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

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

September 30, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 30, 2010

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT MIGUEL AT 1:45 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Kelley Amdur, AnMarie Rodgers, Rick Crawford, Brett Becker, Jeremy Battis, Sharon Young, Shelley Caltagirone, Corey Teague, Aaron Hollister, Edgar Oropeza, and 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.

           

1.         2010.0556D                                                    (A. Hollister: (415) 575-9078) 

1500 GRANT AVENUE - northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Stockton 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

(Proposed for continuance to October 14, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued as proposed

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

 

2.         2010.0557D                                                     (A. Hollister: (415) 575-9078) 

1653 GRANT AVENUE (aka 501 GREENWICH STREET) - southwest corner of Grant Avenue and Greenwich Street, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0088 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.06.26.1437, proposing to add a T-Mobile micro wireless telecommunications service facility consisting of an omni 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 RM-2 (Residential, Mixed Districts, Moderate Density) 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

(Proposed for continuance to October 14, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued as proposed

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

 

3.         2010.0558D                                                    (A. Hollister: (415) 575-9078)  

1763 STOCKTON STREET - southwest corner of Stockton and Greenwich Streets, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0089 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2009.11.05.0626, 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 and equipment cabinets would be mounted on the rooftop of the subject building.  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

(Proposed for continuance to October 14, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued as proposed

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

 

4.         2010.0182U                                                        (A. RODGERS: (415) 558- 6395)

STANDARDS FOR BIRD-SAFE BUILDINGS - Informational hearing to announce the public release of a draft document titled "Bird-Safe Building Standards." This document is intended to promote bird-safe design and to reduce bird collisions into buildings.  The draft document would propose the creation of three tiers of review: 1) guidelines providing guidance to project sponsors about the potential bird hazards; 2) requirements for the most hazardous conditions; and 3) voluntary "bird-safe" certification for building owners who choose, on their own accord, to meet the guidelines. The proposal discusses potential negative impacts on resident and migratory birds, comprising suggested remedies to lessen the hazard through treatments for glazing, lighting, and other building design and operations application.

Preliminary Recommendation: Discussion and Deliberation on Potential Future Adoption

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 5, 2010)

(Proposed for continuance to October 14, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued as proposed

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

 

5.         2010.0514C                                                    (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

414 COLUMBUS AVENUE - northeast side between Vallejo and Green Streets Lot 015 of Assessor’s Block 0131 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Section 722.48, Other Entertainment.  The project would amend Planning Commission Motion No. 14666 in Case No. 1998.409C (Other Entertainment) to allow electronically amplified entertainment in the existing restaurant and bar.  The proposed entertainment would include opera singers and a singing waiter. This project lies within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and within the 40-A Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for continuance to November 18, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued as proposed

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

 

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

 

6.        2010.0045C                                                      (S. Hayward:  (415) 558-6372)

380-398 Randolph Street - north side of Randolph Street, between Victoria and Ramsell Streets; Assessor's Block 7088, Lot 051 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization (pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.11 and 121.1) for the construction of a new mixed-use building that contains eight residential units including 7 market-rate units and one BMR unit with eight off-street parking spaces, and one 18-room Residential Care facility that accommodates up to 36 occupants, with commercial space at the ground floor. The subject property is located within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, one-story commercial units) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District within the Ocean View Neighborhood.

 

NOTE:              Items 6, 7 & 8 were removed from Consent and followed category E

SPEAKERS:     Lordes Martin

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION;           18182

 

7a.       2008.1405DV                                                    (S. Hayward:  (415) 558-6372)

448 DIAMOND Street - west side of Diamond Street between 21st and 22nd   Street; Assessor's Block 2768, Lot 008 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings of Demolition Permit Application No. 2010.07.13.6495 proposing to demolish a two-story single-family dwelling located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition

 

NOTE:              Items 6, 7 & 8 were removed from Consent and followed category E

SPEAKERS:     Laura Abernathy – Project Sponsor and Project Designer

Motion:             To not take DR & approve

Ayes:                Antonini, Sugaya, and Miguel

Nayes:              Moore and Olague

Result:              The Motion failed

ACTION:           In the absence of a successful substituted motion, the demolition is approved as proposed

DRA:                0171

 

7b.      2008.1406DV                                                     (S. Hayward:  (415) 558-6372)

448 Diamond Street - west side of Diamond Street between 21st and 22nd Street; Assessor's Block 2768, Lot 008 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under Planning Code Section 317 requiring review of the demolition of residential buildings and their replacement structures, of Building Permit Application No. 2010.07.13.6485 proposing to construct a three-story single-family dwelling located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition

 

NOTE:              Items 6, 7 & 8 were removed from Consent and followed category E

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 7a

Motion:             To not take DR & approve

Ayes:                Antonini, Sugaya, and Miguel

Nayes:              Moore and Olague

Result:              The Motion failed

ACTION:           In the absence of a successful substituted motion, the project is approved as proposed

DRA:                0172

 

7c.       2008.1406DV                                                     (S. Hayward:  (415) 558-6372)

448 Diamond Street - west side of Diamond Street between 21st and 22nd Street; Assessor's Block 2768, Lot 008 -  Request for a Variance from Planning Code Section 132 from the Zoning Administrator to construct a new single-family home on the subject lot.  The proposed new structure extends 12' into the required 14’ front setback.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

NOTE:              Items 6, 7 & 8 were removed from Consent and followed category E

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 7a

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

 

8.        2010.0676C                                                    (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

445-447 SUTTER STREET - south side between Stockton and Powell Streets Lot 010 of Assessor’s Block 0295 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 218.8 Massage Establishments to include massage services within an existing suite of medical offices on the eighth floor of the subject property.  The project would establish one 229 square foot massage treatment room in the medical office suite.  This project lies within the C-3-R Downtown Retail District and within the 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

The Sponsor was

The doctor was

 

NOTE:              Items 6, 7 & 8 were removed from Consent and followed category E

SPEAKERS:     Wittawas Phrathum – Project Sponsor; and Karl Giljum – Doctor’s office where the proposed project will be located

ACTION:           Approved

MOTION:           18183

 

 

 

9.         2005.0963E                                                          (B. BECKER: (415) 575-9075)

CRYSTAL SPRINGS PIPELINE NO. 2 REPLACEMENT PROJECT - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 (CSPL2) Replacement Project. The Project proposes to upgrade and replace portions of the CSPL2, which extends (south to north) from the Crystal Springs Pump Station at the base of Lower Crystal Springs Dam in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County, through the Town of Hillsborough and the cities of San Mateo, Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Daly City, and into the City and County of San Francisco, terminating at the University Mound Reservoir in southeastern San Francisco. The SFPUC has identified 19 sites along the 19-mile CSPL2 alignment where improvements are proposed to meet seismic reliability level-of-service goals. The improvements include pipeline rehabilitation and seismic retrofit activities at 15 sites and general improvements to protect the pipeline from corrosion and exposure at 4 sites.  In addition to these improvements, the SFPUC proposes to install new cathodic protection equipment at 9 locations and insulated flange joints (referred to as electrical isolation) at 31 locations along the CSPL2 alignment to further protect the pipeline from corrosion.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report

Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on January 25, 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.

           

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Final EIR certified

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

MOTION:           18181

 

C.        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.

 

10.        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 Antonini:

I’m happy to see in the press last week that the city is considering using abandoned city property as residential dwelling units for teachers and other public employees.  I think that’s a wonderful idea.  However, I think it doesn’t go far enough and I always have been an advocate for a system to help us address our middle-class residents, particularly those who are critical for the operation of San Francisco – most notably:  public safety, officials and teachers, and others whose presence is essential.  I’d like to see a system looked at where we would perhaps have an availability bonus for these people.  And that money would have to be applied towards housing.  I think it would eliminate a lot of the problems that we sometimes have on some of our items where we try to provide affordable housing.  This would be an additional method to be able to keep particularly public safety officials in San Francisco, residing there and available for emergencies, and available for things that might happen that are not emergencies that require their presence.  It would be a situation where you wouldn’t have to worry about instances like shared equity because this would be a bonus paid each year that they were here, and if for some reason where to move, that would have been their bonus for that period to time.  It would have to be use toward rent or toward purchase of a residence.  It’s just an idea I’m throwing out there as we grapple with the problems of keeping our middle class in San Francisco, and most notably, to those to whom we need their presence 24 hours a day often.

Commissioner Sugaya:

From a Business Times article from September 10 – 16th, Oakland to Streamline Project Approvals – It says “As part of an update to Oakland’s General Plan, city planners drafted an environmental impact report that will address most of the areas available for residential development.”  It says “the document should clear most of the ground work that developers typically have to do to gain approval.  Some developers may not have to do any EIRs, and some may have to do only supplemental EIRs rather than a full one.  The Oakland Planning Commission discussed it on September 15 and public comment is open until today.”  I’d like to have some information from staff about what this is all about unless you guys already know.

