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

April 12, 2012

New Page 1

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 12, 2012

12:00 PM

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Fong

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY VICE-PRESIDENT WU AT 12: 10 PM.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Director of Planning, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Corey Teague, Diego Sanchez, Adrian Putra, Doug Vu, Teresa Ojeda, Aaron Starr, Elizabeth Watty,  Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

 

A.            CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

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

               

None

 

B.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

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

 

1.         2012.0128B                                                                      (C. Teague:  (415) 575-9081)

375 ALABAMA STREET - east side between 16th and 17th Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 3966 - Request for Office Development Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 179.1, 321, and 322 to establish 48,189 gross square feet of office use on the entire third floor and a portion of the fourth floor in a PDR-1-G (Production Distribution and Repair - General) Zoning District and 68-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18574

2.         2011.1239C                                                                        (D. Sánchez: (415) 575-9082)

901 Cortland Avenue - northwest corner of Gates Street, Lot 038 in Assessor’s Block 5660 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 711.54 to establish a 600 square foot massage establishment (d.b.a. Traditional Chinese Massage) within the NC-2 (Small Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2012)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18575

 

3.         2011.0969C                                                                             (A. PUTRA: (415) 575-9079)

5098 MISSION STREET - northwest corner of Mission Street and Geneva Avenue; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 6969 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 703.4, to allow a formula retail use operating as a self-service specialty food use (d.b.a. Quiznos) within an existing automotive gas station and retail grocery store (d.b.a. Chevron Extra Mile) in an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18576

 

4.         2011.1216C                                                                                 (D. Vu: (415) 575-9120)

9 WEST PORTAL AVENUE - south side between Ulloa and Vicente Streets ; Lot 029 in Assessor’s Block 2979A - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303, to modify the Conditions of Approval contained in Motion No. 18163, Case No. 2010.0422C, and allow an increase in the permitted hours of operation and an increase in the number of seats for the existing bar and liquor store (d.b.a. Vin Debut) within the West Portal Avenue NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Marsha Garland, Janice Robinson, Gail Farris, Dino Delphio, Justin Braun, William Bigelow, Stephen Castalano

ACTION:           Approved as amended to close at 1:45 a.m. 7 nights a week

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore

NAYES:            Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18578

 

5a.        2011.0588CEV                                                                     (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

            929 BRODERICK STREET – west side between Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 1152 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.1(h) and 303, to add a sixth dwelling-unit to the existing five-unit residential building on a lot measuring approximately 6,351sf. The project site is located within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Unit) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

            Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

MOTION:           18576

 

5b.       2011.0588CEV                                                                     (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

            929 BRODERICK STREET – west side between Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 1152 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134 and 188, to encroach into the required rear yard by expanding the volume of the existing noncomplying structure. The project site is located within the RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Unit) Zoning District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and stated his inclination to grant the variances.

 

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 Moore:

I wanted to join the Director and everybody else congratulating Environmental Review staff on winning a National Planning Award. There are very distinct projects which won awards.  Many of them went into things similar to what the City does, so I encourage the Director to support the Department to continue to showcase what the Department does.

Second point, I had a brief conversation with Mr. Putra on why we are not discussing the consent item which was approved a few minutes ago. I would like to raise a policy issue, at least as a discussion item only. We have a formula retail applying to occupy a gas station convenience store. The gas station probably falls under the formula retail category as well. I am wondering why, when there is a ready-made store and local small businesses would not be the ones which would have a shot at occupying the spaces. I think we have plenty of people looking for business opportunities in spaces that are easily adaptable for small operators to find a space. These spaces would be ideal. I just want to hang that out as a discussion item. We do not have to discuss it right now, but I would like this Commission to spend some thought on it.

 As we all know, our former colleague just declared candidacy. She sent an invitation to all of us to join her this evening. I am just saying it in recognition of our colleagues.

