Untitled 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, October 3, 2013
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Borden
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12: 12 PM.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Omar Masry, Casey Noel, Christine LaMorena, Rich Sucre, Kevin Guy, and Jonas P. 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.
Item No. 10 was considered under this section.
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. 2013.0637C (C. NOEL: (415) 575-9125)
33 CAMBON DRIVE - east side between Castelo and Cardenas Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 7324 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 713.61 to change an existing retail use to an Auto Rental use (d.b.a. Enterprise Rent-A-Car), all within a Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 18986
2. 2013.1107Q (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
360 LILY STREET - north side of Lily Street between Buchanan and Laguna Streets; Lot 036 in Assessor’s Block 0840 – Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story, five-unit building into residential condominiums within a RTO (Residential Transit Oriented) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 18987
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
3. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for September 19, 2013 Special Joint Meeting; and
· Draft Minutes for September 19, 2013 Regular Meeting
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
Adoption of Commission Minutes – Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.
4. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
I just want to mention that over the period of the last few weeks, I've had meetings with a series of project sponsors and neighborhood groups in regards to projects including: 2155 Webster Street, that is the previous UOP Dental School; and a number of other projects by the same project sponsors, 555 Fulton, 270 Brannan; and in the case of 1601 Larkin the architect, as well as, some of the immediate neighbors to the project.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
5. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Just wanted to remind you of the Eastern Neighborhood Forum that Supervisor Cohen is sponsoring, we had the first meeting of the two of these last night, in Potrero Hill. I attended along with several staff member, kind of an Eastern Neighborhoods 1 o 1, if you will. We had about 50 people attend, and it was a great meeting, great discussion. And the second forum will be this Saturday the 5th from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., at the California College of the Arts. Again, the staff will be making presentation about the Eastern Neighborhood, about the purpose of it and the way the project reviews work, and then we take questions and it is sponsored by Supervisor Cowen. Again, Saturday the 5th from 10:00 to 12:00 and that concludes my report.
6. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
· On Monday the Land Use Committee held a hearing on filling the Geary Blvd underpass at Fillmore Street. This hearing was requested by Supervisor Breed. The potential redesign of Geary surfaced through the Geary BRT project. The Supervisor asked for representatives of multiple agencies to discuss issues, opportunities, and ways to advance the dialogue. The hearing was staffed by Citywide Policy staff, including Acting Director Josh Switzky, the SFMTA, and the SFCTA. Planning staff opened with a brief history of Western Addition Redevelopment; including how the Geary expressway and Fillmore underpass came to be; the existing conditions; challenges to pedestrian safety; community cohesion; and the related recommendations of the JCHESS. Planning staff reviewed the City’s experiences in revisiting mid-20th century infrastructure, such as the replacement of the Central Freeway with Octavia Boulevard. Staff from MTA and the TA then discussed the Geary BRT project. In fact, the concept for filling the underpass and creating a more elegant and pedestrian-friendly surface street in support of BRT is one of the options being analyzed in the BRT EIR.
Staff noted the sizable financial cost that this one sub-project would add to the overall BRT project and the challenges that this creates for implementing the BRT project in the near term. Staff from all agencies, and the Supervisor, also acknowledged that substantial additional design work and community discussion would need to be done to further refine an underpass-fill option. The Supervisor concluded the hearing by stating an interest in having the agencies work together, perhaps with Planning in the lead, to develop a scope of work for a community process to advance this specific issue. Planning staff will work together with our agency partners to develop this scope and determine the resources it would require.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Appeal of 435 Potrero. The appellant filed appeals of both the Class 1 cat. ex and the CU. They did not have enough signatures for an appeal of the CU, so the only issue before the Board was the Class 1 CEQA exemption. The appellant’s arguments were twofold: 1) that the Internet Service Exchange should not have been deemed an existing use because the former tenant had vacated the site, and 2) that the diesel generator on the site was creating pollution which should have been evaluated and mitigated. The Department contended that it had determined that the use was an existing one. If it was not pre-existing then it would not have been eligible for legitimization under the Eastern Neighborhoods. For this reason a Class 1 exemption, for minor alteration to existing facilities was appropriate. With regard to the generator, since it was an existing part of the building it was part of the baseline for CEQA. Therefore the impacts of the existing generator were not changes to the environment. Furthermore, the new tenant will be required to get permits from Air Quality District. The Air Quality District’s regulations will address potential impacts. Supervisors Campos and Cohen asked questions, and Supervisor Cohen indicated that the sponsor had agreed to provide further filtration on the generator. With that, the Board voted 11-0 to uphold the Department’s Catex.
