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

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

July 28, 2011

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 28, 2011

12:00 PM

Regular Meeting

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Miguel Antonini, Moore, Sugaya

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Borden, Fong

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT OLAGUE AT: 12:08 PM

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Sharon Young, Rick Crawford, Sophie Hayward, Mary Woods, Aaron Starr, David Lindsay, Erika Jackson, Ben Fu, Diego Sanchez, Debra Dwyer, Jonas Ionin – Acting 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.                                                                                                    (L. AVERY: (415) 558-6407)

                        AMENDMENTS TO COMMISSION’S RULES AND REGULATIONS

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

                        (Proposed for Continuance to August 4, 2011)

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

 

            2.         2011.0532T                                                                    (A. STARR:  (415) 558-6362)        

Uses, Signs, Building Features, Floor Area Ratio, Parking, and Compliance in Specified Use Districts - The Commission will consider a proposed Ordinance [BF 110548] amending the San Francisco Planning Code by repealing Sections 136.2, 136.3, 158, 187, 249.15, 263.2, 263.3, 602.25, 602.26, 607.3 and 607.4 and amending various other Code sections to as well as additional recommendations by Planning staff.  Specifically, the proposed Ordinance would (1) increase the amount of principally permitted parking spaces for dwellings in RC-4 and C-3 Districts; (2) make off-street parking requirements in the Van Ness Special Use District and RC-3 Districts consistent with those of RC-4 Districts; (3) eliminate minimum parking requirements for the Chinatown Mixed Use Districts and North Beach Neighborhood Commercial Districts; (4) allow exceptions from required parking under specified circumstances; (5) amend the restrictions on off-street parking rates and extend them to additional zoning districts, (6) revise sign, awning, canopy and marquee controls in specified zoning districts; (7) increase the permitted use size for limited corner commercial uses in RTO and RM districts, and allow reactivation of lapsed limited commercial uses in R districts; (8) revise the boundaries of and modify parking and screening requirements in the Washington-Broadway and Waterfront Special Use Districts; (9) modify controls for uses and accessory uses in Commercial and Residential-Commercial Districts; (10) permit certain exceptions from exposure and open space requirements for historic buildings; and (11) modify conformity requirements in various use districts; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Proposed Ordinance with Modifications to Board of Supervisors.

(Proposed for Continuance to September 8, 2011)

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

 

            3.         2011.0533Z                                                                       (A. STARR:  (415) 558-6362)        

Zoning Map Amendments – Washington-Broadway Special Use District 1; Waterfront Special Use District 2 and 3; Special Districts for Sign Illumination; and Special Districts for Scenic Streets - The Commission will consider a proposed Ordinance [BF 110547] introduced by Supervisor Chiu concerning Sheets SU01, SS01 and SS02 of the San Francisco Zoning Map as well as additional recommendations by Planning staff.  Specifically, the proposed Ordinance would amend the San Francisco Planning Code by 1) adding blocks and lots to the Washington-Broadway Special Use District 1; 2) adding blocks to the Waterfront Special Use District 2; 3) deleting blocks and add lots to the Waterfront Special Use District 3; 4) making the boundaries of the Special District for Sign Illumination on Broadway co-extensive with the Broadway Neighborhood Commercial District; 5) deleting the Van Ness Special District for Sign Illumination; and 6) adding The Embarcadero from Taylor Street to Second Street to the Special District for Scenic Streets; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Proposed Ordinance with Modifications to Board of Supervisors.

                        (Proposed for Continuance to September 8, 2011)

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

 

4.         2011.0051C                                                                        (M. Woods:  (415) 558-6315)

2429 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between Fillmore and Steiner Streets; Lot 001F in Assessor’s Block 0654 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a “financial service” use (d.b.a. “Chase Bank”) and a use size greater than 2,500 square feet pursuant to Sections 121.2, 303(c), 718.21 and 718.49 of the Planning Code, in the Upper Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 26, 2011)

                        (Proposed for Continuance to October 13, 2011)

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, 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

 

5.         2011.0226C                                                                          (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346) 