Commissioner Miguel:

There is an article that came out in "Cities and Towns" that dealt with the comparison of the migration out of cities in the 1950's and 1960's and the current migration back into cities and some of the reasons why, which I found interesting. They are discussing it in light of generations, from safety of suburbs; isolated to connected; inconvenient to convenient; and car dependent to car independent as well as a number of other reasons including the aging population that had moved to the suburbs and now find when they have difficulty driving, or are unable to drive, or have difficulty driving at night, that they do not have access to services and so are tending to move back into the city.  I have a copy of it here if anyone wishes to see it.
Also, last Thursday the "Wall Street Journal" had an article about rules and lightening the burden on entrepreneurs.  It had to do with the item that was just passed by the Board of Supervisors unanimously regarding restaurant definitions and some other items. Although we often appear in the "New York Times" Bay Area section, I do not think we have appeared too often in the "Wall Street Journal."

A couple of things involving the Department this week: SPUR's scheduled four monthly programs, part of their noontime forums, dealt with Medium Urban Design. The last one is small. The next will be large, and then very large. Steve was a member of the panel, and it was, as usual, in spite of the inclement weather, standing room only, so there is a great deal of interest in this. Those four programs are sponsored by SPUR. Also, the Annual Housing forum was yesterday. This one was entitled "Housing After Redevelopment”, and was again, as usual, had very excellent speakers involved in it. It is an excellent program, and I would be happy to discuss it with anyone who is interested, but in particular, having seen staff members this week -- and of course, many times in the past, in non-planning department or commission functions – I really want to let everyone know that the Department's staff comports themselves beautifully .They represent the Department, and I think the Commission also, in a manner that is really admirable. They engage with the public. They do not speculate. They deal with fact. They are able to answer questions, and it is really a great representation of the Department.

Commissioner Antonini:

I too was in attendance at the Housing Action Coalition's excellent hearing. It was a very, very good roster of speakers, including Mayor Lee and Matt Franklin, and a number of others.  They came up with some really interesting ideas. The theme was that even though everyone is disappointed with the loss of redevelopment, they see it as an opportunity to maybe more broadly address our housing needs than was the case even when redevelopment was around. In particular, I think it was the Mayor who presented some very interesting concepts that he will be, of course, go into more detail on in the future.  But I think that Matt Franklin really looked at some of these issues and talked about something I have been thinking about for some time, which is if you have shallow subsidies and make a higher percentage of affordability at a higher price level with the recipient contributing more, you can produce more housing and begin to address the gap, which we will address in a few minutes as part of the housing study that has just been finished for the last year. But he had some really good ideas along those lines. To be able to do those kinds of things and coming from his present position in the Mid-Peninsula Housing Group, which actually has extensions all the way up from the South Bay and all the way up beyond Nevada, so that is another possible source of housing, partnering with jurisdictions to try to deal with some of our housing needs. A lot of the same ideas we have heard before, but some good ones. I forget who it was brought up the idea, but the one-time conversion fee for condo conversions, which is a great source of funding. I think it was Tim Lockhardt who talked about the fact that San Francisco is very high on raising [funds]. Those are some of the thoughts but I thought I would mention those because I thought they were very good ones. Hopefully it will begin a dialogue that will answer a lot of the challenges that we have.

Commissioner Borden:

I will not say a lot more but just piggyback on Commissioner Miguel's comments and say that the staff was exceptional. The City Hall Fellows Program is for recently graduated college students that may have an interest in City Government. The idea is to expose them to more departments and hope that the best and brightest will choose to work within cities. This is modeled after a program in New York City. The founder had gone to that program. Commissioner Wu would know something about it, but it is here in San Francisco, and it is interesting because these Fellows get paid, and most of the departments are enterprise departments because they have the flexibility.  Several had degrees in Urban Planning or Urban Studies or Architecture.  It would be great to figure out a way to get one of these people on staff at some point in the future. These fellowships run based on the San Francisco Fiscal Cycle. We did a study looking at Eastern Neighborhoods, and they went for generally the Planning Department Code and talked a little bit about Eastern Neighborhoods and took a project to study and had a developer talk a little bit about the give and take. It was interesting. I felt like I learned a lot as well as had an opportunity to look at how developers look at projects and how they feel that they get to interact with the City. It was quite lightening in that way as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

