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
New Page 1

  SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 5, 2011

12:00 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Sharon Lai, Diego Sanchez, Rick Crawford, Kirsten Dischinger, Michael E. Smith, Erika Jackson, Sara Vellve, Kevin Guy, Joy Navarrete, Mathew Snyder, Jonas Ionin – Acting Commission Secretary

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT:  12:10 p.m.

 

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.

 

1.         2011.0172T                                                                         (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

The Commission will consider an Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi concerning self-service restaurants, retail coffee stores, and video stores as well as additional recommendations by Planning staff to consolidate existing restaurant definitions and controls.  Specifically, the proposed Ordinance would  amend the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 710, 730, 733A, 733A.1, 790.90, 790.91, and 790.102 of the Planning Code to: (1) increase the maximum use size for Small Self-Service Restaurants in Neighborhood Commercial Districts to that of the non-residential use size limit for the district and eliminate the limit on the number of seats; (2) increase the minimum size for Large Self-Service Restaurants in Neighborhood Commercial Districts to that of the non-residential use size limit for the district; (3) principally permit Small Self-Service Restaurants and Video Stores in Neighborhood Commercial Cluster (NC-1) and Neighborhood Commercial Transit Cluster (NCT-1) Districts; (4) conditionally permit Large Self-Service Restaurants in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District; (5) require that mechanical noise and vibration from Self-Service Restaurants be confined to the premises; and (6) remove the prohibition of on-site food preparation and cooking and reheating equipment in Retail Coffee Stores; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 26, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

 

            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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 3, 2011)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 9, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

3a.        2011.0089CVX                                                                     (K. Guy at (415) 558-6163)

55 9TH  STREET - east side between Market and Mission Streets; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 3701 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved Conditional Use authorization. Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved project to construct a 17-story building containing approximately 260 dwelling units, approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, and approximately 113 off-street parking spaces. The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and the 200-S Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

3b.        2011.0089CVX                                                                     (K. Guy at (415) 558-6163)

55 9TH STREET - east side between Market and Mission Streets; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 3701 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously granted Variance. Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved project to construct a 17-story building containing approximately 260 dwelling units, approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, and approximately 113 off-street parking spaces. The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and the 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

3c.        2011.0089CVX                                                                    (K. Guy at (415) 558-6163)

55 9TH STREET - east side between Market and Mission Streets; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 3701 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a previous Determination of Compliance with Planning Code Section 309. Specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for a previously approved project to construct a 17-story building containing approximately 260 dwelling units, approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial uses, and approximately 113 off-street parking spaces. The amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. The subject property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and the 200-S Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

4.         2008.1218C                                                                               (S. LAI:  (415) 575-9087) 

70 Gold Mine Drive - north side, cross street Diamond Heights Boulevard, Lots 033 and 034 in Assessor’s Block 7520 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.1, 303 and 317, to demolish a single-family house and a detached garage, merge lots 033 and 034, and construct three new dwelling units, within the RH-1 Zoning – Residential House, One Unit per Lot and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Proposed for Continuance to June 23, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

 

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

 

5.         2010.0626C                                                                   (D. Sánchez:  (415) 575-9082)

4301 3rd STREET -  east side of 3rd Street, between Jerrold and Kirkwood Avenues, Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 5278 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 303 to establish a Large Other Institutions use (d.b.a. College Track) in excess of the 6,000 square foot use size limit  within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning  District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved with Conditions

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

MOTION:           18343

 

6.         2010.0614C                                                                               (S. LAI:  (415) 575-9087)  

4960 Mission Street - west side, between Seneca and Onondaga Avenues Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 6968 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 712.94, 161(j) and 303, to allow a reduction in the off-street parking requirements for the construction of a new 4-story mixed-use building containing a ground floor commercial use and three dwelling units, within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved with Conditions

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

MOTION:           18344

 

C.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

7.         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:

I want to briefly share with you an observation I made yesterday afternoon driving down Divisadero Street - it looks fabulous, particularly on the west side. The Harding Theater, which was spent a lot of time on, is the most disappointing and abominable thing I have seen. In addition to a padlock, which we actually deemed inefficient because it caught the vandalism at the time, had graffiti all over it and has a for sale sign. We approved this project. It was a lot of work. There were specific implications.