INTRODUCTIONS:
· BF 130969 Planning Code, Zoning Map Amendment - 904-22nd Street. This Ord. would rezone the property from RH-3 to UMU. Cohen
· BF 130938 Transit Impact Development Fee Exemptions. This Ord. would amend the Planning Code to revise deadlines for (TIDF) exemptions; eliminate references to redevelopment areas, and make such exemptions dependent on the terms of the controlling agreement or redevelopment plan that is effective; lastly, the ord. would require that the TIDF be calculated based on the rate in effect and the time of issuance of the first construction document. Wiener.
· BF 130983 Hearing to discuss and evaluate San Francisco's 10 Year Plan to Abolish Chronic Homelessness, which is due to sunset at the end of 2014. Farrell, Campos, and Avalos.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Board of Appeals didn't meet last night; they’ll be back in action next week.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
Zoning Administrator Sanchez for Tim Frye: I have the report from Tim Frye regarding the HPC hearing yesterday, at that hearing the HPC unanimously approved the delegation of work deemed minor in scope for Article 11 buildings in the C-3 zoning district. This is the third delegation to Planning Department staff over the last two years. The Department has approved over a hundred thirty five minor permit alters which has significantly streamlined the approval process for historic preservation projects and entitlements. There were two other items that were review and comments and that is the report from yesterday’s HPC hearing.
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. However, for items where public comment is closed this is your opportunity to address the Commission. With respect to all other 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: Sue Hestor – Planning Commission rules
Linda Chapman, Nob Hill Neighbors – Negotiating deals
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
7a. 2012.0799BX (R. SUCRE: (415) 575-9108)
270 BRANNAN STREET -, located between 2nd and Delancey Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor’s Block 3774 – Request for a Large Project Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 329, for the new construction of a seven-story, office building (approximately 189,000 gsf) with an internal atrium (approximately 5,000 sq ft), twelve (12) off-street parking spaces and thirty-six (36) bicycle parking spaces. Under the Large Project Authorization, the project is seeking modifications from the Planning Code requirements for the measurement of height (Planning Code Section 102.12(c) and 260) and ground floor ceiling height (Planning Code Section 145.1(c)(4)). The subject property is located within the South End Landmark District, MUO (Mixed-Use Office) Zoning District, and 65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 19, 2013)
SPEAKERS: + Dan Kingsley – Project description
+ Steve Shanks – Proejct description
+ Peter Fowler – Project description
+ Patrick Valentino – Good in-fill project and design, 48 bike vs 12, parking spaces
- John Elberling – Access to green space
Sue Hestor – Former redevelopment area
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 18988
7b. 2012.0799BX (R. SUCRE: 415/575-9108)
270 BRANNAN STREET - located between 2nd and Delancey Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor’s Block 3788 – Request for an Office Development Authorization under Planning Code Sections 321 and 842.66 to construct approximately 189,000 gsf of office space within the South End Landmark District, MUO (Mixed-Use Office) Zoning District, and 65-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 19, 2013)
SPEAKERS: SPEAKERS: + Dan Kingsley – Project description
+ Steve Shanks – Proejct description
+ Peter Fowler – Project description
+ Patrick Valentino – Good in-fill project and design, 48 bike vs 12, parking spaces
- John Elberling – Access to green space
Sue Hestor – Former redevelopment area
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include:
1. A Micro-retail component adjacent to the lobby, no less than 600 sq. ft.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 18989
8a. 2013.0063CET (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
