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

February 17, 2011

New Page 1

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Notice of Meeting

&

Calendar

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 17, 2011

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT: 1:40 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Diego Sanchez, Mary Woods, Kevin Guy, Sharon Young, Rick Crawford, Aaron Hollister, Glenn Cabreros, David Alumbaugh, Linda D. 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.         2010.0628C                                                                   (D. Sánchez:  (415) 575-9082)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

                        (Proposed for Continuance to March 3, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Sue Hestor

ACTION:           Continued as amended

AYES:              Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong

            NAYES:            Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

 

B.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing

 

2.         2010.1035C                                                                       (M. Woods:  (415) 558-6315)

3157 - 3161 FILLMORE STREET - west side between Greenwich and Pixley Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 0515 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c) and 725.42, to expand the existing small self-service restaurant (dba Pizza Orgasmica) into an adjacent vacant retail space and convert the operation to a full-service restaurant within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18274

 

C.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

3.         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 read an article which I would like to share with you in case you did not see it. It is titled San Francisco's Precarious Spot Among The Best Cities For Transit. As we are pushing  hard every day or every Thursday in supporting transit and public transportation, among the first top 10 cities, unfortunately, San Francisco only ranks sixth, one spot before Los Angeles. I found that rather sad, and I hope we can continue to contribute to making it better. If anybody has not seen the article, I would be happy to pass it around. It is really worthwhile reading. The second issue I would like to talk about is, I would like to ask for further clarification of last week, the Commission's approval for ParkMerced.  What I'd like to ask the Commission for is the following -- is the resolution that the Planning Commission passed last week already contain language that was the memorandum passed out by Mayor's Office of Economic Development and Work Force? That was the memo addressed to Planning Director Rahaim, regarding subsequent approvals and provisions -- is that -- does that memorandum contained language to not increase the City's obligation liabilities? Then it is likely out of Commissions hands for subsequent action. However, should there be an increase or changes. There will be something that this Commission should be appraised of at least. I asked that the development agreement are brought back to this Commission for information purposes and this Commission' s own determination as to whether any changes increase the City' s obligations, and there is a second point I would like to make regarding this fast-moving even. The memorandum states, "-- that there are significant aspects of the projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the SFPUC and SFMTA , and therefore, subject to review by the City. The Planning Commission always has been and always is a strong advocate for comprehensive policy and physical planning. I myself speak to that frequently in meetings with the PUC and MTA Commissions should be automatic. They should be initiated by staff and be part of the standard process we go through for any project that is complicated and as multifaceted as this. I think it would make the entire City look much better and would create much better interaction between Commissions and make better use of our time as we as private citizens spend a great deal to think and judge with that much information, which can be put together in a timely manner. I asked the commission to follow up and support me in this request. Commissioner Antonini:

Commissioner Moore raises an interesting point, but, as we know from having been here for a while, there are many times when approvals that we have changed significantly at the Board of Supervisors, certain parts of the legislation do have to go through the Supervisors, as other agencies, so there is a procedure in place for this, and certainly, that will take precedent, I think. I would like to dedicate today's meeting in memory of Gino Camoli, a 1947 graduate of Galileo and one of a long string of Italian baseball players to come out of San Francisco, and spent 10 years in the Majors, had a couple of World Series rings, but the most significant thing about his baseball career -- he was the first batter on the West Coast for Major League Baseball. He was lying to the doctors at the time, and he stepped into the plate on April 15, 1915 - 1958. I think he struck out, which is good for us because the Giants were the home team. What is really significant is he went on for a career with ups after he finished his baseball career and was very active in the San Francisco Italian Athletic Club and was a lifetime resident of San Francisco and gave back a lot to the community. Certainly, a historic figure, particularly, in view of our World Series victory this year.

Commissioner Sugaya:

Just a follow-up on Commissioner Moore' s comments. I was also uncomfortable when we received the materials at the last minute -- actually at the hearing. Because I had just spent hours and hours going through the development agreement page by page.  Also, had some comments on it during the hearing, and then have subsequently submitted three or four pages of written comments, mostly on the development agreement. If there were changes within that document, I do not know what they are at this point. So I did vote at that time, but it made me extremely uncomfortable in doing so. At the very least, I would think that we would want to have a
report back from staff about the status of that particular document, and as it moves through the City' s process. I know at the end of the day, the Board of Supervisors will end up voting on it, but perhaps some status reports would be desirable. Then, one other thing -- as you know, the Tenderloin SRO Collaborative set up a tour for me a particular blocks in the Tenderloin, and that took place last Friday. Commissioner Moore attended, as a Supervisor Kim, whose District is part of Tenderloin. It lasted about an hour, and I think it was very informative in terms of the kinds of issues that they are facing as they try to improve conditions in the Tenderloin area. The other thing  I think that' s -- for people who doesn’t know the Tenderloin, I think is not one -- and I said this to them while I was there -- not one, sort of monolithic uniform -- there are not drug dealers everywhere in the Tenderloin, and there are not particular -- you know, there are not liquor stores everywhere, like people might think, at least given the hearing that we had. We went down one block where there were a lot of grocery stores selling liquor, and when we turned the corner, there were not any, so I think there is a kind of diversity not only population-wise, but in terms of land use, and that kind of thing that people -- getting people who are not living there do not understand.
It is a challenge to try to plan the kind of environment, and I think the people who were there for the tour, not only people from the City, but also, people from Channel Two and the "SF Weekly." idea it was really good that they had two residents from the community lead the tour, so I just wanted to report that back to the Commission and the public.

Commissioner Miguel:

There was an interesting gathering at the Department last night regarding the Housing Element, which will be coming to us, and interesting discussion from many points of views, and, hopefully, that is assisting in the process. I have met with people last week regarding projects on Presidio, and on Treasure Island.

Commissioner Moore: I just wanted to add a couple comments regarding the Tenderloin tour. I was actually amazed about the strong spirit of neighborhood, and people giving each other support in light of adversity. I was positively surprised about how uniform the buildings that tended to be maintained, in strong contrast to similar neighborhoods in Los Angeles -- South Central, for example, and really happy to see that people are finding an innovative way to deal with adversity. I felt very safe, well informed by the people and lead us, and for anybody interested in jazz, we just happened to look into an amazing event, which happens every second Friday of the month at 12:30 in the lobby of the Cadillac Hotel, and for anybody likes Jazz, you would be really blown away because it is quite amazing. So if anybody wants to find a reason to go there, every second Thursday at 12:30 in the lobby of the Cadillac Hotel.

Commissioner Borden:

I just wanted to add another name to end the meeting I am honored, and that is Henry Lancelot, who died on February 14. He was born to Italian immigrants on Telegraph Hill. That is where he grew up. He ran a market in North Beach for much of his life, and served on the Commission of the Boys and Girls Club until his death. He has been a huge supporter of the San Francisco community at large and the Italian-American community and North Beach, and he will be sorely missed, and actually, today is his funeral and memorial service.

Commissioner Olague:

I just wanted to mention that I do support Commissioner Moore' s request for some kind of an update, I guess, when it does get to he board. Whether, that is in the form of a memo or what. Just to understand the process, I think it is important to see how we needed, and how it evolves, especially something with this magnitude. The development agreement, I think, is something that is the purview of the Board anyway. We recognize that, but I still think it would be interesting to see how it will evolves.

John Rahaim, Director of Planning:

 I' m happy to ask michael or staff to give you an update on the final version, how it might differ from the version that you saw last, so we can get that to you by the time it gets to the board.

And also in keeping of our policy of talking about any meetings we have had, I was taken by project sponsored to 1500 henrik grant to view the prospective installations of cell phone antennas, and it was very interesting. An interesting eight-floor climb, which was better than the stairmaster, but you could see exactly where the projected installations would be and how

large and how visually obvious or not they were, so it was a very good trip to take.

 

 


Commissioner Borden:  

 I just want to say I do support the hearing about the evolution of the development agreement, and I would like to hear what happened with the Hunters Point Shipyard. I know there were changes after that, in general, I think it would be interesting to look at
 the large projects and how they end up at the end, compared to what we saw.
I think that is true with other projects as well. I' m equally interested in that as well.
Commissioner Olague:  

Just to let folks know, there is a list of policies here that some of us will disclose some of the meetings we have had with different members of the public regarding various issues that relate to planning, but it is certainly the option of the Commission.  Not all of us disclose that, but it is certainly something we can discuss during the rules. But we all usually spend hours outside of here with the public and development community in different meetings.

Commissioner Moore:

In response to Commissioner Borden' s comment, we need to remember that there is a difference between the project that is under the jurisdiction or is a redevelopment project compared to one that is in private hands of developers. There is a slight difference.  I agree with the reading, but it is a little bit like apples and oranges.

Commissioner Olague:   Commissioners before we go on to call the Director’s support, City  Attorney wants me to ask, for those people who are not here, for item 7, for instance, if you are here for items 64 for any of the later items, if you would be willing to give up your seat and allow people in the hall who are here for item 7 to come in so they can hear the presentation and a speaking before them, so they can be part of the process of that item, we would very much appreciate that.

