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

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 12, 2011

12:00 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT:      Miguel

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT 12:09 PM

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Aaron Hollister, Jonas Ionin, Chelsea Fordham, Corey Teague, Aaron Starr, Kevin Guy, Sharon Lai, Elizabeth Watty, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 

A.                  CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

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

           

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

 

1.         2010.1114C                                                                        (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

1796 UNION STREET - northeast corner at Octavia Street; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 0529 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c) and 725.44, to allow the establishment of an approximately 950 square-foot small self-service restaurant (dba Lite Bite), within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:          Miguel

MOTION:           18356

C.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

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.

 

Commission Antonini:

I participated in a meeting last night at 2740 Mission Street with representatives from Pollo Campero.  Supervisor Campos was there as well .I think it was a productive meeting. People have a lot of questions about process; questions about differences between the categories of fast-food and formula retail. I think those meetings are very useful to understand what is going on and what to expect. I want to thank everybody who participated.  But I would also like to thank staff -- and there is no big rush on this -- if there is the ability to find out where the population density center of San Francisco is, I think it is interesting if we know geographically where the center of San Francisco is, but in terms of population in the District, it is probably available. That has a bearing on some of the things we consider as to where the densest parts of the City are. Finally: I guess, I believe we are in receipt of something from Mr. Ionin as far as the restaurants categories. I think that will be very helpful, because it sparked discussion last night and it is a little confusing. I mentioned it as being reconsidered and the categories will be a little less confusing since some of the things that were categorized as fast food might not be categorized as fast food and vice versa. Lastly: I read an article in the recent "Marina Times," and the author was Supervisor Farrell. It mentions that Facebook had considered one time relocating to San Francisco. I can check with him and others to find out more about this. It would be interesting to find out what sort of barriers might have existed to that decision and that could help us in our future decisions.  I will get more information on that.

Commissioner Moore:

As Commissioner Antonini was talking about clarification of restaurant uses, I would remind the Commission that last week, Commissioner Miguel was talking about retail -- retail pharmacy, retail what ever. It encompasses all uses from food to pharmacy to our hardware to whatever. I think we need some guidance on that.

Commissioner Olague:

Yes, I think we had talked about that, getting more guidance - a work item on those issues that relate to retail.

Director Rahaim:   You are asking for what the existing definitions are and what types of uses they encompass?

Commissioner Moore:

Why are we using types that we are not familiar with, i.e., retail, pharmacy, as we have last week with CVS.  Note there are others coming up with larger mixes.

Commissioner Borden:   I think if we are going to talk about that, what we want to understand is the impact on different types of retail. Not every type of retail has the same kind of impact. I think if we were going to break down the conversation that would be the more interesting thing to have. Obviously, if you have pharmaceuticals, maybe there is a different impact than if you have a clothing store. I do not know. I am just throwing it out there. Maybe there is not. I think if we're looking at ways to delineate the definition, we might want to look at what makes the difference. Maybe it is the hours of operation. Maybe it is the amount of waste they cause. I am not saying we need to change anything. I am just saying if we're going to look at retail, I think we should look at how different types of retail within that classification impact what neighborhoods differently.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Just for the public's sake, we're talking about establishments like CVS Pharmacy, Walgreen's, which Commissioner Miguel voiced that in his opinion he did not know what they were. I think I know what they are, but maybe the code does not establish what they are. I think that is where the Commission is going, especially when we are talking about Target, or Wal-mart, or any of the larger
establishments, and still have that mix - bigger than a department store.  You know what I mean.

President Olague:

Me and Commissioner Fong attended a brown bag lunch that was very well attended, and it is interesting. In the conversation the idea of manufacturing came up.  According to the census at least, a high percentage of those jobs come from here in the City. At the same time, I think there is an effort to retain those jobs and that type of business here in the City.  This is a non-profit called SF Made, and at the end of the month, they are going to be touring some of these local factories and that sort of thing, breweries, people who make garments and this kind of thing. SF Made -- that is the name of the group of people if you are interested. I think in June to July, we will be having a talk on local manufacturing. It is not something we should rule out of the talk about job creation and some of the other types of industry coming in. It seems to me there is still a lot of vibrancy and potential in manufacturing.