555 FULTON STREET - south side between Laguna and Octavia Streets, Lots 015 and 028 of Assessor’s Block 0794 - Request to 1) Extend the approval term of a previously-approved Conditional Use Authorization to allow development on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet, to allow a commercial use size exceeding 3,000 square feet, to allow development above the 40-foot base height limit up to 50 feet, to allow additional off-street accessory parking for commercial uses, 2) Approve a Planned Unit Development, with specific modifications of Planning Code regulations regarding rear yard, usable open space, dwelling unit exposure, curb cut locations, and vehicular entry width, and 3) Adopt the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Project Site is located within the Hayes-Gough NCT District, the Residential Transit-Oriented District, 40-50-X Height and Bulk District, and the Fulton Street Grocery Store Special Use District. The proposal is to demolish an existing office/industrial building and construct a new five-story mixed-use building containing approximately 139 dwelling units, 29,200 square feet of ground floor commercial uses, and 148 off-street parking spaces. The Planning Commission approved a similar development proposal for the site on May 13, 2010 (Case No. 2005.1085C). The current proposal requests an extension of the term of the previous entitlements, and also includes minor revisions to the design and program of uses that were previously approved.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Valie Brown, Aide to Supervisor Breed – Continue Formula Retail portion of SUF
Amy Cohen, OEWD – Present for questions on grocery retention
+ Patrice Fabrini – Project description
+ Ian Burchell – Proejct description
+ Jessica Jew – Grocery component
+ Pastor Renaldo Woods – Good the community
+ Marceline Therrien – Scope of the grocery store market
+ Johnnie Carter – Put people to work, employment opportunities
+ Gary Banks – Move the project forward
+ Derf Buttler – Stand for what is right
+ Floyd Trammell – Support this initiative w/formula retail
+ Gill Henderson – Support
+ Rev. Arnold Townsend – My neighborhood, get it built
+ Jackie Henderson – Previous gas station, environmental clean-up, traffic, pollution
+ Robin Levitt – Concerns re. formula retail, supports continuance
+ Ace Washington – Fillmore corridor, OEWD pop-up organizations
+ Benitta West – Neighborhood needs a grocery store
- Russell Pritchard – Formula retail text amendment, affordable grocery
- David Wilcock – Request for continuance of the project
- Amanda Allen – Not in favor of formula retail
- Jim Marshall – Formula retail
- Soo Mi Kim – Continue, extend, entitlements, tenants, environmental impacts
- Paul Olson – Continue to ensure promises put in writing
= William Ballsley – Not us or them, all in favor of affordable grocery, continue formula retail portion of SUD
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval as amended to include:
1. The SUD is specifically for a grocery store;
2. Staff to work with the Supervisor on the affordability component;
3. An informational hearing before the Commission prior to hearing by the Land Use Committee; and
4. Striking the 3000 sq. ft. cap from the SUD.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis
NAYES: Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 18990
8b. 2013.0063CET (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
555 FULTON STREET - south side between Laguna and Octavia Streets, Lots 015 and 028 of Assessor’s Block 0794 - Request for a Planning Code Text Amendment to allow formula retail uses within the Fulton Street Grocery Store Special Use District (Section 249.35A) with Conditional Use Authorization. Formula retail uses are currently prohibited within the Hayes-Gough NCT District. The Amendment also proposes to extend the term of the Fulton Street Grocery Store Special Use District (SUD) for an additional five years. This SUD expired on April 3, 2013.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: Valie Brown, Aide to Supervisor Breed – Continue Formula Retail portion of SUF
Amy Cohen, OEWD – Present for questions on grocery retention
+ Patrice Fabrini – Project description
+ Ian Burchell – Proejct description
+ Jessica Jew – Grocery component
+ Pastor Renaldo Woods – Good the community
+ Marceline Therrien – Scope of the grocery store market
+ Johnnie Carter – Put people to work, employment opportunities
+ Gary Banks – Move the project forward
+ Derf Buttler – Stand for what is right
+ Floyd Trammell – Support this initiative w/formula retail
+ Gill Henderson – Support
+ Rev. Arnold Townsend – My neighborhood, get it built
+ Jackie Henderson – Previous gas station, environmental clean-up, traffic, pollution
+ Robin Levitt – Concerns re. formula retail, supports continuance
+ Ace Washington – Fillmore corridor, OEWD pop-up organizations
+ Benitta West – Neighborhood needs a grocery store