D.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

John Rahaim, Director of Planning:

I want to thank Commissioner Miguel for coming to the latest meeting to discuss the Housing Element. It was, as you can imagine, a fairly lively discussion, which is often the case with the Housing Element, very diverse points of view. But we are bringing -- just as a reminder, we' e bringing it to you next week as an informational items and asking you to initiate the action on the general plan, which is now scheduled for March 24. I think in the interest of time, I will leave my report at that. Unless you have questions, I think Anmarie had a short report on the Board of Appeals.

 

4.         Director’s Announcements

           

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

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

None

BOARD OF APPEALS:

This week in Upper Market on final read this week as well as final week – final read on the Rincon Hill’s ordinance. Board of Appeals heard the variance on Lombard Street, across the street from an item that is on your calendar later today. But the case that was before the Board of Appeals was the subject of a subject Discretionary Review hearing -- of a joint Discretionary Review hearing. The Commission approved the project and the Zoning Administrator granted the variance. On December 15, last year, the Board of Appeals upheld the subject variance four-one. It was initially scheduled for January 12. Opponents initially appealed the CEQA determination, and that was held through the Board of Spervisors. The Board of Appeals denied the jurisdiction request three-one.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

Two items I bring to your attention are the division pipeline, three and four, off by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Commission, after discussion, found that they concur with the areas that were put before them for review. They also, after refusing two of their members, and one absence, so we just had corum, but they did pass the SOMA historic resourced survey. For about the past six months, since they actually gave the Department authority to approve, minor permits to alter, there have been no discussions. They have not pulled them out to further review by themselves, so they actually -- one of the members actually requested that we stop putting them on their calendar and just let the Department go forward with their approval process. There was no decision on that, but I just wanted you to know that they are satisfied with the work staff is doing, and they do not feel is necessary to add that extra step at a longer period with that, commissioners, that concludes my report.-- they do not feel it is necessary to add that extra step any longer. That concludes my report.

Commissioner Antonini:

Are there plans for the Historic Preservation Commission to be broadcast? I ask the question because it is a little bit important, I think, for me, still getting up to speed, to find out what this thing is.

Linda Avery, Commission Secretary:

Commissioners your concerns are shared by quite a few people, Commissioners included. At the moment, the Department does not have a budget to allow them to be broadcast.
What we do is we digitally record and up load that recording. Generally the day after the hearing, you can go online and get the entire hearing. You do not get the visual, but you get the audio.
Commissioner Antonini:

I think, being the great historic city that we are, and myself, is wonderful to be interested in hearing what the Commission is discussing, and to have the ability to see this on TV for many people I think would be great. We could find it in the budget, and if the General Manager of
SFGTV would help us out, that would be great.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

None

BOARD OF APPEALS:

This week in Upper Market on final read this week as well as final week – final read on the Rincon Hill’s ordinance. Board of Appeals heard the variance on Lombard Street, across the street from an item that is on your calendar later today. But the case that was before the Board of Appeals was the subject of a subject Discretionary Review hearing -- of a joint Discretionary Review hearing. The Commission approved the project and the Zoning Administrator granted the variance. On December 15, last year, the Board of Appeals upheld the subject variance four-one. It was initially scheduled for January 12. Opponents initially appealed the CEQA determination, and that was held through the Board of Spervisors. The Board of Appeals denied the jurisdiction request three-one.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

Two items I bring to your attention are the division pipeline, three and four, off by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Commission, after discussion, found that they concur with the areas that were put before them for review. They also, after refusing two of their members, and one absence, so we just had corum, but they did pass the SOMA historic resourced survey. For about the past six months, since they actually gave the Department authority to approve, minor permits to alter, there have been no discussions. They have not pulled them out to further review by themselves, so they actually -- one of the members actually requested that we stop putting them on their calendar and just let the Department go forward with their approval process. There was no decision on that, but I just wanted you to know that they are satisfied with the work staff is doing, and they do not feel is necessary to add that extra step at a longer period with that, commissioners, that concludes my report.-- they do not feel it is necessary to add that extra step any longer. That concludes my report.

Commissioner Antonini:

Are there plans for the Historic Preservation Commission to be broadcast? I ask the question because it is a little bit important, I think, for me, still getting up to speed, to find out what this thing is.

Linda Avery, Commission Secretary:

Commissioners your concerns are shared by quite a few people, Commissioners included. At the moment, the Department does not have a budget to allow them to be broadcast.
What we do is we digitally record and up load that recording. Generally the day after the hearing, you can go online and get the entire hearing. You do not get the visual, but you get the audio.
Commissioner Antonini:

I think, being the great historic city that we are, and myself, is wonderful to be interested in hearing what the Commission is discussing, and to have the ability to see this on TV for many people I think would be great. We could find it in the budget, and if the General Manager of SFGTV would help us out, that would be great.