D.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

7.         Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:

I wanted to point out a couple of things. A number of staff, including myself, will be at the National Planning Conference this year, which is in Los Angeles. I am very happy that it is in our time zone this year. The Environmental Planning staff does not often get awards for EIR's, which are very technical documents, so we are very pleased about that.

I wanted to spend, if I may, a couple of minutes updating you on the activities of the Oversight Board and the successor of the Redevelopment Agency. I will put this in writing for your next report as well, but to give you a quick background on what we have been doing. Just as a reminder, Assembly Bill 26, which eliminated the Agency, required or allowed cities to create successor agencies to take on what are called the enforceable obligations of the Redevelopment Agency. Just as a side note, in the case of Los Angeles, as you may have heard, the City chose not to take on that responsibility, and the Governor has set up a panel to take over the Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency's responsibilities. The Mayor proposed legislation to transfer two clusters of assets. One is the housing assets that the agency has in the Mayor's Office of Housing, and the non-housing assets were transferred to essentially the City Administrator's Office, and there is now a Redevelopment Division within the City Administrator's Office. That legislation that the Board passed also identified three large projects as the three projects that will continue under the auspices of the Successor Agency and identifies the Agency as also the agency that will review projects and entitle projects in those three areas. Outside of those three areas, the redevelopment areas that had existed, all of those areas with the exception of two, were already being reviewed by the Planning Department. The two exceptions were Rincon Point, South Beach, and the Bay View Industrial Triangle. The Redevelopment Agency zoning was and is in place, and there are some differences we have to work out between that and zoning and the Planning Code, and we have not quite worked out the details of how that transition is going to happen, but there are some discrepancies, if you will, between that zoning and Planning Code that has to be worked out. Most of the redevelopment area is built out. We are primarily dealing with changes to existing buildings and tenant improvements and uses and that sort of thing.  Beyond that, what we still have not dealt with is the kind of, for lack of a better term, soft issues. The planning project area committees, the other planning work that the agency was working on, which nobody is currently doing in the Bayview and other parts of the City, and that is where I think the Planning Department will be in discussion with other agencies to decide what agency should take on that work. Specifically, there were two areas where a lot of work had been done, which, unfortunately, cannot continue because there are no enforceable obligations, that is the Mid-Market Area and Visitation Valley. We have looked at that in quite a lot of detail to see if there are any obligations we can hang our hat on to use tax increments, and the conclusion of everyone is that we cannot. We will be meeting with the Visitation Valley Community on Tuesday to discuss what the next steps might be; and also the same with Mid-Market. There had been a lot of work over the last few years between the Planning Department and the Agency on both those areas, and unfortunately, the funding does not exist as of this moment to continue that work. We will try to figure out if there is alternative funding to continue the planning work over the next couple of months. With regard to the Board, we have had to take several actions. The first meeting was largely housekeeping, but the primary action we have had to take was related to what is called our recognized obligation payment schedule, and that is literally a listing of every single payment that the Redevelopment Agency would have had to have made over the next six months. And it is hundreds of payment obligations.  The State requires us to approve that payment schedule. That would cover the time between February 1st when the agency dissolved and July 1st. We again have to do this next month for the second half of the year, and it is a very detailed schedule that the State requires us as the Oversight Board to review and approve.  The State actually has to look at every one of those payments and has the ability under the law to question any of them, so that process is going on right now. Finally, I want to say that reviewing that list of obligations was really enlightening to me because it really was an indication of the broad range of activity that the Redevelopment Agency was involved with, and we are talking projects all over the City, properties that they maintain, contracts they had. It was, frankly, a much broader range of activity than I ever imagined and made me much more sad that the Agency was
dissolved and many of those activities cannot continue.  It was really an impressive list of projects. Some of them will be able to continue, but unfortunately, many will not. As you may have heard, they also resolved the staffing question. About 100 positions at the agency -- about 56 of them have been retained as city employees through a combination of the Redevelopment Division of the City Administrative Office, The Port, because some of the Redevelopment Agency responsibilities were on Port property, and the Mayor's Office of Housing.  So a combination of this agency has allowed about 56 or 57 people to be retained as city employees. That is it for now. I will put some of this in writing for our next Directors' report. I know many of you asked about this, I wanted to give you a brief update.