Commissioner Borden:

Your comments reminded me that in the paper it said the districts that would experience the most growth would be 2, 4, 6, 7, and 11. They have greater than the median norm of population growth. I was really surprised at four and seven. We do not have a lot of projects on that side of the City, along with six, which we obviously knew about, and 10, which we somewhat knew about. There is more development than we have approved there. It will be interesting to look at the census numbers, to kind of see if there was any growth and development in these neighborhoods or if there was more housing. It will be interesting to figure out why -- particularly 4, 7, and 11 had such a huge growth in their population numbers.

 

D.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

3.                   Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:

Commissioners, I have one item to call to your attention. There is a memo regarding the Japantown Better Neighborhood Plan process, and there are community meetings coming up.  There will  three meetings: June 1, June 27, and July 31. They are all happening at 1840 Sutter Street at 8:00 in the evening. The community is looking at the details of plans that you had seen about a year-and-a- half ago. They are looking to add and recommend changes. These meetings will be held to get a broader community input on the plan. Again, the meetings will be June 1, June 27, in July 31.

Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator:

I just wanted to remark on the legislation sponsored by Supervisor Mirkarimi that has become effective. Residential units seeking a parking reduction would usually come to the Commission. That has been changed. Now residential and commercial parking – NCR districts – can be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and reviewed against a set of criteria.  This is under Section 307.I.
We had a few applications submitted prior to this becoming effective. Some of those will not be coming before you because of the legislative change. Others will be coming before you because they required Conditional Use for other aspects of the project. We have a hearing next week and I wanted to inform the commission of the change.

           

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

 

LAND USE COMMITTEE:

§         BF various Parkmerced. This week the hearing at the land use committee focused on updates to the draft Development Agreement and technical amendments to the Planning Code ordinance.  There was little discussion.  After taking public comment and accepting the proposed amendments to the documents, the hearing was continued without action.  The Committee will consider action on the Parkmerced ordinances at a special Land Use Committee hearing scheduled for 9:00am on Tuesday, May 24.  At its full Board hearing next Tuesday, the Board will not only consider the EIR Appeal-- but also if the EIR is upheld, the Board will go on to consider all of the actions related to the Parkmerced project.

§         Housing Element.  At Monday's land use committee hearing, the Board considered the draft Housing Element.   For this item, the     Board has already heard the appeal of the EIR and upheld the CEQA      document with a 8-3 vote.  Therefore this week the Land Use Committee      was able to take action on the draft HE.  The Committee heard public      comment that was largely consistent with comments made at the  Planning Commission hearing (some expressed concern that adoption of the housing element would result in a re-zoning of RH districts - staff clarified that this is not part of the housing element).  After public comment the Committee thanked staff for their work, asked staff to respond to public comments and clarify the effect of the housing element, and expressed support for the housing element; the committee voted unanimously to recommend adoption of the Housing Element to the full board.  The Board is scheduled to vote on the HE at next Tuesday's meeting.

 

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

§         New Legislation for 800 Presidio.  Commissioners, on April 28th, 2011 you heard legislation related to a proposed project titled the “Booker T. Washington Community Services Mixed Use Center”.  At that time you took actions approving the project with about 50 units of housing (including 24 low income units and 24 transitional housing units for youth at risk), a community center and a gym within a 55’ height limit.  Since your action two new pieces of legislation have been introduced at the Board.  The first, was introduced by Supervisor Farrell.  It is an amendment to his original legislation for the project.  This new version would limit the height to 45’ [BF110116, version 2].  The second piece of legislation was introduced by Supervisors Mirkarimi, Mar, and Avalos [BF 110658].  This second, proposed Ordinance would allow a 55’ building-- consistent with the project you have approved.  Since you have already considered this project, the Board has calendared both versions of the legislation without the typical 90-day wait.  Currently the Ordinances are scheduled for a June 6th hearing before the Board Land Use Committee.