Commissioner Olague:

 At the time, when we did this we did not certify the environmental impact report. We never got to the project, so there was never a project approved. We never certified the EIR. There was some talk that the neighbors would work with the supervisors and developers, to look at other potential ideas for the site – like continuing the theatre use.
Commissioner Moore:

Thank you for reminding me, nothing developed from that. If there was a not an approved EIR, the owners still cannot leave their property in the condition it is and it really
detracts from this evolving neighborhood. I find it really sad that we do not have an ability to do something about it.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Does this not follow under Supervisor Chu' s legislation on deteriorating or abandoned properties?

Commissioner Olague:

I think Supervisor Chu' s legislation requires vacant properties to be registered, requires certain minimal maintenance. We can look at that.

Director Rahaim:

Just to clarify -- what you did was to uphold the appeal, that is right. Commissioner Moore:

Commissioner Moore:

If the City Attorney is taking note on this one, in the next block, going north, there is an abandoned, boarded up liquor store in the middle of the block also, which is also full of graffiti. Two properties, which just make it really so hard.

Commissioner Olague

 We cannot engage in conversation, obviously, but it would be great if the Department could give us the status of that. You are right, we spend hours here deliberating.

 

 

Commissioner Borden.

I want to commend the staff on the upgrades to the Commission website. I did want to point out a couple of things that needed to be improved upon. First of all, the time of the meeting still says 1:30 p.m., it needs to be change to 12:00 p.m. The role of the Planning Commission, there is generic language that must be used in other cities, because referred about advising the City Council, which we do not have. That language needs to be updated. The other thing is when you click on Planning Commission meetings, you go on a loop and see Linda' s name, her phone number, and that takes you back to the website with the contact information. It does not let you click through the agenda. Just making it more usable would be more helpful.
Commissioner Miguel:

I would like to commend the Department on earning the APA Northern California award for the Better Streets Plan. I thought that was excellent and a number of things that have engaged in planning, this week, so it seems, I have been involved in the San Francisco Presidio.
At a meeting last Friday, there was discussion on the impact of the Presidio -- the impact of the America's Cup on the Presidio. Part of it evolved into a discussion of the extension of the F line into the Presidio area, as well as impacting the National Maritime Museum, which is a separate National Park Service Agency. That was interesting because that conversation stated they are going to try to rush ahead as fast as possible and not have their construction impact America's Cup. However, at a SPUR meeting this week, when the America's Cup came up, the statement was made, there is no way they are going to do it because it will impact America's Cup, so it will happen later, so someone needs to get their comments together on this. I think it is very much in -- up in the air. I am hearing from various people who are supposedly authoritative, in the know, for that.

Monday, I attended the meeting, here in City Hall, at the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, the hearing called by Supervisor, Scott Wiener, regarding the HPC Preservation survey, among other things. The Director spoke, and number of Department heads.  I thought it was a very good meeting. I did leave before all of the public, or I probably would have been there for another three hours, at least. Obviously, the item is continued, but I think it aired a number of questions people had, and number of viewpoints people had regarding that. The Safeway at La Playa has been under planning for four years, re-construction, enlargement by a 50%.They have a huge lot. The Planning Department told them that they are going to not let them go ahead unless they incorporate housing.

I was able to see the now fourth iteration, 3rd architect and this one seems to be getting it right. They are doing a tremendous amount of interactive work with the neighborhood, and that works well for the project.  It is just very interesting to see how a major business organization can actually interact with the neighborhood, also out in that neighborhood, and the Veterans Administration Medical Center at 42nd Avenue and Clement Street,  is planning to possibly double its size on something of a postage stamp campus there by their own records, there are over 300 cars parked. They are theoretically moving to Mission Bay, all or part of their operations. The expansion is hardly anything to do with patient care for veterans.  It is all UCSF research, which is seemingly their primary mission at the moment, although not on paper .Here you have a federal organization without any rapport with the community whatsoever,  in fact, the community has filed suit against them, for non-compliance with NEPA, and could possibly the very second legal action in order to get some reaction from them.