That concludes my report unless there are questions.

 

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

 

LAND USE COMMITTEE:

  • Eating & Drinking Establishments.  Commissioners, this is the Ordinance that began over a year ago with some modest changes of the use size allowance to restaurants and video store controls.  When you heard about this ordinance, you encouraged staff to go bold.  At your hearing last fall, you unanimously recommended downsizing from the current maze of 13 definitions for eating & drinking establishments to two types of restaurants and one bar definition.  You also recommended generally allowing the “limited restaurant” to be permitted as-of-right and incorporating some tailored controls for certain neighborhoods. Since your recommendation, the Ordinance has been sponsored by Supervisor Wiener and co-sponsored by Supervisors Carmen Chu and Christina Olague.  Last week I described the amendments made at Committee.  This week, there were no new amendments.  As described  the Ordinance now:
    • Includes a consolidated section for the operating conditions, thereby eliminating the need to duplicate the same text for all three definitions;
    • Makes additional specific controls for North Beach that limit the potential for restaurants & bars to displace “neighborhood severing retail sales & services”;
    • Makes formula retail restaurants on Broadway prohibited and Restaurants CU;
    • Makes limited restaurants permitted in all Chinatown districts per a community request;
    • Perhaps the biggest change is a change to the way restaurants may be entitled to serve liquor.  Historically, the Code has required that if a restaurant also serves liquor it would need to be entitled as both a “bar” and a “restaurant”.  In response to a request from a North Beach neighbor, the Ordinance has been amended to require that all restaurants serving liquor to be bona-fide—meaning that the majority of their sales come from food.  As part of this change, the land use entitlements were also made to better align with the ABC liquor license types.  This allows us to now entitle a restaurant with liquor sales solely as a restaurant and not as both a bar & a restaurant.

This week the amendments were re-heard in Committee.  The Committee recommended approval to the Full Board and on Tuesday’s Board hearing, I’m pleased to report that all 11 members approved the ordinance on first reading… and two more Supervisors signed on as co-sponsors: Supervisors Kim and Cohen, bringing the total sponsors to 6.

  • Hearing on the Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Audit on Affordable Housing policies in the City. The Audit provided recommendations to our Department & Commission including:
    • providing more information about the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or (RHNA) process and San Francisco’s housing obligations under RHNA;
    • providing additional data including a so-called  "dashboard" illustrating RHNA obligations for projects under review at Planning Commission, and
    • publishing a quarterly housing production report.

Planning staff responded with their intent to implement these recommendations.

However, much broader issues were discussed during the public comment and supervisor questions portion of the hearing.  Topics included the need for affordable housing at very low incomes, the need for middle income and family housing, issues related to foreclosures, and SROs. Of particular interest was future funding streams for affordable housing as presented by MOH.  The Mayor’s Office told a grim story for funding due to the expiration of Redevelopment and decreasing funds at the state level. While no action was requested or taken, the hearing did provide good data and discussion that will help to inform the important policy discussions about affordable housing in the City. The item was continued to the call of the chair.