                        1336  9TH AVENUE - east side between Irving and Judah Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 1763 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Sections 303 and 730.42 of the Planning Code to allow the change of use of an existing large fast food restaurant (d.b.a. Craw Station) to a full-service restaurant (continuing to d.b.a. Craw Station) on the ground floor of a two-story mixed-use building within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved with Conditions

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

            MOTION:           18413

 

C.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

6.         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:

Thank you. I would like to thank some of the excellent staff members for their excellent work.
First, Johnny Jaramillo, for the update on the Downtown Plan, which I think was extremely well-done.
Some of that has been mentioned in the press, a summary of the findings that were in that
report, and I think that the emphasis on the fact that our downtown area is one of the finest in the Country as far as being dense, walk-able, and a well-served by transit is very important. I think the only thing I would say, it is not negative, but just not to judge our conclusions for the future from what has happened in the last 20 to 30 years. The fact that there are fewer professional -- or at least the same number of professional managerial type positions and corporate jobs in the downtown area, surely that part north of Market does not necessarily mean that is going to happen in the future.
Because, this is such a great area, we're seeing more and more of the employees of Bay Area businesses living in San Francisco, rather in suburban areas, and I think that there is becoming an awareness among the leaders of the many of the companies, that makes perfect sense for executive functions, government relations, and probably some of the work force to be in San Francisco. I think we have the perfect opportunity to work on that to the development plan in Transbay. I think that the future is bright in that regard, and I think there is, hopefully, going to be a resurgence of the percentage of the work force that does business in San Francisco. At one time, it was as high as 30%. I think it is down to 16%. I think with what we have, the wonderful area we have for businesses, there, that is already being built out, you know, it is appropriate that we be 25% to 30% of the work force in the Bay Area. The only downside on transit in that regard is, and we' re served by Bart from many directions and from Caltrain, and unfortunately, because Marin never became part of the Bart system, it does not go out to northwestern San Francisco,  in Marin, which is an area that has to be analyzed for the future. Finally, I guess there was the question about, you know, the metropolitan area. There are mixed opinions as to whether San Francisco Bay Area includes the South Bay also. The Census Bureau and others consider them two different metropolitan areas, So that does not really make too much difference, but it is interesting to look at it, and I think we do have to consider it one region, but they certainly are distinct areas. Secondly, I want to thank Elizabeth Watty, for a very excellent report, answering questions I raised about the Van Ness Special Use District and hospital child care information. As our discussion continues on CPMC and on housing issues, it is important to have the facts first and make decisions second. She has provided us and the Commission with some really interesting and important answers to what the Van Ness Plan Special Use District is, and a history of all the different entitlements and developments that occurred and the relationship to the housing requirement. Certainly, it is pointed out that there was one instance where a hotel was demolished and was replaced by housing. There have been no instances where anything has been demolished and replaced by large institutional use. I think it is quite clear the plan was crafted to make sure that there is good land between housing and commercial, especially private, but I do not think it speaks to institutional and public serving uses, you know, because they should be distinct from the requirement in my opinion that is something that is under discussion. It is very interesting. Finally, she did a really good job of pointing at the level of charitable contribution for the Cal Pacific system, relative to about 12 other hospitals in the bay area. I think it is important that everybody read this kind of information and understand, you know, where they are relative to the others, which is actually pretty much on par with most. Some are higher in child care, and others are lower in child care. So it is important to have the facts before we make our decision. I want to thank her for a very excellent report, and I hope it is available to the public. I am sure it is.

Commissioner Miguel:

I have met with people regarding the Eureka Street Project and also the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in out on Clement Street. I would like to commend the Department again, the Better Streets Plan, which continues to gain recognition. It was just awarded the California APA 2011 Best Practices Awards, and it will be presented during the California Awards Ceremony in Santa Barbara this September. With that, perhaps we will go national with it. As Commissioner Antonini mentioned, the information on the Downtown Plan, 25 years of work, was excellent. John Jaramillo did a very good article on it. I did appreciate the information on the Van Ness Plan, although different Commissioners will interpret things differently.