The Housing Action Coalition have their housing forum yesterday morning. It was, as usual, an excellent forum. The Chief Economist for San Francisco participated this was one of the more, say, active, interactive discussions we have had regarding public housing, low income housing.  I thought it was particularly well done.  A lot of interesting statistics were brought up everything from the financing on down .I already mentioned the SPUR meeting on Fisherman's Wharf.  Commissioner Fong was there. That went really well.  I had a conversation with Assembly Member Kathleen from Merced, she wrote the legislation on high-speed rail, the Director' s name came up several times as the head of the cooperative work the city has been pursuing for some time, the problems of 16th Street, getting through, underground, not underground. To me, it somewhat resembles the problem San Francisco has had from time to time with Caltrans, whose objective is to move as much traffic as fast as possible, sometimes regardless of the impact of the municipalities they go through. San Francisco has, in recent years, a good record with Caltrans. They have worked with the City to lessen the impact hopefully, high-speed rail, they will be able to do so also. The friends of City Planning they there was also last night. If I am not mistaken, the website, the ability to search the web site came from some of their grants.

Commissioner Antonini:

 I read I was not able to attend the Housing Coalition action forum. I understand it was very good.

I was able to briefly attend the Friends of City Planning. As always, it is a nice event. Other meetings in the last week-- I met with representatives, who I believe -- the project have been continued for a few weeks now.  Also meetings between representatives for the Academy of Art University, property owner in Mid-Market, this was very informative. I also met with some neighbors who were concerned with a project that was on our continuance calendar, 70 Gold Mine Drive, and representatives from California Medical Center. Those were my meetings. Commissioner Sugaya:

I just want to comment on high-speed rail San Francisco to San Jose, it is very contentious, I think, along the Peninsula having grown up down there, I can understand the resident' s concern about high speed coming through their area. I can remember when I was a kid, we used to go to the bridge, we stood time it so that the 9:45 commuter train -- we would wait at the crossing. The timing was always perfect. Any way, I did not go to the Friends of City Planning because I was attending another reception. This one was pulled together by Frank Fong at the Board of Appeals in honor of Mr. Cornfield who have been transferred to the City Attorney's Office to work on seismic safety standards in the City, or something along those lines. So he will no longer be representing the Building Department at the Board of Appeals. We did have staff defect from the friends meeting come to our perception. Their names will not be mentioned here. I did also attend, along with Commissioner Miguel and Director Rahaim, the Supervisors’ hearing on Historic Preservation. I did stay till the very end, I think the second to the last speaker. I did offer some suggestions directly to the Supervisor. I will be following up with that myself.
Lastly, in the business section, there was mention of a study that was done which places San Francisco in the top five cities of opportunity. If you go to the website, it is www.Puc.Gov, I think, there is an extensive amount of information at their, I think. That people analyzed to see why the San Francisco rating is so high. I think a lot of people were surprised but like all rating systems, they are ultimately suspect.

Commission Olague:

A couple weeks ago, I asked for a report -- there was a study, that the study the migration within the City. I still love not seen a copy of that. I would like to receive a copy of that. I would like to discuss, at some point, we mentioned a few possible topics for discussion up here. But commissioners and members of the public of course at these meetings, it would be nice if they look at the calendar and start scheduling some of those policy discussions that have to do with parking and tourism and all of these other topics. Hopefully -- maybe in July we can start calendaring at least once a month. Well, that is it.

 

D.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

8.         Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:

We received a second award for the Shipyard Plan.  That is one of the times we have seen the Environmental Impact Report receive such an award. I was very pleased with that award. I did want to mention the website. We are very pleased with the website. It was actually funded by the Planning, allowing us to hire temporary staffers. The glitch was partially due to a miscommunication with the City will of the website before we were ready and so, we had to make some final changes. We were able to correct the glitches. As we speak right now, there is a hearing on the High-Speed Rail Authority in Sacramento, and several cities that are there. One of the issues being discussed is what they call the initial operating segments. I think we have been urging high-speed rail to think for some time about the San Jose to San Francisco corridor, such that you would only need two tracks instead of four. It is clear from the study that four tracks are not needed for a number of years. It probably helps us in these discussions with the communities along the Peninsula who are understandably, concerned about this.  There is city staff today at these hearings to testify in support of having that first segment. That piece of the whole system we have been working closely on. I think it has been a good introduction departmental effort, so, I am very hopeful we can make progress on this. One of the things that is interesting is the discussion that we had. If you look at the long-term picture of the growth of the State, it really comes down to what type of transportation system we would need to employ in 20 or 30 years down the road to accommodate the growth? If you compare a high-speed rail to other means such as expanding airports or highways - I think it is an interesting way to frame the discussion. That really is the choice. Expanding airports and highways is not palatable to a lot of people. It is an interesting discussion.  I think we should have a broader, long-term policy. Finally, I just wanted to mention with respect to the preservation hearing on Monday, I thank the Commissioners for attending. I think it went on for about four hours. We stayed within an hour and a half and we will follow up with the supervisor on this. I spoke with the Commission about this yesterday, the idea that I had proposed a while ago of a summit discussion on preservation issues. I would still like to pursue that. I would just offer to the Commissioners, not necessarily today, but to give feedback on how that should be structured and how we move forward. I am going to approach a couple of sources for funding such an event and we will let you know how that goes.  I think that is it for me unless there are any questions.

 

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

 

LAND USE COMMITTEE:

The Land Use Committee’s hearings this week included an informational item about historic preservation, as well as action items associated with the Treasure Island project. 

 

§         BF 110097 Historic Preservation.   At the request of Supervisor Scott Weiner, the land use committee held a hearing to consider the impact of historic preservation policies on public policy goals.  Staff led the Board Members and the public through a presentation that outlined where in the Planning Code and the General Plan Historic Preservation is regulated at the local level, as well as the Planning Department’s policies and requirements under CEQA.  In addition to Planning staff, other city departments that presented included the Libraries, MTA, Recreation and Parks, and the Mayor’s Office of Housing.  The local non-profit San Francisco Architectural Heritage was also on-hand to present to the members of the Board.  There was a large turnout and extensive public comment by the public on both sides of the issue.  Members of the Board of Supervisors asked Planning Staff for information on a wide range of issues, including the ethnic and cultural diversity of staff and consultants working on historic resource surveys, the number of historic context statements devoted to cultural and ethnic histories, and process questions related to CEQA and surveys.  The informational hearing was continued to the call of the chair.

§         BF 110328  CEQA Findings for the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Development Project. 

§         BF 110228 General Plan Amendments

§         BF 110229 Planning Code Amendments – Creation of an SUD

§         BF 110227 Zoning Map Amendment

§         The Committee forwarded each the items associated with the Treasure Island/Yerba Buena Island Development Project to the full Board of Supervisors without a recommendation.

 

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

 

  • 110200 Liquor License Transfer. Resolution determining that the transfer of a Type 20 off-sale beer and wine license from 612 Kearny Street to 3132 Clement Street (District 1), to Garfield Beach CVS LLC, dba CVS Pharmacy, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the people of the City and County of San Francisco, in accordance with Section 23958.4 of the California Business and Professions Code, with conditions. The Board Passed the resolution in support of the liquor license transfer.
  • 110314 Resolution declaring the intention of the Board of Supervisors to vacate the one block portion of Mason Street between Lombard Street and Columbus Avenue for purposes of the North Beach Public Library and Joe DiMaggio Playground Master Plan, subject to certain conditions; and setting the hearing date for June 7, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. for all persons interested in the proposed vacation of said public right-of-way.  The Board passed the resolution.
  • 110373-6  Appeal of Conditional Use Authorization for the project at 1268 Lombard Street.  The Board voted to modified the Conditional Use Authorization issued for the project to develop four dwelling units at a ratio of one unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area in an RH-3 zoning district.  The Board added three conditions to the CU, which were to minimize the height of the proposed elevator penthouse, to eliminate the front stair penthouse and to maintain open air stairs, and to minimize the height of the building. 