§         New hearing request.  Title:  Hearing on the San Francisco Administrative Code Article 36 regarding the Interagency Plan Implementation Committee Annual Progress Report and San Francisco Planning Code Section 409 regarding the Development Impact Fee Report.  Sponsors:  Eric Mar 

INTRODUCTIONS: 

·         110116 Planning Code - Zoning Map - Presidio-Sutter Special Use District - 800 Presidio Avenue.  Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 259.53 to: 1) establish the Presidio-Sutter Special Use District for property located at 800 Presidio Avenue (Assessor's Block No. 1073, Lot No. 13); 2) amend Sheet HT03 of the Zoning Map to change the Height and Bulk District from 40-X to 45-X; and 3) amend Sheet SU-03 of the Zoning Map to reflect the boundaries of the Presidio-Sutter Special Use District; 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.  Mark Farrell, Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi

·         110482 Planning Code - Miscellaneous Technical Amendments.  Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code to: 1) correct clerical errors, make language revisions and update Sections 121.2, 134, 136.1, 142, 185, 201, 204.1, 204.2, 205, 205.1, 205.3, 207.2, 209.3, 217, 243, 303, 309, 311, 312, 317, 602.25, 602.26, 607.1, and various Sections and Tables in Articles 7 and 8; and 2) adopting findings, including findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and Planning Code Section 101.1.  Planning Commission.

 

Board of Appeals

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

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

The Commission did not meet this week.

 

5.         2011.0149I                                                                   (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

135 MAIN STREET - east side between Mission and Howard Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor’s Block 3717 - Report on Babson College’s Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP), pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. Babson College’s Abbreviated IMP contains information on the nature and history of the institution, the location and use of affiliated buildings, and development plans within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) Zoning District and a 300-S Height and Bulk District. The IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department’s website (fromwww.sfplanning.org click “Publications & Reports” and then “Institutional Master Plans”).

Recommended Action:  Informational presentation, no action requested.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:            Informational presentation; Abbreviated IMP was accepted with the close of the hearing – no formal action was taken

 

E.         GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

 

            At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items.  With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

SPEAKERS: Harlan Hoffman

                     Re: Clarification of DPW order presenting LHNA guidelines

                     Brad Paul

                    Re: Calendar an item to discuss Parking in the Waterfront and Washington Street area that will affect the American’s Cup; also restoring the MUNI connection to the Waterfront area.

                     Betty Foote:

                     Re: Why variances aren’t separated from PMND

                     Sue Hestor

                     Re: Transition to electronic files.                                                                                     

 

F.            REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

6a.        2011.0063DV                                                                          (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

135 El Camino del Mar - south side between 25th Avenue and the western most entrance to the Presidio; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1334 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.01.07.4358 proposing to legalize horizontal additions built without benefit of permit at the southeastern-most rear portion, along the east side and over the garage at the front of the single-family residence within an RH-1(D) (Residential House, One-Family, Detached), Scenic Special Sign District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approved as proposed

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to 5/19/11

AYES:              Borden, Moore, Sugaya, Olague

NAYES:            Antonini and Fong

ABSENT:          Miguel

 

6b.        2011.0063DV                                                                         (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

135 El Camino del Mar - south side between 25th Avenue and the western most entrance to the Presidio; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1334 - Request for Rear Yard and Non-complying Structure Variances pursuant to Sections 134 and 188 of the Planning Code to legalize additions built without benefit of permit at the southeastern-most rear portion, along the east side and over the garage at the front of the single-family residence.  A portion of the horizontal addition at the rear encroaches into the required rear yard within an RH-1(D) (Residential House, One-Family, Detached), Scenic Special Sign District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to 5/19/11

AYES:              Borden, Moore, Sugaya, Olague

NAYES:            Antonini and Fong

ABSENT:          Miguel

 

7.         2008.0723E                                                                   (C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

 

SPEAKERS:     Betty Foote, Appellant, In Favor of upholding Neg Dec: Krishanti Dharmaraj, Mathew Kamimoto, Todd Doorman; Opposed to Neg Dec: Sue Hestor, Thomas Nuyens.