President Olague:

I guess, usually as a little small gesture, we sometimes close the meeting in memory of
someone who greatly contributed to the city. We're going to be closing the meeting today in memory of the Executive Director of the Eviction Defense Network, it is quite a loss he was a giant as far as advocating on behalf of low-income tenants and renters here in San Francisco. So if we can close in his memory that would be appreciated. Also in solidarity with the people of Norway who experienced a rough last Friday. Even though we met the day after that, it is something that I think we should also be mindful of, that huge loss.

 

D.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

7.         Director’s Announcements

Director Rahaim:

Excuse my tardiness, I was at the Board of Supervisors on another matter. I wanted to let you know that the Better Streets Plan has received its third award, an award from the American Planning Association of the Southern California Area, that will be given to the Department in Santa Barbara later this year. That is a project that is getting much-deserved recognition. I am very pleased for all the staff involved in and all the City Departments that worked so hard on the project.

 

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

 

LAND USE COMMITTEE:

11008 Inclusionary Alt. for Market & Octavia.  This Ordinance would to provide a new land dedication alternative in the Market and Octavia Plan Area in lieu of payment of the Affordable Housing Fee and provides requirements of such land dedication.  (on-site 15%, off-site 20%, fee 20%, new alternative 40%)  Currently, this alternative only exists in the Eastern Neighborhoods.  On June 23, you considered this Ordinance and recommended several modifications that were suggested by a working group.  Supervisor Wiener incorporated all of your suggestions.  This week the Committee modified the Ordinance and continued the item[1].

 

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

Two of the items on the Land Use agenda were sent out for a vote on the following day.  These items were the Limited Live Performance Permits and the Inner, Outer Clement and Geary NC Controls.

§         Limited Live Performance.  Commissioners, you heard this item on July 7.  This Ordinance would to create a Limited Live Performance Permit for indoor locales whose primary function is not presentation of live performances.  At that time, you recommended approval with modifications. You requested that the Ordinance be amended to extend the opportunity for small-scale entertainment to be considered an accessory use in the SOMA, West Portal, and Pacific Avenue  districts[2]. In addition, you recommended that any restrictions on the visibility of entertainment from public rights-of-way be removed, as well as any requirement that doors and windows be closed while the accessory performances are underway.  At last week’s hearing Supervisor Mirkarimi indicated that he would incorporate all of your modifications, except one.  On the request of Supervisor Kim, he has amended the Ordinance so that it allows this entertainment use in the SoMa Districts—but only in the areas not involved in the Western SoMa Community Planning Process.  This week at both the LU hearing and the Full Board, there was interest in expanding the Ordinance to allow DJs.  In the end, the Full Board[3] continued the item to August 2nd

§         Inner, Outer Clement and Geary NC Controls.  Commissioners, you heard this item sponsored by Supervisor Mar on July 14, at that time you recommended approval with modifications.  Supervisor Mar amended the Ordinance to include your recommendations, except for one.  First you recommended permit one additional restaurant in the Inner Clement and then allow additional restaurants in both the Inner and Outer Clement by CU.  The Supervisor accommodated this request as it still is a relaxation from the existing controls. Second, you recommended to remove the prohibition on Formula Retail Pet Supply Stores. Although Supervisor Mar did not remove this prohibition, there was discussion of this at both the Committee and the Board.  After discussion, the Board approved Supervisor Mar’s Ordinance on first reading.

 

§         BUDGET.  This week the Board unanimously passed the City’s Budget on FINAL reading.  The Mayor then joined the Board hearing and signed the budget into law. 

§         BF 110277 Vintage Signs.  This week the Full Board considered Supervisor Campos’s Ordinance that would allow for more types of signs to be covered under the historic sign ordinance.  You heard this item on June 2 at which time you recommended approval with modifications.   Supervisor Campos incorporated your recommendations into the proposed legislation and chose the word “vintage” to replace the word “historic.”  The item, as amended, was passed on FINAL reading Tuesday.

§         110627 General Plan Amendment - Community Safety Element.  This Ordinance added language to the Community Safety Element of the General Plan to reference the most recent Hazard Mitigation Plan. This amendment ensures the City and County of San Francisco will qualify for additional funding enabled through California Assembly Bill AB 2140, for certain disaster recovery projects.  This Commission had recommended approval of the Ordinance. This week the Board approved the Ordinances on FINAL reading.