 

INTRODUCTIONS: 

·         BF 110548 Amendments to the Planning Code - Zoning - Uses, Signs, Building Features, Floor Area Ratio, Parking, and Compliance in Specified Use Districts.   Chiu.  Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code to 1) increase the amount of principally permitted parking spaces for dwellings in RC-4 and C-3 Districts; 2) make off-street parking requirements in the Van Ness Special Use District and RC-3 Districts consistent with those of RC-4 Districts; 3) eliminate minimum parking requirements for the Chinatown Mixed Use Districts and North Beach Neighborhood Commercial Districts; 4) allow exceptions from required parking under specified circumstances; 5) amend the restrictions on off-street parking rates and extend them to additional zoning districts; 6) revise sign, awning, canopy and marquee controls in specified zoning districts; 7) increase the permitted use size for limited corner commercial uses in RTO and RM districts, and allow reactivation of lapsed limited commercial uses in R Districts; 8) revise the boundaries of and modify parking and screening requirements in the Washington-Broadway and Waterfront Special Use Districts; 9) modify controls for uses and accessory uses in Commercial and Residential-Commercial Districts; 10) permit certain exceptions from exposure and open space requirements for historic buildings; and 11) modify conformity requirements in various use districts; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

 

Board of Appeals:

There was no hearing by the Board of Appeals last week.

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATIO COMMISSION:

No report this week

 

10.        2011.0070I                                                                 (R. CRAWFORD:  (415) 558-6358)

1355 SANSOME STREET - Southwest corner of Sansome and Greenwich Streets Lot 048, of Assessor’s Block 0085 - Informational Presentation on Draft Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5.  The Hult International Business School’s IMP contains information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use of affiliated buildings, and development plans within the C-2, Community Business and 84-E Height and Bulk Districts (Downtown, Retail) District, and the 80-130 F Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Informational presentation, no action requested

 

SPEAKERS:     Lisa Tenorio, Lee Moulton

ACTION:            Informational Presentation, no action required

 

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.

 

NONE

 

F.                  REGULAR CALENDAR

11                                                                                         (K. DISCHINGER: (415) 558-6284)

FY 2009-10 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT AND INTERAGENCY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE  ANNUAL REPORT- Informational presentation by Controller's Office and Planning Department staff. Per Section 409 of the Planning Code the Controller's Office must compile an annual report on Development Impact Fee collections and expenditures. Per section 36 of the Administrative Code, the Interagency Plan Implementation Committee (IPIC), the City body tasked with coordination for Area Plan–identified community improvements, must compile a status report on major capital projects in Area Plans. Staff will present key findings of each report. Preliminary Recommendation: Informational only, no action requested.

 

ACTION:            Informational presentation, no action required

 

12a.      2010.0937CV                                                                        (M. SMITH:  (415) 558-6322)

259 BROAD STREET - south side between Capitol and Orizaba Avenues; Lot 052 of Assessor’s Block 7114 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to modify the conditions of approval placed on the existing residential care facility in Motion No. 14958, Case No. 1999.644C, to allow for the construction of a one-story vertical addition that would add a dwelling unit to the existing building, located within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Passed a motion of intent to disapprove

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

ACTION:           Continued to 5/19/11 for Final Language

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

NAYES:            Sugaya

 

12b.      2010.0937CV                                                                         (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

259 BROAD STREET - south side between Capitol and Orizaba Avenues; Lot 052 of Assessor’s Block 7114 - Request for a Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Section 151 to add a dwelling unit without off-street parking. The project proposes the construction of a one-story vertical addition that would add a dwelling unit to the existing building.  The project site is located within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as item 12a

ACTION:           Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing with the intent to deny

 

13.        2011.0126C                                                                   (E. Jackson: (415) 558-6363)

680 VALENCIA STREET - west side between 17th and 18th Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 3577 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.2, 303, 316, and 726.41, to convert a vacant building to a new Full-Service Restaurant & Bar Establishment (dba Amber India Restaurant) that exceeds the use size limitations for the Zoning District.  The project is located within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District (Valencia NCT), a 55-X Height and Bulk District, and the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Subdistrict. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Robert Cornwell

ACTION:           Approved with conditions, as amended

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

MOTION:           18345

 

14         2009.1101C                                                                      (S. Vellve:  (415) 558-6263)

333 BAKER STREET - northwest corner of Baker and Fell Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 1206 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303, to allow T-Mobile Wireless to locate up to four (4) WTS panel antennas on an existing penthouse located at the southeast corner of the six-story (including penthouse) building (Southern Pacific Company Hospital/Mercy Terrace Complex), and related equipment to be located in a new roof penthouse, within the RM-1 (Mixed, Low-Density) District and 80-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     David Tse, Mark Leach, Gloria Burrell, Stefano Cassalato