Director Rahaim:

We can certainly find out more.  I think what it is about, because I saw that same article, is essentially the equivalent of a Neighborhood Plan EIR which allows subsequent projects to do what we call Community Planning.  In some cases those projects would have to do a supplemental or what is sometimes called a Focused EIR.  I think that is what they are using, but I’ll confirm that.

Commissioner Moore:

I was glad to read that the Mayor is submitting a term sheet in support of his bid for the Americas Cup.  I hope we will find a voice and on-going dialog of how to get the best out of that for citywide planning.

Commissioner Miguel:

I’d like to mention that I met with people regarding the Booker T. Washington project; CPMC.  I was at the Planning Department roll out of the South Mission Survey Historic Area, which was quite nicely attended as far as the neighborhood was concerned.  I had the pleasure of being a guest again at the Neighborhood Network.  [I attended] the third in a very interesting presentation this week on Hope SF.  They had previously done one on the physical characteristics build out.  This was interesting because it did not concern the physical aspects that usually concern commissioners, but the support services that would have to be in place and that would work with the residents before, during, and after and are extremely extensive.  The presenter did a very good job with that one.  Also, last night the Housing Action Coalition, which gave this body its Housing Action Hero Award last year, again held their Housing Hero Awards for this year.  Commissioner Antonini and Director Rahaim were also present.  This was given to three people who were involved in the Hunter’s Point Project:  Koffy Bonner, Mike Cohen and Supervisor Maxwell with a very interesting intro by former Mayor Willie Brown.  I also want to announce that Commissioner Olague and myself were present this morning when the Board of Supervisor’s Rules Committee passed the Mayor’s recommendation, Gwyneth Borden, to continue as a member of this body.  They did so as a Committee report to be acted upon by the full Board next Tuesday.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Just a couple of other things:  Commissioner Olague, myself and Commissioner Martinez from the Historic Preservation Commission attended a meeting with staff on the subject of Social Cultural Heritage Preservation in the City.  We were presented with ideas from the Planning Department associated with planning going on in Western SOMA with respect to the Pilipino community in that area, and also the LGBTQ community.  They had some very interesting documents for us to review.  I think the purpose of the meeting was to involve as much as possible staff from OEWD.  I think the meeting as an initial kick off went very well.  There will be some follow up, especially with people.  Claudia from staff who is involved with some similar things in the Mission and Paul Lord who was working with Western SOMA and is now working with Japantown, so I now think the scope will expand a bit and include those communities as well.

I also attended the Saturday meeting of the South Mission Survey.  I think the attendance was a bit lower there because there was some concern from the community about not having gotten the work out enough.  It was recommended to staff to continue community outreach through the community organizations in that area.  Instead of the Planning Department sponsoring the workshop, it was recommended that the Department go through some of the existing organizations.  Hopefully they will follow up on that.

Commissioner Antonini:

Since we last met, I have also met with both neighborhood groups and representatives of Cal Pacific Medical Center; neighborhood groups with concerns about Booker T. Washington project as well as some of the sponsors of the project; and President Miguel mention the Housing Hero’s Awards last night.

 

11.        Discussion with possible action on when to calendar Park Merced

 

SPEAKERS:     Mitchell, Ted, Jim Abrams – representing Park Merced, Sue Hestor, and Calvin Welch

ACTION:           Director Rahaim proposed that the schedule would be to initiate on October 21, followed by a hearing on November 18.  However, because the item has been advertised in the newspaper for entitlements on October 21, he noted that the hearing would have to show on that calendar as an item Proposed for Continuance to November 18.  Other than discussion, the Commission did not take any action.

 

D.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

12.        Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:

The only announcement I want to make is regarding the South Mission Survey hearings.  I want to thank Commissioners Miguel and Sugaya for attending those meetings, as well as Historic Preservation Commissioner Alan Martinez who actually attended both of the public meetings on that survey.  We will be looking on some continuing outreach with the neighborhood groups as was suggested by Commissioners Sugaya and Martinez.

We are working on a date for the upcoming survey on the South of Market area as well.  I think that is in early November.  We will let you know in a week or so when that will be.

I just want to mention that I will be leaving the meeting around 6 p.m. tonight to attend a meeting regarding SB375 that is with elected officials and several Department Heads.  I thought it was important that I attend that meeting this evening.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

 

Land Use Committee: 

        The Committee heard an ordinance that would create an SUD for the LGBT Center at 1800 Market Street.  This ordinance was considered by this Commission on July 22 and by the HPC on July 21.  Both Commissions recommended approval with a non-substantive modification that the control be cross-referenced in Section 702.2 of the Planning Code.  This week the Land Use Committee modified the legislation to include your recommendation.