 

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.         PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

 

            At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

None

 

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

 

6.         2010.0003CV                                                                                          (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

519 ELLIS STREET/430 EDDY STREET - 519 ELLIS STREET - south side between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 0334; and, 430 EDDY STREET -` north side  between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0334 - Request for an amendment to the conditions of approval for two previously approved Conditional Use authorizations, pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to extend the performance period for an additional three years for two previously approved companion projects that would demolish two existing surface parking lots and construct two five-story buildings containing a total of 46 affordable dwelling units for senior citizens. The subject properties are within the RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, the 80-T Height and Bulk District, and the North of Market Residential Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 13, 2011)

NOTE: On January 13, 2011, following public testimony, the Commission passed a motion of intent to disapprove the request by a vote of (+6 -1) Antonini voted against.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Disapproved

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

            NAYES:            Antonini,

            MOTION:           18275

 

H.      REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

 

2006.0422MTUZE                                                             (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

Executive Park Amended Subarea Plan - Informational Hearing on the proposed amendments to the Executive Park Subarea Plan of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan:  The 71-acre Executive Park Subarea Plan Area is a subarea of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, located in the southeastern part of San Francisco, just east of U.S. Highway 101 and along the San Francisco/San Mateo County boundary.    The amended Subarea Plan (Plan) would establish objectives and policies to create a vibrant, predominately residential neighborhood and would address land use, streets and transportation, urban design, community facilities and services, and recreation and open space issues.  In association with the Plan amendments, proposed design guidelines would be established for buildings, streets, pathways, and parking, as well as “green building” approaches.   These amendments are being proposed in association with two development proposals that would include up to 1,600 dwelling units and other associated uses in approximately thirteen buildings.    This is the first of three informational items on this project and will focus on Executive Park history and the proposed amendments to the subarea plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required.

 

SPEAKERS:     Eli Zijas, Karen Heisler, Tom Radulovich, Suzi Palladino, David Hooper, Anne Hamersky, Karen Peteros, Justin Valone, Aaron Lehmer, Bud Smith, Sarah Kennedy, Andrew Levi, Eddie Ann, Brooke Budner, Caitlyn Galloway, Dana Perls, Fred Rinne, Maria Budner,  Allison Budner, Patrick O’Connor, Diva Coulter, Ricahrd Cheung, Isabel Wade, Dart Kaufman, Melinda Stone, Miguel A. Monroy, Casey Allen, Sam Sapoznick, +Willa Mamet, Adam Aloni,

ACTION:           Approved as amended

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

            MOTION:           18276

 

            7.         2010.0571T                                                                        (D. Sánchez:  415.575.9082)

Amending Planning Code Controls for Urban Agriculture  [BOS FILE NO. 10-1537] - Hearing of a proposed Ordinance that would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by adding Section 102.34 to define urban agriculture, including neighborhood agriculture and urban industrial agriculture, and amending Sections 204.1, 209.5, 227, 234.1, 234.2, and Articles 7 and 8 to regulate such uses in various zoning districts; 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 Mayor Gavin Newsom and now sponsored by Mayor Ed Lee and Supervisor David Chiu, 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 February 10, 2011)

 

8.         2010.0831C                                                                        (D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

255 12TH STREET - northwest corner of 12th Street and Kissling Street, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 3516 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 816.73 and 303 to install a wireless transmission facility consisting of twelve panel antennas on an existing parking structure. The antennas are proposed in Location Preference 4 (Preferred Location - Industrial/Commercial Site) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services Siting Guidelines, as part of the AT&T telecommunications network within the Service/Light Industrial Residential District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     T. Rohen

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya

NAYES:            Moore,  Miguel

MOTION:           18277

 

9.         2010.0894C                                                                          (S. Young: (415).558-6346)

4308 GEARY BOULEVARD - north side between 7th and 8th Avenues; Lot 057 in Assessor’s Block 1439 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 712.54 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert vacant commercial tenant space (formerly occupied by a beauty salon) with approximately 720 square feet of floor area into a massage establishment (dba Geary Health Center) on the second floor of the three-story, commercial building within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

MOTION:           18278

 

10.        2011.0032D                                                                    (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