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

§  EN Legitimization extension - This Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Cohen. It would extend the period of time which property owners of nonconforming uses in the Eastern Neighborhoods, who are operating without proper permits, can submit applications to legalize their uses. You considered this Ordinance on February 23. At that time you requested 2 modifications:

  1. Extend the deadline for submitting requests for amnesty by six months, instead of 90 days.
  2. Establish a 90-day timeline by which the legitimization process should proceed with deliberation after a determination of eligibility.

In response to the Commission’s request, Supervisor Cohen modified the Ordinance per your request but extended the deadline slightly longer to November 12, 2012. This week the Board passed the Ordinance on FINAL reading.

·         Public Art Fee.  This Ordinance is sponsored by Mayor Lee and Board President Chiu.  It would amend the public art requirement to allow certain projects to pay into a new fund instead of providing on-site art.  The Planning Commission considered the ordinance on October 27.  At that time you made a number of recommendations which could be summarized into three issues: 

1.     Ensuring the continued production of permanent, monumental art is balanced with the new possibility of ephemeral art.

2.     Updating the requirement so that it applies to all large development, not just that within the C-3.

3.     Ensuring that public open spaces are activated and identified as public with physical works of art.

Since the Commission action, the Board President and the Mayor’s Office have conducted further outreach with interested parties and developers.  The Ordinance has been amended to address the Commission’s concerns and to expand the Art Requirement beyond the C-3 district.  Supervisor Chiu has introduced amendments that would apply the requirement to non-residential projects over 25,000sf and that have submitted their first complete Development Application on or after January 1, 2013.  This expansion would apply to:

(1)   all parcels in RH-DTR, TB-DTR, SB-DTR, SLI, SLR, SSO, C-M, and UMU Districts;

(2)   properties that are zoned MUG, MOU, or MUR and that are north of Division/Duboce/13th Streets; and

(3)   all parcels zoned C-2 except for those on Blocks 4991 (Executive Park) and 7295 (Stonestown Galleria Mall).  

This week the Board approved the Ordinance on FINAL Reading.

INTRODUCTIONS:

  • BF 120372 Hearing Request:  Hearing to review the City's inclusionary housing laws, including an evaluation of development impact at different housing sizes.  Sponsors:  David Chiu 
  • BF 120353 Ordinance: Amending the SF Planning Code by adding section 187.2 to permit existing gasoline and service stations located on 19th Avenue to provide a mechanical car wash on the same site; making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the general plan.  Olague, C. Chu, and Elsbernd.
  • BF 120352 Ordinance: Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by: 1) adding Article 5 to implement San Francisco's housing preservation and production policies and goals. Olague, Kim, Campos & Mar.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS;

The Board of Appeals did meet last night. There was an appeal for a permit to replace windows, which the commission heard as a discretionary review just a few weeks ago. The appeals were withdrawn, so there was no hearing on the item. The second item is The Beach Motel. It relates to a Letter of Determination issued in 1997 that said that it was a residential hotel and not a tourist hotel the was appealed to the Board of Appeals. There was a hearing in 1998 that found they actually up held the Letter of Determination that was 3-2 to overturn the determination, but they failed to get the votes to overturn, so it was upheld by a matter of law. There was a re-hearing request filed on it, and there was active litigation at the time against the property owner. Most of that litigation – of course, all of it has now been resolved. The request was continued several times and ultimately indefinitely. It was on the call of the chair. Last year, the previous Board of Appeals President sought to clean house with all these cases that were contingent to the call of the chair, so they had a hearing on the re-hearing request last night and did vote to grant it. In the last 14 years, there's new information, which is one of the standards for granting the request related to the losses and also the status of the residential hotel. The building is no longer considered a residential hotel subject to the housing conversion ordinance. I think the hearing scheduled for late June may get moved back a little more to July. There are quite a few speakers there who had concerns about whether or not this may become an SRO. The Board pointed out correctly that there were some inflammatory letters given out to the community that it will be back. It is potential this could be before you in one form or another in the future as well, but just wanted to make you aware of that.


HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

No Report

 

9.                                                                                                    (T. OJEDA: (415) 558-6251)

2011 RHNA ANNUAL REPORT (DIRECTOR’S REPORT)   

The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) targets, as determined by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the regional Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), calls for a total of almost 31,200 units for the current Housing Element reporting cycle (January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2014).  Of this total, approximately 18,890 or 60% must be affordable to households earning moderate incomes or lower.  In compliance with Government Code Section 65400, the Planning Department prepared and submitted to the state HCD an annual report on the status and progress in implementing the jurisdiction’s housing element by the mandated yearly deadline of April 1.  The report listed affordable housing built, including affordable housing rehabilitated, preserved and/or acquired, during the 2011 reporting year.  A table summarizing progress towards meeting housing production targets to date is also included as part of the report.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Information only – No action required

 

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Information only –  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.

 

SPEAKERS:     Katherine Howard

                        Re: Beach Chalet

                        Hiroshi Fukuda

                        Re: - Affordable Housing

                              - CPC policy on items proposed for continuance

 

F.            REGULAR CALENDAR 

                       

10.        2004.1004EKC                                                                   (C. Teague:  (415) 575-9081)

1150 16th Street (aka 1201 8th Street) - north side between 8th Street and Hubbell Street, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 3821 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 175.6, 215, and 303. The proposal is to demolish the existing single-story building and construct two adjoined, mixed-use buildings. The 1150 16th Street building is a 58 feet tall structure containing ground floor retail and 15 dwelling units above. The adjoining 1201 8th Street building is a 68 feet tall structure containing ground floor retail and PDR uses above. The two buildings share a basement level garage containing 14 residential parking spaces and 8 commercial parking spaces. The project site falls in the PDR-1-D (Productions, Distribution, and Repair - Design) Zoning District and 68-X Height and Bulk District. The 1150 16th Street building is subject to the Eastern Neighborhood "Pipeline" controls of Planning Code Section 175.6 and the original zoning and height/bulk districts on the application filing date, which were M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     Don Frattin - representing Project Sponsor, Tony Pantilioni - Project Architect, Sergio Nibbi, Project Sponsor, David Michel, David Mitchell, Mark Smalloom, Kate Sofis , Mark Brown

ACTION:           Approved as amended by staff

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

RESOLUTION:   18579

 

11.        2012.0174T                                                                          (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE TO INCLUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES IN THE DEFINITION OF FORMULA RETAIL [Board File No. 12-0047] Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Mar amending the San Francisco Planning Code by: 1) amending Section 703.3(c) to include financial services within the uses subject to formula retail controls in Neighborhood Commercial Districts; 2) amending Section 806.3(c) including financial services within the uses subject to formula retail controls in Mixed Use Districts; 3) amending Section 303.3(i) making conforming amendments; and 4) making findings, including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and with the Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with modifications.

 

SPEAKERS:     Kathleen Dooley, Beau Tinken, Tes Wellborn, Katherine Petrin, Jim Warshall, Tom Radulovich, Chris Wright, Lydid Hernned, Chris Schulman, Troy Campbell, Lawrence Cronander, Russell Pritchard, Amy Wise, Dean Preston, Mark Brannan, Quinton Mickey, Gus Hernandez, Gia Darmworth-Katz, Kate Sofis

ACTION:           Approved (not to include staff’s recommended modifications)

AYES:             Wu, Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

NAYES:            Antonini

ABSENT:          Fong

RESOLUTION:   18580

 

12a.      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 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2012)

NOTE: On October 20, 2011, although informational only and no action was required, the Commission continued this item to 12/15/11

NOTE: On December 15, 2011, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 2/9/12 by a vote of (+7 -0).

NOTE: On February 9, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 3/1/12 by a vote of (+6 -0).

NOTE: On March 1, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 4/12/12 by a vote of (+7 -0)

 

SPEAKERS:     Judson True - Representative from Supervisors Chiu’s Office, Rose Hillson, Caroline Guibert, Tom Radulovich, Michael Theriault, Troy Campbell,

ACTION:           Following discussion, continued to 5/3/12

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore.