INTRODUCTIONS:  2 Hearing Requests

  • Hearing Request by Supervisor Wiener and Carmen Chu. This hearing to include the Mayor's Offices of Housing and Economic and Workforce Development, City Planning, and Controller.  The Board will discuss the City's plans for significantly increasing the production of moderate and middle income housing, the status of the review of the Inclusionary Housing Program, how that review will address a needed increase in moderate income housing, and the connection between the production of middle and moderate income housing and the City's ability to attract, retain, and increase private and non-profit sector jobs.
  • Hearing Request by Supervisor Avalos.  This hearing will concern conversions of housing and rental housing to vacation rentals. The Board requests presentations from the Planning Department, Department of Building Inspection, Rent Board, City Attorney, and Treasurer on the magnitude of this problem and of the conversions and potential solutions.

 

Board of Appeals: All actions below were made by votes of 4-0. President Goh was excused. In broad terms, none of these cases appear to rise to the level where the Commission would necessarily be interested, although this of course is just one opinion….

2955 26th Street (E. Jackson). This case involved the Department’s disapproval of a building permit to (1) remove a longstanding illegal unit and (2) construct an expansion to be used by the resulting single-family house. The Department disapproved the permit out of deference to a previous Board of Appeals ruling on an earlier proposal to remove the illegal unit. In that case, because of the displacement of a low-income tenant that would have resulted, the Board disapproved the permit and instructed the property owner to seek a parking Variance to allow legalization of the unit.  The legalization process was never completed, the unit remained, the property changed hands, and the current owner of the building invoked the Ellis Act and afforded the displaced tenant relocation benefits. Owing to the changed circumstances, the Board felt that the project should go forward. However, because Section 311 notification for the project had not taken place (as we disapproved the permit, notice wasn’t appropriate) the Board allowed our disapproval to stand however they waived the otherwise-applicable year-long period during which the same building permit could not be re-submitted. In other words, they told the applicant to re-submit the same plans and they told us to issue the notice and – barring the filing of a DR – to approve the project. While the technicalities of this case were highly awkward, the outcome is satisfactory.

1138-1140 Page Street (A. Starr). This case involved the Department’s approval of a permit for an expansion of an existing residential building, however the real issue was private litigation between the parties for which the BoA hearing appeared to be used as leverage. A DR was previously filed on this project but a settlement was reached and no hearing was conducted. Construction began, however during construction the roof collapsed, causing extensive damage to the subject property. Also, (1) structural problems were discovered in the Appellant’s adjacent building, (2) tenants in that building raised concerns about safety issues and construction noise, and (3) there were allegations that the proposal had become a de-facto demolition. The Appellant stated that their first desire was to have the building declared an unlawful residential demolition, which would effectively preclude the project for five years, and their second desire was to have the project appear before the Planning Commission as a DR under Section 317. This case, too, was highly technical, but after being presented with Planning Code Section 317’s controls and DBI’s demolition policies, the Board rejected the appeal and upheld the permit, although it did impose a condition relating to hours of construction. Here, too, the outcome was satisfactory.

650 2nd Street (R. Sucre). This case involved a proposal to construct a stair penthouse, deck, and wind screen on the roof of a live/work building which would connect to a top-floor unit. On appeal was a Letter of Determination that stated the project would not comply with the Planning Code because the building was noncomplying with respect to height – it is 73’ tall in a 65-X district hence the remaining 2’ are inadequate for a stair penthouse or wind screen. The appellant’s argument was based on (1) a misreading of the 10’ height exemption for such features and (2) the fact that – under ambiguous circumstances – three other similar penthouse/decks had been constructed on the roof of the building. The Board continued the matter until August 24 so that we could work with the Appellant to figure out a Code-compliant means of getting them access to their proposed roof deck. It’s worth noting that the Board clearly supported our position. This last case, too, ended satisfactorily.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS:

All actions below were made by votes of 4-0. President Goh was excused. In broad terms, none of these cases appear to rise to the level where the Commission would necessarily be interested, although this of course is just one opinion….