ACTION:           PMND was upheld

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

ABSENT:          Miguel

MOTION:           18357

 

 

 

8.         2008.0723V                                                                             (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

1255-1275 COLUMBUS AVENUE - west side of Columbus Avenue at the southwest corner of the intersection of Columbus Avenue, North Point, and Leavenworth Street; Lot 014 of Assessor’s Block 0028 - Request for Variances: 1) Pursuant to Planning Code Section 134 to allow  a series of courtyards situated along the rear property line, where a continuous rear yard equal to 25% of the depth of the lot is required; 2) Pursuant to Section 151 of the Planning Code to provide no off-street parking spaces for the proposed retail use, where 12 parking spaces are required, and; 3) Pursuant to Section 155(r) to allow a new 10-foot curb cut to access off-street parking from Columbus Avenue, where no new curb cut is permitted. The proposed project is demolition of an existing 15,852-square-foot, 32-foot-tall office building built in 1954 and construction of a new 54,420-square-foot, 40-foot-tall, mixed-use building containing 20 residential units and 6,215 square feet of commercial space. The project site is located in a C-2 (Community Business District) Use District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 7

ACTION:           Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez closed the public hearing and granted the variances subject to the standard conditions of approval

 

9.         2010.0771EC                                                                    (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

300, 307 & 311 GAVEN STREET - north and south sides of Gaven Street at the intersection of Boylston Street, Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 5847, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 5846, Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 5853, and Lots 045 and 046 in Assessor's Block 5860 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3(g), 303, 304, and 317 to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for a project proposing to demolish a portion of an existing building on the campus of an existing private school (dba The San Francisco School), construct a 40-foot tall and approximately 14,000 gross square foot multi-purpose center, expand the enrollment cap from 268 to 285 students, and to legalize the conversion of two single-family homes from residential use to administrative school uses in the RH-1 (Residential, House-District, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The PUD requires an exception for rear yard (Section 134) and height measurement (Section 260).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

 

SPEAKERS:     Steve Morris, Head of the school, Phil Bondi - Project Architect, In Favor: Delami Elkins, Ki Maudi, Alice Aarons, Louise Devine, Nathan Logan, Mathew Komimoto, Olga Banales; Opposed: Thomas Nunian

ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:          Miguel

MOTION:           18358

 

10a.      2010.0137D                                                                         (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362) 

2454-2456 BUSH STREET - north side between Pierce and Scott Streets, two interior lots with access to Bush Street by an easement; Lots 011 and 011D in Assessor’s Block 0657 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(e), of Building Permit Application Nos. 2010.09.20.1221 and 2010.09.20.1225, proposing to merge two existing one-story, one-unit residential buildings to one, one-story, single-family building within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis:  Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

 

SPEAKERS:     Felton Finney - Project Sponsor

ACTION:           The Commission did not take DR and approved the project encouraging the PS to continue working with staff to do less glazing in the rear and provide “something more like French doors.”

AYES:              Antonini, Fong, Sugaya, Olague

ABSENT:          Borden, Miguel, and Moore

DRA:                0207

 

10b.      2010.0137V                                                                          (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

2454A-2456A BUSH STREET - north side between Pierce and Scott Streets, two interior lots with access to Bush Street by an easement; Lots 011 and 011D in Assessor’s Block 0657 - Request for Rear Yard and Noncomplying Structure Variances pursuant to Sections 134 and 188a of the Planning Code for the construction of a 17’ long by 3’ wide 1-story horizontal addition between the two existing one-story, one-unit structures and the construction of an approximately 4’ long by 6’ wide 1-story horizontal addition at the rear of the building furthest to the north within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 10a.

ACTION:           Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez closed the public hearing and granted the variances subject to the standard conditions of approval and those adopted by the Commission today

 

11.        2010.0556D                                                                  (A. Hollister: (415) 575-9078)

1500 GRANT AVENUE - northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Union Street, Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 0104 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.10.15.9053, proposing to add a T-Mobile micro wireless telecommunications service facility consisting of a panel antenna shrouded inside a faux vent pipe structure and equipment cabinets.  The faux vent pipe would be mounted on the rooftop of the subject building, while the equipment cabinets would be mounted to the wall of an existing penthouse stair structure.  The subject property is located in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District, the North Beach Special Use District, the Telegraph Hill-North Beach Residential Special Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.