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

NAYES:            Moore

MOTION:           18346

 

15.        2009.1076C                                                                      (S. Vellve:  (415) 558-6263)

333 BAKER STREET - northwest corner of Baker and Fell Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 1206 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303, to allow Verizon Wireless to locate up to six (6) WTS panel antennas on an existing penthouse located at the southeast corner of the six-story (including penthouse) building (Southern Pacific Company Hospital/Mercy Terrace Complex), and related equipment to be located in the building’s basement and at grade, within the RM-1 (Mixed, Low-Density) District and 80-E Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     David Tse, Mark Leach, Gloria Burrell, Stefano Cassalato,

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

NAYES:            Moore

MOTION:           18347

 

16.        2011.0097C                                                                              (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)

1423 POLK STREET - west side between Pine and California Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 0646 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 723.26 and 723.41, to establish a bar (dba "HI-LO Club") within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and the 80-A Height and Bulk District. The business also proposes a coffee service window for daytime coffee sales, which is categorized as a "Walk-Up Facility". The size of the existing tenant space would not change. This approval would relocate an existing bar (dba "Koko Cocktails") from its present location at 1060 Geary Street.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     In Favor: Heather Hageon, Michael Green, Chris Stokes, Chris Schulman, John D. Newman, Ron Case, Jennifer Farris, Ludovic Racinet, Steve Black, Harry Lee, Bill Lum, Alfonso Callazo,  Heather Cummings, Linda Valente, Miguel Hudin, Michelle Cardinal, Liam Bigelow, Ron Puagpinij, Chamh Pham, Duncan Ley, Gabriela Lifsher, Bill Klebeck, Alison Leelay, Mathew McConihe, Richard Woodruff, Ken Meade, Sue May Yen, David Manchester, James Moran, Elizabeth Shyperti, Lisa Harmayer, Joseph Y. Dabit, Renee Skolnick, Aldo Noboa, David Brooks, Soner Ustun, Chris Raulli, Elena Demetrion, Anna Seregina, Tobias Olson, Michele Scanlon, Sean Gallagher, Martin Dias, Eugene Rasnojon, Derek White, Martin Dias, Shamus Booth, Jacob Moody, George Yerby; Opposed: Linda Chapman, Frank Cunnata, Dawn Trennert, John Nulty, Paul Corbani, Georgia Liewellyn, Karyn Payne

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

MOTION:           18348

 

17.        2011.0071C                                                                             (K. Guy: (415) 558-6163)

401 BROADWAY - southwest corner at Montgomery Street; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0163 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 714.44, to establish a small self-service restaurant within the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District, the 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District, and the Broadway Special Sign District. The business would also include twelve pool tables and a "billiards academy", which are categorized as "Other Entertainment" uses, and are principally permitted pursuant to Planning Code Section 714.48. The size of the existing tenant space would not change.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

MOTION:           18349

 

5:00 PM

 

G.         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

 

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

 

18.        2006.0422E                                                                  (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 575-9040)

Executive Park Amended Subarea and The Yerby Company and Universal Paragon Corporation Development Projects - the entire 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 its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue  to its east (but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south.   Parcels that would be affected by the proposed development projects and rezoning are bordered by Executive Park Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north, and east respectively and Harney Way on the south and include Assessor’s Block and Lots 4991 / 012, 024, 061, 065, 074, 045, 078, 085, 086, and 5076 / 012, 013 (the existing office park portion of the site).      Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed Project as studied in the Environmental Impact Report includes three components: (1) Amendments to the Executive Park Subarea Plan and other related General Plan and Planning Code Amendments: Along with amending the Subarea Plan of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, amendments would be made to the Planning Code by creating the Executive Park Special Use District and the 65/240-EP Height and Bulk District, and by creating new Design Guidelines; (2) The Yerby Development Project: at 5 Thomas Mellon Circle, the Yerby Company (Yerby) would demolish the existing office building and construct five mixed-use buildings, ranging in height from 68 feet to 170 feet containing a total of approximately 500 residential units and up to 750 below-grade parking spaces; and (3) The Universal Paragon Corporation Development Project:  at 150 and 250 Executive Park Boulevard, Universal Paragon Corporation (UPC) would demolish two existing office buildings, and construct eight mixed-use buildings, ranging from 65 feet up to 240 feet tall containing a total of approximately 1,100 residential units, approximately 70,000 square feet of retail, and up to 1,677 below-grade parking spaces.

Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on November 29, 2010. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

MOTION:           18350

 

I.                    REGULAR CALENDAR

 

19a.      2006.0422EMTUZ                                                            (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

EXECUTIVE PARK –CEQA FINDINGS - the entire 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 its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue  to its east (but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south.   Parcels that would be affected by the proposed development projects and rezoning are bordered by Executive Park Boulevards West, North, and East on the west, north, and east respectively and Harney Way on the south and include Assessor’s Block and Lots 4991 / 012, 024, 061, 065, 074, 045, 078, 085, 086, and 5076 / 012, 013 (the existing office park portion of the site). Adopting environmental findings (and a statement of overriding considerations) under the California Environmental Quality Act in connection with the adoption of the project and related actions necessary to implement such plans. The proposed Project as studied in the Environmental Impact Report includes three components: (1) Amendments to the Executive Park Subarea Plan and other related General Plan and Planning Code Amendments: Along with amending the Subarea Plan of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, amendments would be made to the Planning Code by creating the Executive Park Special Use District and the 65/240-EP Height and Bulk District, and by creating new Design Guidelines; (2) The Yerby Development Project: at 5 Thomas Mellon Circle, the Yerby Company (Yerby) would demolish the existing office building and construct five mixed-use buildings, ranging in height from 68 feet to 170 feet containing a total of approximately 500 residential units and up to 750 below-grade parking spaces; and (3) The Universal Paragon Corporation Development Project:  at 150 and 250 Executive Park Boulevard, Universal Paragon Corporation (UPC) would demolish two existing office buildings, and construct eight mixed-use buildings, ranging from 65 feet up to 240 feet tall containing a total of approximately 1,100 residential units, approximately 70,000 square feet of retail, and up to 1,677 below-grade parking spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the Findings

 

            SPEAKERS:     George Yerby, Jonathan Schwarfman, Project Sponsors, Jacob Moody,     Tom                                          Colen, Arelious Walker, Espanola Jackson

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

MOTION:           18351

 

19b.      2006.0422EMTUZ                                                              (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

EXECUTIVE PARK –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 its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue  to its east(but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its south.  Request to Amend 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 and additional 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: Approval

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as item 19a

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

RESOLUTION:   18352

 

19c.      2006.0422EMTUZ                                                              (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

EXECUTIVE PARK –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 its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue  to its east(but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its 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 Amend the San Francisco Planning Code by addding Section 249.54 to establish the Executive Park Special Use District; 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 by amending 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: Approval

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as item 19a

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

RESOLUTION:   18353

 

 

 

19d.      2006.0422EMTUZ                                                               (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891

EXECUTIVE PARK –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 its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue  to its east(but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its 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 Amend 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: Approval

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as item 19a

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

RESOLUTION:   18354

 

19e.      2006.0422EMTUZ                                                              (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

EXECUTIVE PARK –DESIGN GUIDELINES - 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 its west, Bayview Hill to its North, Jamestown Avenue  to its east(but not those lots fronting on Jamestown), and Harney Way to its 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 Adopt Design Guidelines for Executive Park.  As proposed, a new Executive Park Special Use District would refer to the Design Guidelines for additional guidance in building out the office park portion of the site.  The Guidelines would include provisions for guidelines and controls for (1) Street and Block Pattern, (2) the Public Realm, (3) Buildings and Siting, (4) Building Features and Characteristics, and (5) Sustainable Development.  The adoption of these Guidelines along with the related General Plan Planning Code Text and Map 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: Adopt the Design Guidelines

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as item 19a

ACTION:           Approved with conditions

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

RESOLUTION:   18355

                                   

J.         PUBLIC COMMENT

 

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.  With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception.  When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment.  In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

 

(1)  responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2)  requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

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

 

None

 

Adjournment: 5:50 PM

 

ADOPTED: July 7, 2011

 

Last updated: 7/11/2011 8:57:48 AM