2955 26th Street (E. Jackson). This case involved the Department’s disapproval of a building permit to (1) remove a longstanding illegal unit and (2) construct an expansion to be used by the resulting single-family house. The Department disapproved the permit out of deference to a previous Board of Appeals ruling on an earlier proposal to remove the illegal unit. In that case, because of the displacement of a low-income tenant that would have resulted, the Board disapproved the permit and instructed the property owner to seek a parking Variance to allow legalization of the unit.  The legalization process was never completed, the unit remained, the property changed hands, and the current owner of the building invoked the Ellis Act and afforded the displaced tenant relocation benefits. Owing to the changed circumstances, the Board felt that the project should go forward. However, because Section 311 notification for the project had not taken place (as we disapproved the permit, notice wasn’t appropriate) the Board allowed our disapproval to stand however they waived the otherwise-applicable year-long period during which the same building permit could not be re-submitted. In other words, they told the applicant to re-submit the same plans and they told us to issue the notice and – barring the filing of a DR – to approve the project. While the technicalities of this case were highly awkward, the outcome is satisfactory.

1138-1140 Page Street (A. Starr). This case involved the Department’s approval of a permit for an expansion of an existing residential building, however the real issue was private litigation between the parties for which the BoA hearing appeared to be used as leverage. A DR was previously filed on this project but a settlement was reached and no hearing was conducted. Construction began, however during construction the roof collapsed, causing extensive damage to the subject property. Also, (1) structural problems were discovered in the Appellant’s adjacent building, (2) tenants in that building raised concerns about safety issues and construction noise, and (3) there were allegations that the proposal had become a de-facto demolition. The Appellant stated that their first desire was to have the building declared an unlawful residential demolition, which would effectively preclude the project for five years, and their second desire was to have the project appear before the Planning Commission as a DR under Section 317. This case, too, was highly technical, but after being presented with Planning Code Section 317’s controls and DBI’s demolition policies, the Board rejected the appeal and upheld the permit, although it did impose a condition relating to hours of construction. Here, too, the outcome was satisfactory.

650 2nd Street (R. Sucre). This case involved a proposal to construct a stair penthouse, deck, and wind screen on the roof of a live/work building which would connect to a top-floor unit. On appeal was a Letter of Determination that stated the project would not comply with the Planning Code because the building was noncomplying with respect to height – it is 73’ tall in a 65-X district hence the remaining 2’ are inadequate for a stair penthouse or wind screen. The appellant’s argument was based on (1) a misreading of the 10’ height exemption for such features and (2) the fact that – under ambiguous circumstances – three other similar penthouse/decks had been constructed on the roof of the building. The Board continued the matter until August 24 so that we could work with the Appellant to figure out a Code-compliant means of getting them access to their proposed roof deck. It’s worth noting that the Board clearly supported our position. This last case, too, ended satisfactorily.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

No meeting

 

            9.         2011.0661I                                                                   (R. CRAWFORD:  (415) 558-6358)

135 MAIN STREET - east side of Main Street between Mission and Howard Streets; Lot 012 of Assessor’s Block 3717 - Report on Samuel Merritt University’s Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan, pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5.  Samuel Merritt University’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 District and 311-S Height and Bulk Districts.  The IMP is available for viewing on the Planning Department’s website (from www.sfplanning.org click “Publications & Reports” and then “Institutional Master Plans”).

Recommended Action:  Informational presentation, no action requested.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Informational. No action required

 

            10.                                                                                                        (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

INFORMATIONAL ITEM ON FORMULA RETAIL - The Commission has requested a history of the City's planning and land use controls for Formula Retail.  Staff will present a summary of that history, the status of the current controls, and information about applications for Conditional Use authorization for Formula Retail uses since 2007.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action.  Information Only.