Staff Analysis:  Full Discretionary Review

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 17, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     In Favor: Jeff Ente, Chi Hom, Julie Jaycox, Opposed: Steven Suen, Evangiline Bares, Gloria Salazar, David Tse, Yvonne Liu, Regina Vann, Alfredo Fiore, Neutral:  Marisa Ongbhanbulya, Leri, Qiao Lien, Billie Tan, Li-Xu Li Qiong, Darla Bernard,

ACTION:           Took DR and approved with requirement that electrical units be screened and the design worked on by Department staff

AYES:              Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya, Olague

NAYES:            Moore

ABSENT:          Miguel

DRA:                0208

 

            12.        2011.0194D                                                                                (S. LAI: (415) 575-9087)

4090 26TH STREET - north side between Noe and Sanchez Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 6553 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.10.05.2258, proposing to replace the existing deck and shed structure with a 3-story horizontal rear extension that measures approximately 10 feet deep by 25 feet wide, to the existing three-story, single-family dwelling, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-units per Lot) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

 

SPEAKERS:     Julie Lau, Eric Engleman, Sue Hestor

ACTION:           The Commission did not take DR and approved the project encouraging the project sponsor to continue a dialogue with the DR requestor to try to soften the project.

AYES:              Antonini, Borden, Moore, Sugaya, Olague

ABSENT:          Miguel and Fong

DRA:                0209

 

5:00 PM

           

            13.                                                                                                   (E.WATTY (415) 558-6620)

CALIFORNIA PACIFIC MEDICAL CENTER (CPMC) LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERVIEW - This is the second of four scheduled informational hearings that will provide an overview of CPMC’s development projects. Specific topics to be discussed at this session include an overview of the architecture, urban design, and public realm improvements proposed at the Van Ness and Geary Campus, St. Luke’s Campus, and Davies Campus, and an overview of the requested entitlements.  California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) is made up of four medical centers in San Francisco, consisting of the California Campus (previously known as the Children’s Hospital of San Francisco), Pacific Campus (previously known as the Pacific Presbyterian Medical Center), Davies Campus (previously Ralph K. Davies Hospital), and St. Luke’s Campus. Three of CPMC’s four acute-care hospitals (California, Pacific, and St. Luke’s Campus’) must be rebuilt or de-licensed in order to comply with state law about the seismic stability of hospitals. CPMC proposes to consolidate the acute-care services currently located at the California and Pacific Campuses, and locate them at a new medical center at Van Ness Avenue and Geary. The Van Ness and Geary Medical Center would include a hospital on the west side of Van Ness Avenue ((Block 0695, Lots 005, 006) and a new Medical Office Building on the east side of Van Ness Avenue (Block 0694, Lots 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 009A, 010). The sites are bounded by Franklin Street, Post Street, Van Ness Avenue, Cedar Street, Geary Street, and Geary Boulevard.  At the St. Luke’s Campus, CPMC proposes to construct a new hospital that will be located adjacent to the existing hospital tower on Cesar Chavez Street (Block 6576, Lot 021). The existing hospital tower on St. Luke’s Campus (Block 6575, Lots 001, 002) would be demolished after the new hospital is built, operational, and patients have been transferred. In a subsequent phase, a replacement medical office building/expansion building would be built at the corner of Cesar Chavez and Valencia Streets. CPMC also proposes to reauthorize their previously approved Conditional Use for the Davies Neuroscience Institute (aka Noe Street Medical Office Building) located at 601 Duboce Street (Block 3539, Lot 001).

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Requested. Informational Discussion Only

 

SPEAKERS:     In Favor: Bob Caplin, David Meckel, John Millsap, Lance B ayer, Jason Atachi, John Pangarzio, Tyler Krehlik, Corey Marshall, Bryan Stiles, Gloria Smith, David Dupree, Richard May, Linda Chapman, Bryan Childs, David Dupree, Opposed: Paul Werner, Santly Seifreid, Mark Mitchell, Amelia Loisin, Gracita Dimano, Manuel Ang, Mely Saaundra, Michael Treece, Eugene Crenslin, Valerie Gruber, Mary Michelucii, Jane Sandoval, Bob Buckley, Pierre Gasztowtt, Eileen Prendivill, Reiko Furuya, Roland Anderson, Pierre Gaston,  Neutral: Helene Dellanini, Brad Paul, Lorenzo Listana, Vince Avalone, Valerie Cooper, Eugene Garlan, Sue Hestor

ACTION:           Informational only – no action

 

G.         PUBLIC COMMENT

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

None

 

Adjournment:  7:40 PM

 

ADOPTED: July 7, 2011

Last updated: 7/11/2011 9:02:24 AM