        Ordinance relating in part to TDR in general and in part to a specific parcel at 680 California Street (aka Old St. Mary’s Church).  This ordinance would amend 1) the General Plan; 2) Zoning Map; and 3) Section 128 of the Code.  The property would be rezoned to allow the sale of TDRs.  The HPC considered the ordinance on June 2nd and recommended approval.  This Commission considered the ordinance on June 20th and recommended approval.  This Monday, the Land Use Committee passed out the original legislation as you heard it.  This enabled the Board’s vote (10-0) on Tuesday of this week to approve the rezoning.  Next Monday, the Land Use Committee will hear again a revised version of the ordinance that adds more specificity on restrictions to the TDR funds in response to concerns raised by SPUR and others.  This revised version of the ordinance will supersede the ordinance passed this week by the Board.

        CEQA Reform – The Land Use Committee also considered an ordinance to add regulations to the Administrative Code so as to specify procedures for appeals of neg decs and exemptions.  The proposed ordinance was considered by this Commission on 6/24/10.  At that time you recommended 11 modifications.  The HPC considered the legislation on 6/16 and 7/7 at which point they concurred with your recommendations and added 4 additional considerations.  Supervisor Alioto-Pier responded to and incorporated the vast majority of your recommendations.  Some of your recommendations that sought to add clarity to how one could preserve appeal rights were no longer applicable as the sponsor has removed proposed requirements to retain appeal rights.  Many of the speakers at the Committee hearing were still under the mistaken belief that the ordinance would require action to maintain appeal rights, but this is no longer true to the revised ordinance.  Other requests from the Planning Commission that sought to increase the ability for all parties to reasonably participate in the process have been incorporated.  Examples of these amendments now in the ordinance include:  setting reasonable timelines for appeal hearings so all parties have time to prepare while allowing for additional time when the Board may be on recess; providing for staggered deadlines for submittal of material to the Board, and clarifying when notice is required for exemptions, especially those issued by other departments.  Other recommendations of the Commission incorporated into this version of the legislation would clarify currently ambiguous procedures such as:  clarifying what may be subject to subsequent appeals after the Board remands a CEQA determination and sends it back to the Department for more work.  Lastly, some technical recommendations have also been incorporated.  The Legislative Sponsor responded to the HPC requests by eliminating prior participation for an appeal, expanding notice of exemptions, including the HPC in the review process, and ensuring the designation of historic districts is not interrupted by CEQA appeals.  Due to the number of speakers in opposition and the misunderstandings of the content of the current proposal, the item has been continued to on or after 10/25 so that the Supervisor may continue to conduct outreach.

Full Board of Supervisors:

        ADA Ramp – The Board considered the HPC’s Certificate of Appropriateness to changes to the Board Chambers that would allow ADA access to the Board President’s dais and the Clerk’s table.  This week the Board approved the C  of A with a 9-1 vote.

        Construction Agreement for 1150 Ocean Avenue – This would authorize the Director of Planning to execute the agreement on behalf of the City to ensure the construction of 26 inclusionary units on site.

        The Board considered a resolution supporting existing area plan housing requirements.  Last week our director testified at the Land use Committee on this item.  At that time he reported that we were still waiting for CPMC to submit plans enabling us to calculate the amount of housing that the Van Ness Area Plan would require.  He also noted that the same plan does provide an avenue for a code complying project to avoid the requirement if approved by a CU by this Commission.  This CU authorization is the current proposal for the project.  The full Board voted to approve this resolution 7-3.

Rules Committee:

        Earlier today, the Rules Committee recommended reappointment of Gwyneth Borden to the Planning Commission.  This recommendation will be considered by the Full Board next Tuesday.  If confirmed by the Full Board, she may be able to join you in time for next week’s hearing.

Introductions:

        Supervisor Maxwell introduced an ordinance amending Planning Code Sections 420.1 through 420.5 to update the Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fee and Fund and to conform the program with other Area Plan.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS

        No report

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

        The HPC held a special meeting yesterday to discuss Articles 10 & 11.  Staff will bring their recommended suggestions for changes back before them next week.  Those recommended changes will also be before you in a joint hearing with the HPC on October 21.