- Russell Pritchard – Formula retail text amendment, affordable grocery
- David Wilcock – Request for continuance of the project
- Amanda Allen – Not in favor of formula retail
- Jim Marshall – Formula retail
- Soo Mi Kim – Continue, extend, entitlements, tenants, environmental impacts
- Paul Olson – Continue to ensure promises put in writing
= William Ballsley – Not us or them, all in favor of affordable grocery, continue formula retail portion of SUD
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include:
1. Staff to continue working with Project Sponsor on subdivision of tenant spaces; and
2. Staff to continue working with Project Sponsor; on the overall scale and massing.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Sugaya
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 18991
9a. 2013.0890CEV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1601 LARKIN STREET - northwest corner at Clay Street, Lot 006 of Assessor's Block 0620: Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow development exceeding 40 feet in height within an 'R' District, and to grant an exception to bulk requirements, within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) District, and 65-A Height and Bulk District, and adoption of findings under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed project is to demolish an existing vacant church and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story over basement building containing 27 dwelling units and 32 off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: (REQUESTING CONTINUANCE)
+ Linda Chapman
+ Steven Taper
- Jim Ruben and Gordon Egan, Land Owner Attorneys
- Dawn Trennert
SPEAKERS:
+ Jim Ruben – Project description
+ Ian Burchell – Project description
+ Elizabeth Gordon – In full support
+ Brian Wallace – 1601 let’s get it done
+ Gary Botana – Will remove blight
+ Michael Skolnik – A person one opposed, now in favor
+ Gordon Egan – Property owner perspective
- Organized opposition – History of the church, non-profit project
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Robin Tucker – Opposed, neighborhood character
- Joe Butler – Neighborhood blight
- Tony Robles – Project Sponsor only care about money
- Graham Woodhouse – Scale and character of Clay Street
- Coreen Jen – 1600 Larkin, fish out of water, it does not belong in our neighborhood
- Rowen Jen – No community benefit
- Dan Trennert – Height and bulk doesn’t fit in the neighborhood
- Linda Chapman
- Henry Pan
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include:
1. Equal setbacks on portions of Clay & Larkin Streets of nine feet.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 18992
9b. 2013.0890CEV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1601 LARKIN STREET - northwest corner at Clay Street, Lot 006 of Assessor's Block 0620 - Request for Variance from the requirements of Planning Code Section 134 (Rear Yard), Section 135 (Usable Open Space), and Section 140 (Dwelling Unit Exposure), within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) District, and 65-A Height and Bulk District. The proposed project is to demolish an existing vacant church and surface parking lot and construct a new 5-story over basement building containing 27 dwelling units and 32 off-street parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator will consider the Variance request concurrently with the Planning Commission's consideration of the Conditional Use Authorization at this same hearing.
ACTION: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INDICATED AN INTENT TO GRANT
10. 2011.0544C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
1700 UNION STREET - at the northwest corner of Union and Gough Street, Lot 002A in Assessor’s Block 0529 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 725.83 and 303 for a wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would consist of three panel antennas and related electronic equipment. Two antennas would be façade mounted and screened with a fiberglass panel painted to match the building. The third antenna would be housed in a faux roof vent. Electronic equipment would be roof mounted and screened from view. The facility is proposed at a Location Preference 6 Site (Individual Neighborhood Commercial District) within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning, and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 19, 2013)
NOTE: On September 19, 2013, following public hearing and closing public comment, the Commission indicated their concern regarding the proposed design and continued the matter to October 3, 2013, by a vote (+7 -0).