235 FRANCISCO STREET -  south side between Stockton Street and Grant Avenue; Lot 065 in Assessor’s Block 0054 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010 1109 4560, proposing to convert 47 square feet of the existing third floor balcony to an enclosed sunroom and replace the existing spiral stairs with a new spiral stair at the rear of a three-story, one-unit residential building within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis:  Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

 

SPEAKERS:     Cris Curr for Discretionary Review Requestor, Steve Atkinson, for Project Sponsor

1) ACTION:        Take Discretionary Review and disapprove

AYES:              Olague, Moore, Sugaya

NAYES:            Antonini, Borden, Fong, Miguel

RESULT:           Motion  Failed

 

2) ACTION:        In absence of successful sub-motion, project is approved as proposed

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

DRA#:              0196

 

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 December 2, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     Mike Leon

ACTION:           Without a hearing continued to 5/12/11

AYES:              Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong

NAYES:            Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

MOTION:           18278

 

12.        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, 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.

Staff Analysis:  Full Discretionary Review

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 2010)

 

SPEAKERS:     Kristin Kerr, Trmeh Yeghiazarian, Marc Bruno, Kristine Brown, Katherin Esmay, Daniel Marshall, Julie Jaycox, Kate Wong, Joan Wood, Jeff Ente, Mark Coviello, Chi Hom, Marka Bernard, Elmore Patrick, Mike Leon, Mark Leach, Daniel Higa, Regina Vann, Fl. Fox, Ann Yagy, Ron Lee, Stefano Cassolato, David Wong, William Hammett, Tommy Tang, Max Vargas, Geoff Winston, Richard Wallett,

ACTION:           Do not take Discretionary Review and approved

AYES:              Olague, Antonini, Borden, Fong, Sugaya

NAYES:            Moore, Miguel,

DRA#:              0197

 

13.        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.

Staff Analysis:  Full Discretionary Review

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 2, 2010)

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

 

            14.        2009.1029C                                                                  (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1268 LOMBARD STREET - north side between Polk and Larkin Streets; Lot 015 of Assessor’s Block 0500 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.1 and 303, to allow the construction of four dwelling units on the subject lot at a dwelling unit density ratio of to one unit per each 1,000 square feet of lot area within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The project includes new construction of a four-story, four-unit building on a vacant lot approximately 4,700 square feet in area.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Condition

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Thomas Modland, F. Joseph Butler, Jerry Kler, Nick Cvitanovic, Courtney Clarkson, Jeff Glavan, Stepehn Berezin, Salvatore Romano, Gene Chen, Marvin Frankel

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:              Miguel, Antonini, Fong, Sugaya

NAYES:            Olague, Borden, Moore

MOTION:           18279

 

15a.      2010.0001D                                                                  (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

45 GRATTAN STREET - south side between Cole and Belvedere Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor’s Block 1280 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Demolition Permit Application No. 2010.01.08.4446, proposing to demolish a two-story, single-family residence within the RH-2 (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

 (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Jeff Nuakes, Ellen Baumann, Robbie Vann-Adibe, Jan Platt, John Crandon, Mason Nugent, Debra Dout, Emily Casnocha, David Burns, Isac Gutfreund, John Derryberry, Michael Daly,

ACTION:           Disaproved

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

RECUSED:       Sugaya

DRA#   :           0198

 

15b.      2010.1152DDDD                                                          (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

45 GRATTAN STREET - south side between Cole and Belvedere Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor’s Block 1280 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Building Permit Application No. 2010.01.08.4443, proposing to construct a new four-story, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Three separate requests for Discretionary Review have also been filed by members of the public against the replacement project.

Staff Analysis:  Full Discretionary Review

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

 (Continued from Regular Meeting of February 3, 2011)

 

SPEAKERS:     Thomas Modland, F. Joseph Butler, Jerry Kler, Nick Cvitanovic, Courtney Clarkson, Jeff Glavan, Stepehn Berezin, Salvatore Romano, Gene Chen, Marvin Frankel

ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and disapproved

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

RECUSED:       Sugaya

DRA#   :           0199

 

6:00 PM 9:05 PM,       Although the following case might be heard after 6:00 p.m., it will not be heard             prior to 6:00 p.m.

 

16.        2007.0903                                                                 (D. Alumbaugh: (415) 558-6601)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation Only

 

SPEAKERS:     Erick Brooks, Claire Wahrhaftig

ACTION:           Informational Only. No Action Required

 

I.          PUBLIC COMMENT

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

None

 

Adjournment: 10:22 PM – In Memory of Gino Cimoli and Henry Manslatti

 

Adopted as corrected on page 8, item 10, delete the AYE votes after 2) ACTION:          April 7, 2011

Last updated: 4/8/2011 1:51:00 PM