 

E.         GENERALPUBLIC 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:     Tom Radulovich – Executive Director of Livable City

Re:       The increasing importance of Van Ness and Polk Street in the city’s transportation system

 

F.       REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

14.        2010.0833T                                                      (A. Rodgers (415) 558-6395)

INTENTION TO INITIATE COMMISSION-SPONSORED PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED to the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial District.  Pursuant to Planning Code Section 302, the Planning Commission will consider a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Planning Code. The amendments are intended to apply new development impact fees and design controls to the existing neighborhood commercial district.  The draft ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning Code including amendments to Sections 134, 145.4, 151.1, 155, 207.8, 263.20, 401, 421.1, 421.3, 421.5, 721, and 721.1 as the sections relate to the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial District (Upper Market NCD) and to extend the Market and Octavia Community Infrastructure Fee area to include the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial District lying outside the Market and Octavia Plan area.  The controls will amend the parking and loading requirements; require ground floor commercial on this portion of Market Street; amend certain design requirements; and make other amendments.

Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate Proposed Amendments

 

SPEAKERS:     In support:  Tom Radulovich and Peter Cohen

ACTION:           Approved

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

RESOLUTION:   18184

 

15.       2007.1457E                                                             (J. BATTIS: (415) 575-9022)

1050 Valencia Street -  west side between 21st and 22nd Streets at the southwest corner of Valencia Street and Hill Street; Lot 008 of Assessor’s Block 3617 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of a mixed-use development with restaurant and residential uses. The proposed project would also include the demolition of an existing 1,670-square foot (sq ft), one-story restaurant building constructed in 1970. The new proposed five-story building would have 16 dwelling units over a 3,500-sq ft ground-floor and basement level full-service restaurant. The existing building has one off-street parking/loading space, which would be eliminated. The 3,315-sq ft project site is within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT) zoning district and a 55-X height and bulk district in the Mission District neighborhood.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 2, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     In support of the appeal/opposing the project:  Risa Teitelbaum – Liberty Hill Neighborhood, Stephanie Weisman – The marsh, Diana Rathbone – The Marsh, Emily Elivn – The Marsh, Wayne Harris, mark Kenward – The Marsh, Ron Jones, David Fuchs – The Marsh, Mike Mauer – Liberty Hill Neighborhood Assoc., Andrew Bauer – Liberty Hill Neighborhood Assoc, John Barbey – Liberty Hill Neighborhood Assoc, Peter Heinecte – Liberty Hill Neighborhood, Matt Young – Liberty Hill Neighborhood Assoc, Fredric West, Sue Lebeck, Barbara Russel, Avi Ehrlich, James; The Project Architect spoke in support of the project/opposed to the appeal

ACTION:           Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration was upheld

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

MOTION:           18185

 

16.       2010.0605C                                                           (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

3131 FILLMORE STREET - southwest corner of Fillmore and Pixley Streets;Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 0515 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 725.42 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert a vacant retail commercial tenant space (last occupied by a tattoo studio and art gallery, dba The Armada Tattoo & Art Gallery) to a full-service restaurant (tenant identified, but business name to be determined) on the ground floor of a two-story residential and commercial building within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal will involve tenant improvements to the approximately 1,160 square-foot ground floor commercial tenant space, with no expansion of the existing building envelope. The proposed restaurant will seat approximately 44 people.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Cameron – Project Sponsor

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18186

 

17.       2010.0223C                                                           (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

444 PRESIDIO AVENUE - northeast corner of Presidio Avenue and California Streets; Lot 026 in Assessor’s Block 1022 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 711.83 and 303 of the Planning Code to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of three panel antennas, one GPS antenna, and associated equipment as part of Clearwire’s wireless telecommunications network on the rooftop and penthouse of an existing four-story hotel building (dba Laurel Inn) within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Pursuant to the City and County of San Francisco’s Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 2 (Preferred Location – Co-Location Site) as it is a site on which a legal wireless telecommunications facility (three panel antennas installed by Sprint) is currently located. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Sam Jud – representing Clearwire (the Project Sponsor)

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18187

 

18.        2010.0669D                                                (S. CALTAGIRONE: (415) 558-6625)

1269 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Polk and Larkin Streets; Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 0501 -Mandatory Discretionary Review pursuant to Planning Code Section 317 of Demolition Permit Application No. 2010.05.20.2877 proposing to demolish the two-story single-family building located at the rear of the lot on a property located within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis:  Full Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve

Note:  On April 8, 2010, the Planning Commission considered Case Nos. 2009.0443DD and 2010.0165DD, proposing to demolish the existing building and construct two new single-family buildings at the subject property, and took the following actions:  On April 8, 2010, the Commission took Discretionary Review for Case No. 2009.0443DD and denied the demolition of the building, finding that they did not have adequate information about the historic resource issues related to the subject project or adequate information about past project approvals for the subject property. On June 24, 2010, the Commission took Discretionary Review for Case No. 2009.0165DD and approved the new construction with the requirement that the Project Sponsor seek and obtain a permit to demolish the existing building.