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to October 17, 2013
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
11. 2013.0703D (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
58 DIGBY STREET - at the northeast corner of Digby and Everson streets; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 7540 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2013.05.07.6233, proposing to demonstrate compliance with a notice of violation (NOV No. 201281191) by modifying a portion of a roof-mounted multi-antenna system, via removal of those antennas not deemed exempt from the issuance of building permits (per Federal Communications Commission Over The Air Receiving Device [FCC OTARD] rules). Subject site is a single family dwelling within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: - Manuel Fishman – Project opposition
- Valerie Char - Opposed
+ Alex Venendez – Monkey brain operation
+ Rudy
ACTION: No DR, Approved as Proposed, acknowledging a voluntary visual barrier
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
DRA No: 0338
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
None
Adjournment – 7:07 PM
Hearing Procedures
The Planning Commission holds public hearings regularly, on most Thursdays. The full hearing schedule for the calendar year and the Commission Rules & Regulations may be found online at: www.sfplanning.org.
Public Comments: Persons attending a hearing may comment on any scheduled item.
v When speaking before the Commission in City Hall, Room 400, please note the timer indicating how much time remains. Speakers will hear two alarms. The first soft sound indicates the speaker has 30 seconds remaining. The second louder sound indicates that the speaker’s opportunity to address the Commission has ended.
Sound-Producing Devices Prohibited: The ringing of and use of mobile phones and other sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. Please be advised that the Chair may order the removal of any person(s) responsible for the ringing or use of a mobile phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices (67A.1 Sunshine Ordinance: Prohibiting the use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices at and during public meetings).
For most cases (CU’s, PUD’s, 309’s, etc…) that are considered by the Planning Commission, after being introduced by the Commission Secretary, shall be considered by the Commission in the following order:
1. Presentation by Staff;
2. Presentation by the Project Sponsor’s Team (which includes: the sponsor, representative, legal counsel, architect, engineer, expeditor and/or any other advisor) for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes, at the discretion of the Chair;
3. Public testimony from supporters of the Project not to exceed three (3) minutes, at the discretion of the Chair;
4. Presentation by Organized Opposition recognized by the Commission President through written request prior to the hearing for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes, at the discretion of the Chair;
5. Public testimony from opponents of the Project not to exceed three (3) minutes, at the discretion of the Chair;
6. Staff follow-up and/or conclusions;
7. Public comment portion of the hearing shall be closed and deliberation amongst the Commissioners shall be opened by the Chair;
8. A motion to approve; approve with conditions; approve with amendments and/or modifications; disapprove; or continue to another hearing date, if seconded, shall be voted on by the Commission.
Every Official Act taken by the Commission must be adopted by a majority vote of all members of the Commission, a minimum of four (4) votes. A failed motion results in the disapproval of the requested action, unless a subsequent motion is adopted. Any Procedural Matter, such as a continuance, may be adopted by a majority vote of members present, as long as the members present constitute a quorum (four (4) members of the Commission).
For Discretionary Review cases that are considered by the Planning Commission, after being introduced by the Commission Secretary, shall be considered by the Commission in the following order:
1. Presentation by Staff;
2. Presentation by the DR Requestor(s), not to exceed five (5) minutes per Requestor, at the discretion of the Chair;
3. Public testimony from opponents of the Project not to exceed three (3) minutes, at the discretion of the Chair;
4. Presentation by the Project Sponsor for a period of five (5) minutes not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes, whenever there are multiple DR requests, at the discretion of the Chair;
5. Public testimony from supporters of the Project not to exceed three (3) minutes, at the discretion of the Chair;
6. Rebuttal by the DR Requestor(s), not to exceed two (2) minutes per Requestor, at the discretion of the Chair;
7. Rebuttal by the Project Sponsor, not to exceed two (2) minutes, at the discretion of the Chair;
8. Staff follow-up and/or conclusions;
9. Public comment portion of the hearing shall be closed and deliberation amongst the Commissioners shall be opened by the Chair;
10. A motion to Not Take DR and approve the Project as proposed; or to Take DR and approve the Project with conditions, with amendments and/or modifications; or to Take DR and disapprove; or continue to another hearing date, if seconded, shall be voted on by the Commission.
The Commission must Take DR in order to disapprove or modify a building permit application that is before them under Discretionary Review. A failed motion to Take DR results in a Project that is approved as proposed.