 

SPEAKERS:     Tes Welborn, Russell Pritehard, Calvin Welch, Greg Endom, Gus Hernandez, Douglas Fong, Amy Wis4e, Dean Preston, David Tornheim Mark Brennan, Peter Cohen, Jim Worchel, Quentin Morgan, Joe O’Donoghue,

ACTION:           Informational. No action required

 

E.         GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

 

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

 

SPEAKER: Amy O’Hara

 

F.                  REGULAR CALENDAR 

    

11.        2011.0656TZ                                                                   (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372) 

Amendments to the Planning Code Sections 602.10, 607.1, 608, adding Section 608.16, and amending Sectional Map SSD of the Zoning Map: Establishing the City Center Special Sign District [Board File No. 11-0448]. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Farrell amending Planning Code Sections 602.10 (Definitions), 607.1 (Neighborhood Commercial Districts), 608 (Special Sign Districts), adding Section 608.16 (“City Center Special Sign District”), and amending  Sectional Map SSD of the Zoning Map to establish the “City Center Special Sign District” encompassing the real property bounded by Masonic Avenue, Geary Boulevard, Lyon Street, and O’Farrell Street (Assessor’s Block 1094, Lot 001), to allow additional projecting signs, freestanding identifying and directional signs and to modify existing controls on business wall signs; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Modifications

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued to 8/11/11

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

           

 

            12.        2010.0623C                                                                        (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

2675 GEARY BOULEVARD - southeast corner at Masonic Avenue (aka the City Center); Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1094  -  Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a “formula retail use” (d.b.a. Target) and a use size up to 120,000 square feet pursuant to Sections 121.2, 121.6, 303(c), 303(i), 703.4 and 712.21 of the Planning Code, in the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and the 40-X/80-D Height and Bulk Districts. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

           

            SPEAKERS:     Keith Conser, Lynn Austin, Eric Holmgren, Jenniffer Soloway, Jennifer Dever,          Jim Reuben, Jim Grossman

            ACTION:           Continued to 8/11/11

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

            MOTION:           18414

 

            13.        2011.0155C                                                                           (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

5411 GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between 18th and 19th Avenues; Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 1526 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c), 303(i), and 703.4 to allow a “formula retail use” (d.b.a Unleashed by PETCO) within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

            Preliminary Recommendation:  Disapproval    

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued to 10/27/11

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

 

14.        2010.0951C                                                                        (S. VELLVE:  (415) 558–6263)

            4141 GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between 5th and 6th Avenues; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 1539 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303, to allow Verizon Wireless to locate up to nine (9) WTS panel antennas on an existing penthouse located along the 6th Avenue frontage of the five-story building (Kaiser Hospital), and related equipment to be located on the roof, within a portion of the lot zoned RM-1 (Mixed, Low-Density) District and 80-E Height and Bulk District. The northern portion of the lot fronting Geary Boulevard is zoned NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial District).

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

            SPEAKERS:     Gabriella Barr, Thelma Famorca, Angela Coo, Ha Chin

            ACTION:           Approved with Conditions

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

            MOTION:           18415

 

15.        2010.0987C                                                                        (S. VELLVE:  (415) 558–6263)

2055 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 0509 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 234.2(a) and 303, to allow AT&T Mobility to locate up to nine (9) WTS panel antennas and related equipment on an existing elevator penthouse located on the top floor of the four–story building containing ground–floor commercial space and commercial parking, within a P (Public) District and 40–X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 26, 2011)

 

            SPEAKERS:     Tedi Virhais, Christine Stout, Mikki Ness, Patricia Vaughey

            ACTION:           Approved with Conditions

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

            MOTION:           18416

 

            16.        2011.0294C                                                                       (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6362)

199 LELAND AVENUE - corner of Leland Avenue and Rutland Street, Lot 016 of Assessor’s Block 6251 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.83, 303, and 790.80 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting nine new panel antennas on the rooftop and two new equipment cabinets in the garage of an existing single-story commercial building as part of AT&T’s wireless telecommunications network within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The proposal is part of a wireless transmission network operated by AT&T on a Location Preference 5 (Preferred Location – Mixed Use Buildings in High Density Districts) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued to 10/6/11

            AYES:             Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

           

 

            16.        2010.0038C                                                                     (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6362)

888 INNES AVENUE - northeast side between Griffith Street and Arelious Walker Drive, Lot 014 of Assessor’s Block 4645 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.83, 303, and 790.80 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of 3 new panel antennas and 2 new equipment cabinets on the rooftop of an existing single-story commercial building which is approximately 20 feet tall.  The project site is within a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The proposal is part of a wireless transmission network operated by MetroPCS on a Location Preference 4 (Preferred Location – Industrial or Commercial Structures) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

