-X height and bulk district on the block bounded by Valencia Street to the west, 19th Street to the north, Mission Street to the west, and 20th Street to the south, at the northeast corner of Valencia and 20th Streets in the Mission District neighborhood. The proposed project would require a conditional use authorization for development of a parcel exceeding 10,000 sq ft, for a non-residential use in excess of 3,000 sq ft, and to allow for permanent conversion of a service station to a new use.                                                                                        

                        (Proposed for Continuance to May 26, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

 

E.            REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

            7a.        2006.0422EMUTZ                                                              (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

EXECUTIVE PARK – INFORMATIONAL HEARING - The 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to the west, Bayview Hill to the North, Jamestown Avenue  to the east(but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to the south.    The proposed Executive Park General Plan, Planning Code Text and Map Amendments and the proposed Design Guidelines would provide for the transition of the existing office park portion of the site to a new mixed-use predominately residential, pedestrian oriented neighborhood.  These amendments would accommodate up to 1,600 dwelling units, approximately 70,000 gross square feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street parking spaces and other associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings that would range between 65-feet to 240-feet tall.  This second informational hearing on the Executive Park Amendments will focus on the proposed zoning amendments (both text and map amendments) and the proposed Executive Park Design Guidelines.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Only

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Informational only – no action

 

7b.       2006.0422EMUTZ                                                              (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

                        EXECUTIVE PARK – INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS - The 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to the west, Bayview Hill to the North, Jamestown Avenue  to the east(but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to the south.  Request to Initiate Amendments to the Executive Park Subarea Plan of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan of the General Plan, the Land Use Index and other minor General Plan Map and Figures, pursuant to Planning Code Section 340(c).  The amended Subarea Plan would establish objectives and policies to transform Executive Park from a partial office park to a mixed-use, predominately residential, pedestrian-oriented neighborhood; and would provide objectives and policies to guide land use, streets and transportation, urban design, community facilities and services, and recreation and open space issues.  The amended Subarea Plan would also establish a new publicly accessible street grid and open space network.  The land Use Index and various maps and figures throughout the General Plan would also be amended to reflect the Subarea Plan changes.  These amendments along with proposed Planning Code Text Changes, Zoning Map Changes and the establishment of Design Guidelines would accommodate up to 1,600 dwelling units, approximately 70,000 gross square feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street parking spaces, and other associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings that would range between 65-feet to 240-feet tall.   

Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate the General Plan Amendments

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved initiation of General Plan Amendments

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

RESOLUTION:   18310

 

7c.        2006.0422EMUTZ                                                              (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

EXECUTIVE PARK – INITIATION OF PLANNING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS - The 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to the west, Bayview Hill to the North, Jamestown Avenue to the east (but not including those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to the south.  Parcels that would be affected by the Planning Code Text and Map Changes are bordered by Executive Park Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north, and east respectively and Harney Way on the south (also referred to as the office park portion).  Request to Initiate Amendments to the San Francisco Planning Code that would add Section 249.54 to establish the Executive Park Special Use District; add Section 263.27 to establish Special Height Provisions for the Executive Park Special Use District and the 65/240 EP Height and Bulk District; and amend Table 270 to provide that the Table is not applicable, pursuant to Planning Code Section 302(b).  The new Executive Park Special Use District (SUD) would create special provisions for buildings within the office park portion of the site that would, among other things, allow for density transfers across the site, and include requirements for street and open space improvements.  The new height and bulk provisions would generally allow buildings between 65-feet and 85-feet along with three towers between the heights of 170 to 240 feet.  The design review provisions would require review by the Planning Commission of all new development projects.   These amendments along with proposed changes to General Plan Amendments Zoning Maps and the proposed establishment of Design Guidelines, would  provide for the transition of the existing office park portion of the site to a new mixed-use predominately residential, pedestrian oriented neighborhood.  These amendments would accommodate up to 1,600 dwelling units, approximately 70,000 gross square feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street parking spaces and other associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings that would range between 65-feet to 240-feet tall.   

Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate the Planning Code Text Amendments

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved initiation of Planning Code Text Amendments

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

RESOLUTION:   18311

 

7d.       2006.0422EMUTZ                                                              (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

EXECUTIVE PARK – INITIATION OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS  - The 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is located in the southeastern part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San Francisco/San Mateo County border. It is generally bounded by Highway 101 to the west, Bayview Hill to the north, Jamestown Avenue to the east (but does not include those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to the south.  Parcels that would be affected by the Planning Code Text and Map Changes are those bordered by Executive Park Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north, and east respectively, and Harney Way on the south (referred to as the office park portion).  Request to Initiate Amendments to the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sectional Maps SU10 of the Zoning Map to establish the Executive Park Special Use District; amending Sectional Map HT10 to establish the 65/240-EP Height and Bulk District; amending Sectional Map ZN09 to change certain Executive Park parcels from C-2(Community Business) and M-1 (Light Industrial) to RC- 3(Residential-Commercial Combined, Medium Density).  More specifically, Sectional Map ZN10 would be amended by rezoning Assessor’s Block 4991, Lots 074, 075, 085 and 086 from C-2 to RC-3; Assessor’s Block 4991 / Lots 012, 024, 061, 065, 078 and Assessor’s Block 5076, Lots 012 and 013 from M-1  to RC-3; Planning Code Sectional Map SU10 would be amended to include Assessor’s Block 4991, Lots 012, 024, 061, 065, 074, 075, 078, 085, 086, and Block 5076 Lots 012 and 013 into the newly established Executive Park SUD, and Sectional Map HT10 would be amended to include Assessor’s Block 4991, Lots 074, 075, 085 and 086 within the newly established 65/240-EP Height and Bulk District.   These actions along with the proposed General Plan Amendments and Planning Code Text Amendments would provide for the transition of the existing office park portion of the site to a new mixed-use predominately residential pedestrian-oriented neighborhood.  These amendments would accommodate up to 1,600 dwelling units, approximately 70,000 gross square feet of retail, approximately 2,425 off-street parking spaces and other associated uses, in approximately thirteen buildings that would range between 65-feet to 240-feet tall.   

Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate the Zoning Map Amendments

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved initiation of Zoning Map Amendments

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

RESOLUTION:   18312

 

8.         2011.0278U                                                                   (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)
Amendments to the Administrative Code Chapter 41F: Large Tourist Hotel Conversion Ordinance [Board File No.11-0282] - Ordinance introduced by Mayor Lee amending the San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 41F, Section 41F.3, to extend the deadline for Planning Commission approval of applications for conversion of large tourist hotels to condominium projects, subject to completion of project-specific milestones by November 1, 2010, and making required findings.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           without hearing, continued to the call of the Chair

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

 

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 an agenda item (item 9) 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:     Stewart Fall and Peter Lewis

 

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

 

9.         2006.0848E                                                                     (C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)

25-35 Dolores Street - east side of Dolores Street between Clinton Park and 14th Street; Lot 069 in Assessor’s Block 3534 - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project includes demolition of 25-35 Dolores Street and new construction of a four-story, 62,030 square-foot, 47 unit residential building.  The existing two contiguous garage buildings on the site were built in 1917- 1918 and are historic resources. The project site is located in a RTO (Residential, Transit-Oriented) Zoning District and 40-X height and bulk district. The proposed project would require Conditional Use Authorization for density greater than one unit per 600 square feet, off-street parking at greater than 0.75 spaces per unit, and development of a lot greater than 10,000 square feet; and a rear yard variance.

Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on September 13, 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 certification of the Final EIR

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

MOTION:           18313

 

H.         REGULAR CALENDAR

 

10a.      2006.0848ECV                                                                       (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

25 – 35 DOLORES STREET - east side between Market and 14th Streets; Lot 069 in Assessor’s Block 3534 - Consideration of Adoption of Findings under the California Environmental Quality Act.  The project proposes to demolish two existing warehouses and construct a four-story residential building with up to 37 residential units and up to 37 off-street parking spaces located in a below grade garage.  The project site is located within the Market and Octavia Plan Area, the RTO (Residential, Transit Oriented Neighborhood) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Findings

 

SPEAKERS:     In support:  David Silverman – representing the Project Sponsor, Bill Ligature – Project Sponsor, Toby Levine – Project Architect, Peter Lewis, Robin Levit, and John Parish; in opposition:  Sara Brant

Motion:             To approve with 1 to 1 parking

AYES:              Antonini, Fong, and Miguel

NAYES:            Borden, Moore, Sugaya, and Olague

RESULT:           Motion failed

 

ACTION:           Approved CEQA findings per staff recommendation of 1 to .75 parking

AYES:              Borden, Moore, Sugaya, and Olague

NAYES:            Antonini, Fong, and Miguel

MOTION:           18314

 

10b.      2006.0848ECV                                                                      (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

25 – 35 DOLORES STREET - east side between Market and 14th Streets; Lot 069 in Assessor’s Block 3534 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.5, 151.1, 209.1(k), and 303 to develop a lot that is greater than 10,000 square-feet, to allow off-street residential parking at a 1:1 ratio, and to develop at a residential density not exceeding 1:400 square-feet of lot area.  The project proposes to demolish two existing warehouses and construct a four-story residential building with up to 37 residential units and up to 37 off-street parking spaces located in a below grade garage.  The project site is located within the Market and Octavia Plan Area, the RTO (Residential, Transit Oriented Neighborhood) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 10a

ACTION:           Approved CU request per staff recommendation of 1 to .75 parking

AYES:              Borden, Moore, Sugaya, and Olague

NAYES:            Antonini, Fong, and Miguel

MOTION:           18315

 

10c.      2006.0848ECV                                                                       (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

25 – 35 DOLORES STREET - east side between Market and 14th Streets; Lot 069 in Assessor’s Block 3534 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 132, 134, and 140 to modify the front setback and rear yard requirements in the District, and for dwelling unit exposure for two dwelling units.  The project proposes to demolish two existing warehouses and construct a four-story residential building with up to 37 residential units and up to 37 off-street parking spaces located in a below grade garage.    The project site is located within the Market and Octavia Plan Area, the RTO (Residential, Transit Oriented Neighborhood) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 10a

ACTION:           Assistant Zoning Administrator Sider closed the public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement

 

5:00 P.M.

 

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

Governor Brown’s Proposed Elimination of Redevelopment Agencies - Discussion

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Informational only – no action

 

12.        2007.0903MTZUU                                                          (J. Switzky: (415) 575-6815) TREASURE ISLAND/YERBA BUENA ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Informational Only - Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor's Block 1939 - Informational presentation to provide an overview of the changes to the structure of the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Redevelopment Project, as the Project will no longer pursue a Redevelopment Plan, in favor of the formation of Infrastructure Finance Districts. In addition, the Commission will be provided an informational overview of the Project and associated components including: (1) draft Amended and Restated Base Closure Homeless Assistance Agreement, (2) draft Development Agreement, and (3) key draft exhibits to the draft Disposition and Development Agreement, including: (a) Transportation Plan, (b) Sustainability Plan, (c) Jobs and Equal Opportunity Policy, and (d) Community Facilities Plan.  Note that summary materials and documentation for these items were previously distributed to the Commission in preparation for the March 3 and March 17 meetings, as presentation on these items was postponed.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation-No action requested

 

SPEAKERS:     Tim Colen – SFHAC, Saul Bloom, Geri Williams

ACTION:           Informational only – no action

 

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:    7:33 P.M.

 

Adopted:          April 21, 2011

 

 

 


 

 

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