Hearing Materials
Materials submitted to the Planning Commission prior to a scheduled hearing will become part of the public record only when the materials are also provided to the Commission Secretary and/or Project Planner. Correspondence may be emailed directly to the Commission Secretary at: commissions.secretary@sfgov.org.
Persons unable to attend a hearing may submit written comments regarding a scheduled item to: Planning Commission, 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94103-2414. Written comments received by the close of the business day prior to the hearing will be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and made part of the official record.
Advance Submissions: To allow Commissioners the opportunity to review material in advance of a hearing, materials must be received by the Planning Department reception eight (8) days prior to the scheduled public hearing. All submission packages must be delivered to1650 Mission Street, Suite 400, by 5:00 p.m. and should include fifteen (15) copies.
Day-of Submissions: Material related to a calendared item may be distributed at the hearing. Please provide ten (10) copies for distribution.
Appeals
The following is a summary of appeal rights associated with the various actions that may be taken at a Planning Commission hearing.
|
Case Type
|
Case Suffix
|
Appeal Period*
|
Appeal Body
|
|
Office Allocation
|
B
|
15 calendar days
|
Board of Appeals**
|
|
Conditional Use Authorization and Planned Unit Development
|
C
|
30 calendar days
|
Board of Supervisors
|
|
Building Permit Application (Discretionary Review)
|
D
|
15 calendar days
|
Board of Appeals
|
|
EIR Certification
|
E
|
30 calendar days
|
Board of Supervisors
|
|
Coastal Zone Permit
|
P
|
15 calendar days
|
Board of Appeals
|
|
Planning Code Amendments by Application
|
T
|
30 calendar days
|
Board of Supervisors
|
|
Variance (Zoning Administrator action)
|
V
|
10 calendar days
|
Board of Appeals
|
|
Permit Review in C-3 Districts, Downtown Residential Districts and Large Project Authorization in Eastern Neighborhoods
|
X
|
15 calendar days
|
Board of Appeals
|
|
Zoning Map Change by Application
|
Z
|
30 calendar days
|
Board of Supervisors
|
* Appeals of Planning Commission decisions on Building Permit Applications (Discretionary Review) must be made within 15 days of the date the building permit is issued/denied by the Department of Building Inspection (not from the date of the Planning Commission hearing). Appeals of Zoning Administrator decisions on Variances must be made within 10 days from the issuance of the decision letter.
**An appeal of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Permit to Alter/Demolish may be made to the Board of Supervisors if the project requires Board of Supervisors approval or if the project is associated with a Conditional Use Authorization appeal. An appeal of an Office Allocation may be made to the Board of Supervisors if the project requires a Conditional Use Authorization.
For more information regarding the Board of Appeals process, please contact the Board of Appeals at (415) 575-6880. For more information regarding the Board of Supervisors process, please contact the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at (415) 554-5184 or board.of.supervisors@sfgov.org.
Challenges: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge, in court, (1) the adoption or amendment of a general plan, (2) the adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance, (3) the adoption or amendment of any regulation attached to a specific plan, (4) the adoption, amendment or modification of a development agreement, or (5) the approval of a variance, conditional-use authorization, or any permit, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
CEQA Appeal Rights under Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: If the Commission’s action on a project constitutes the Approval Action for that project (as defined in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 31, as amended, Board of Supervisors Ordinance Number 161-13), then the CEQA determination prepared in support of that Approval Action is thereafter subject to appeal within the time frame specified in S.F. Administrative Code Section 31.16. This appeal is separate from and in addition to an appeal of an action on a project. Typically, an appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days of the Approval Action for a project that has received an exemption or negative declaration pursuant to CEQA. For information on filing an appeal under Chapter 31, contact the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102, or call (415) 554-5184. If the Department’s Environmental Review Officer has deemed a project to be exempt from further environmental review, an exemption determination has been prepared and can be obtained on-line at http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=3447. Under CEQA, in a later court challenge, a litigant may be limited to raising only those issues previously raised at a hearing on the project or in written correspondence delivered to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Planning Department or other City board, commission or department at, or prior to, such hearing, or as part of the appeal hearing process on the CEQA decision.