            SPEAKERS:     Sylvia Do

            ACTION:           Approved with Conditions

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

            MOTION:           18417

 

 

            17a.      2003.0527XE                                                                                 (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

1000 16TH STREET - east side between Hubbell and 7th Streets, Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor’s Block 3833, and Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 3834 - Consideration of Adoption of CEQA Findings regarding the proposed construction of two new five-story, 68-foot buildings consisting of up to 468 dwelling units over ground floor retail, industrial spaces, and parking for up to 306 spaces.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Motion Adopting the CEQA Findings.

 

SPEAKERS:     David Murphy, Cary Johnson, Kepa Askenasy, Tom Radulovich, Adrian Simi, Lucio Sanchez, Julie Milburn, Susan Eslick, Josh Smith, Rod Minett, Leslie Winick, David Meckel, Tim Colen, Robin Talmage, Janet Carpinelli, Sue Hestor, Joe Baas

            ACTION:           Adopted CEQA Findings

            AYES:             Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

            MOTION:           18418

 

            17b.      2003.0527XE                                                                                 (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

1000 16TH STREET - east side between Hubbell and 7th Streets, Lots 001 and 002 in Assessor’s Block 3833, and Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 3834 - Request under Planning Code Section 329 for Large Project Authorization and exceptions for rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, off-street loading, horizontal mass reduction and ground floor active uses for the  proposed construction of two new five-story, 68-foot buildings consisting of up to 468 dwelling units over ground floor retail, industrial spaces, and parking for up to 306 spaces.  The subject property is located within the UMU (Urban Mixed Use) District with a 68-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as Item 17a.

            ACTION:           Approved with Condtions

            AYES:             Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

            MOTION:           18419

 

18a.      2010.0959CV                                                                    (D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

147 SOUTH PARK AVENUE - south side between 3rd Street and Jack London Place, Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 3775 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 814.13 and 303 to demolish an existing single family dwelling and construct as the replacement structure a four-story, two-unit multifamily dwelling with a ground floor commercial use identified as an eating establishment.   The proposal is within the South Park Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued to 10/6/11     

            AYES:             Olague Miguel, Antonini, Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong, Sugaya

 

18b.      2010.0959CV                                                                    (D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)

147 SOUTH PARK AVENUE - south side between 3rd Street and Jack London Place, Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 3775 - Request for Variance under Planning Code Sections 145.1 and 306 to provide a parking entrance of 16 feet, in excess of 1/3 of the lot width, at the rear of the lot as part of the  four-story, two-unit multifamily replacement structure.   The proposal is within the South Park Zoning District with a 40-X Height and Bulk designation.

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CONTINUED THE MATTER TO 10/6/11.

 

           

 

            19a.      2009.0683D                                                                     (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)

309-311 Eureka Street - east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 2750 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Building Permit Application No. 2009.05.04.7631, proposing to demolish a two-family building and Building Permit Application No. 2009.05.04.7636 proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.  A separate request for Discretionary Review has also been filed by a member of the public against the replacement project.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011)

NOTE: On May 19, 2011, following public testimony the Commission continued the matter to July 28, 2011, by a vote of (+6 -0), Miguel voted no.  Public Hearing remains open.

 

SPEAKERS:     Fergal O’Boyle, Jane Gee, Elena Olzark, Emily Scott, Liz Noteware, Myra Friel, Patrick Friel, Gabriel Friel, Clare Friel, Zmid Sardar, Mary Devries, Jane Segal, Gutta Reichert, Joe Quigley, Tony Kim

            ACTION:           No DR, Approved Demolition      

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Sugaya

            NAYES:            Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

DRA:                0224

 

19b.      2009.0685D                                                                     (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372) 

309-311 Eureka Street - east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 2750 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Building Permit Application No. 2009.05.04.7631, proposing to demolish a two-family building and Building Permit Application No. 2009.05.04.7636 proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.  A separate request for Discretionary Review has also been filed by a member of the public against the replacement project.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction, as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011)

NOTE: On May 19, 2011, following public testimony the Commission continued the matter to July 28, 2011, by a vote of (+6 -0), Miguel voted no.  Public Hearing remains open.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as Item 19a.