NAYES:            Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

 

12b.      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.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 1, 2012)

NOTE: On October 20, 2011, although informational only and no action was required, the Commission continued this item to 12/15/11

NOTE: On December 15, 2011, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 2/9/12 by a vote of (+7 -0).

NOTE: On February 9, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to 3/1/12 by a vote of (+6 -0).

NOTE: On March 1, 2012, following public testimony, the Commission took action on the Embarcadero scenic sign issues and continued the remainder of the matter to 4/12/12 by a vote of (+5 -1); Commissioner Moore voted against and Commissioner Fong was recused

 

SPEAKERS:     Judson True - Representative from Supervisors Chiu’s Office, Rose Hillson, Caroline Guibert, Tom Radulovich, Michael Theriault, Troy Campbell,

ACTION:           Following discussion, continued to 5/3/12

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore.

NAYES:            Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

 

13.        2012.0167TZ                                                                         (A. Starr: (415) 558-6362)

AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE AND ZONING MAP SHEET SU08 TO ESTABLISH THE 9TH STREET POWER RETAIL SPECIAL USE DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 555 9TH STREET [Board File No. 12-0083] Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Kim adding Section 249.66 (to be changed to Section 249.67 or the next available number under Section 249) to establish the 9th Street Power Retail Special Use District for property located at 555-9th Street (Assessor’s Block No. 3781, Lot No. 003); amending the San Francisco Zoning Map Sheet SU08 to show the boundaries of the 9th Street Power Retail Special Use District; and making 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 with modifications.

 

SPEAKERS:     Alan Lowe, Sue Hestor

ACTION:           Recommend disapproval to the Board of Supervisors

AYES:             Borden, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

NAYES:            Antonini

ABSENT:          Fong and Wu

RESOLUTION:   18581

 

14.        2011.1151D                                                                           (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

640 HAYES STREET - north side between Laguna and Buchannan Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0806 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.12.08.6310, proposing to legalize a horizontal addition constructed without permit, and to add a new dwelling unit at the ground floor of the existing three-story, two-unit building within the RTO (Residential, Transit Oriented) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Staff Analysis:  Abbreviated Discretionary Review

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do not take Discretionary Review and approve

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of January 19, 2012)

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 15, 2012)

 

SPEAKERS:     Project Sponsor and Jim Warshall spoke on a request for continuance

ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to 5/3/12

AYES:             Wu, Antonini, Borden, Miguel, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT:          Fong

 

15.        2011.1058D                                                                         (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

471 JESSIE STREET – south side between Mint and 6th Streets; Lot 028 in Assessor’s Block 3704 – Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2011.11.08.8514, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 217(k), to allow a new Medical Cannabis Dispensary (dba “JM Collective”) to locate within the existing vacant ground-floor tenant space. The proposed dispensary would not include on-site smoking, vaporizing, or cultivation, nor would it sell any cannabis food stuffs. The property is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and 160-F Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take DR and Disapprove

 

SPEAKERS:     Mathew Cole, Jordan Klein, Daniel Hurtado, Daniel Bornstein, Mira Ingram, Michael Kochn, David Goldman, Hunter Hollinan, Stephanie Tucker, Stephanie Tucker

ACTION:           The Commission did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project proposal but required that the safety program be reviewed by local SFPD

AYES:             Wu, Miguel, Moore, Sugaya

NAYES:            Antonini and Borden

ABSENT:          Fong

DRA No:           0275

 

G.         PUBLIC COMMENT

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

None

 

Adjournment: 6:56 pm

 

Adopted:  May 17, 2012 with corrections to comment made by Commissioner Borden on page 4, second sentence was corrected as follows:  The City Hall has a Fellows Program is for recently graduated college students that may have an interest in City Government.

 
Last updated: 5/18/2012 1:32:57 PM