 

SPEAKERS:     In support of the project:  Brett Gladstone – representing the Project Sponsor

ACTION:           The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition

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

DRA:                0173

 

19a.     2009.0765DDV                                                               (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

374 – 5th STREET - west side between Folsom and Clara Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 3753 -Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.02.23.6954, proposing to convert the existing 47-room tourist hotel into a 46-room residential hotel, with Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) group housing rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors, a lobby on the ground floor, and new stair penthouse and roof deck. As provided under the Residential Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 41), 23 of the 46 residential hotel rooms are replacement rooms required by the removal of 23 residential hotel rooms from 235 O’Farrell Street (Case No. 2009.0288C). The new residential hotel at 374 5th Street is within an MUR (Mixed Use Residential) District and an 85-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Take DR and Approve with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     In support of DR/opposed to project:  Jeff Matt, Azmeer Salley, Stephen Rahn, [Unclear name], Matt Drake, Nanci Tuckir, Brian Egg, Sidney Schneider, Linda Yew, Joel Knoks, Tom Januario; In support of project/opposed to DR:  Ileen Dick – representing the Project Sponsor, Antowetta III – SOMPAC, Raymon Smith – SOMPAC, Henry Karnilowicz – representing Project Sponsor

ACTION:           Following discussion, continued to 12/2/10 with instructions to the project sponsor to continue dialog with the community; and working with Department staff on design, unit size, and amenities.  The public hearing will remain open.

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

 

19b.     2009.0765DDV                                                               (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)

374 – 5th STREET - west side between Folsom and Clara Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 3753 -Request for Rear Yard Variance to convert the existing 47-room tourist hotel into a 46-room residential hotel, with Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) group housing rooms on the 2nd and 3rd floors, a lobby on the ground floor, and new stair penthouse and roof deck. As provided under the Residential Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 41), 23 of the 46 residential hotel rooms are replacement rooms required by the removal of 23 residential hotel rooms from 235 O’Farrell Street (Case No. 2009.0288C). The new residential hotel at 374 5th Street is within an MUR (Mixed Use Residential) District and an 85-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 19a

ACTION:           Following discussion, continued to 12/2/10 with instructions to the project sponsor to continue dialog with the community; and working with Department staff on design, unit size, and amenities.  The public hearing will remain open.

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

 

19c.     2009.0288C                                                                      (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

235 O’Farrell Street - south side between Powell and Mason Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 0326 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to convert an existing tourist/residential hotel containing 68 tourist hotel rooms and 23 hotel residential rooms to a full tourist hotel containing approximately 59 tourist hotel rooms within the subject building.  No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed.  As provided under the Residential Hotel Conversion and Demolition Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 41), the 23 residential rooms currently found at the project site must be replaced, and would be replaced at 374 5th Street.  This site is within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.   

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

(Continued from the Regular Meeting of September 16, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 19a

ACTION:           Following discussion, continued to 12/2/10 with instructions to the project sponsor to continue dialog with the community; and working with Department staff on design, unit size, and amenities.  The public hearing will remain open.

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

 

20a.       2009.0368D                                                       (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

673 BRUSSELS STREET – between Dwight and Woolsey Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 6120 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.0308.7713, proposing the demolition of the existing one-story single family dwelling, within the RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposal.

 

SPEAKERS:     In support of the project:  Prudence E. Caldito Gee – owner/Project Sponsor, Jason Gee – owner/Project Sponsor, and Adolph Alano – Project Archtiect

ACTION:           The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the demolition.

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

DRA:                0174

 

20b.     2010.0851D                                                       (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

673 BRUSSELS STREET - between Dwight and Woolsey Streets; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 6120 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.0308.7714, proposing the new construction of a two-story single family dwelling, within the RH-1 (Residential House, One-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposal.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 19a

ACTION:           The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project as proposed.

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

DRA:                0175

 

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))

 

SPEAKERS:     None

 

Adjournment:   7:34 p.m.

 

 

Adopted:       October 14, 2010

Last updated: 10/22/2010 4:33:45 PM