            ACTION:           No DR, Approved New Construction        

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Sugaya

            NAYES:            Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

DRA:                0224

 

19c.      2010.0577DD                                                                   (S. HAYWARD: (415) 558-6372)

309-311 Eureka Street - east side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 2750 - Publicly Filed Discretionary Review, of Building Permit Application 2009.05.04.7636 proposing to construct a new three-story-over-garage, two-unit building within the RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.  

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction, as proposed

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 19, 2011)

NOTE: On May 19, 2011, following public testimony the Commission continued the matter to July 28, 2011, by a vote of (+6 -0), Miguel voted no.  Public Hearing remains open.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as Item 19a.

            ACTION:           No DR, Approved New Construction        

            AYES:              Olague Miguel, Antonini, Sugaya

            NAYES:            Moore

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

DRA:                0224

                                                                                            

            20.        2000.618E                                                                             (D. Dwyer: (415) 575-9031)

801 Brannan and One Henry Adams Streets Project - The proposed project has two sites: one on the south side of Brannan Street between 7th and 8th Streets [Block 3783, Lot 001] and one on the east side of Henry Adams Street between Division and Alameda Streets [Block 3911, Lot 001] - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project would include demolition of the existing Concourse Exhibition Hall on the 801 Brannan site and demolition of the three existing commercial/industrial buildings on the One Henry Adams site, and would include new construction of three mixed-use residential and retail buildings on the 801 Brannan site as well as two mixed-use residential and retail buildings at the One Henry Adams site. All buildings would be 68-feet-tall (six stories).  The easternmost portion of the 801 Brannan site would be dedicated to the City in partial fulfillment of the project’s Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirement.  Up to 150 units of affordable housing would be constructed on that portion of the 801 Brannan site under the direction of the Mayor’s Office of Housing (MOH).  There are two project variants proposed for development at the 801 Brannan site.  Under the two variants development at the One Henry Adams site would be the same as the project and there would be no land dedication at the 801 Brannan site.  Variant 1 would include new construction of two mixed-use residential and retail buildings on the 801 Brannan site.  Variant 2 would include new construction of three mixed-use residential and retail buildings on the 801 Brannan site. Total development would include up to 1,187,943 gross square feet, with up to 824 residential units, 54,598 square feet of retail space, and 866 parking spaces. Under the project or either variant, the 801 Brannan site also would include creation of a two-way, publicly accessible Brannan Alley which would connect Seventh and Eighth Streets and which would provide access to the proposed project’s parking garages. The project sites are located in the UMU (Urban Mixed Use) Zoning District and 68-X height and bulk district. The proposed project is seeking exceptions for rear yard, street frontage and mass reduction pursuant to Planning Code Section 329, Large Project Authorization within the Eastern Neighborhoods.  In addition, Conditional Use authorization is required for 71 parking spaces at the One Henry Adams site.

NOTE: Written comments will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, August 8, 2011.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action Required

 

SPEAKERS:     Sue Hestor, Tim Colen

            ACTION:           Public hearing, no action required

            ABSENT:          Borden, Fong

 

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))

 

Adjournment: 6:35 PM

 

Adopted: October 6, 2011


 

[1] A) Clarify and distinguish the distinct approval authority between the Mayor’s Office of Housing and the Planning Commission.  B) Require that dedicated land must be within a prescribed distance of the principal site, with explicit capacity for the Planning Commission to authorize exemptions for land within ¾ of a mile. C) Require that the principal project dedicate 40 % of the total developable area of the principal site or an equivalent area on another site to the City and County of San Francisco for the purpose of constructing units affordable to qualifying households and that the dedicated site have development capacity for 40% of the units developed on the principal site. D) Provide an opportunity for multiple project sponsors to participate in the dedication of one piece of land. E) Clarify the application process.

[2] In these districts entertainment is not currently permitted

[3] No votes on the continuance include:  Chu, Cohen, Elsbernd, and Wiener.

Last updated: 10/18/2011 2:22:08 PM