SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, September 18, 2014
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT WU AT 12: 12 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Omar Masry, Aaron Starr, Elizabeth Watty, Jeff Speirs, Diego Sanchez, Kanishka Burns, Kansai Uchida, Wade Wietgrefe, Brittany Bendix, Sara Vellve, Michael Smith, Eiliesh Tuffy, Glenn Cabreros, and Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary
SPEAKER KEY:
+ indicates a speaker in support of an item;
- indicates a speaker in opposition to an item; and
= indicates a neutral speaker or a speaker who did not indicate support or opposition.
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. 2014.0377C (J. SPEIRS: (415) 575-9106)
2861-2865 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - east side between Wayland Street and Woolsey Street, Lot 022 in Assessor’s Block 5457 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.36 and 317, to allow the residential conversion of two dwelling units at the second floor to two office spaces (Business or Personal Service) within a NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small Scale) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project includes a third and fourth floor vertical addition to add two new dwelling units. 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: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to October 16, 2014)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to October 16, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
2a. 2012.0678E!KUVX (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)
19-25 MASON STREET (AKA 2-16 TURK STREET) - northwest corner of Mason and Turk Streets; Lots 002, 005, 006 in Assessor’s Block 0340 - Request for Determination of Compliance pursuant to Planning Code Section 309, with exceptions to the requirements for “Rear Yard” (Section 134), "Reduction of Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 Districts" (Section 148), and “Residential Accessory Parking” (Section 151.1(f)). The proposed project would remove an existing surface parking lot and construct a new, 12-story, 112,600 gsf, mixed-use building, with 109 dwelling units, 52 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 2,400 sf of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General) Zoning District and 120-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 14, 2014)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
2b. 2012.0678E!KUVX (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)
19-25 MASON STREET (AKA 2-16 TURK STREET) - northwest corner of Mason and Turk Streets; Lots 002, 005, 006 in Assessor’s Block 0340 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Section 140, for dwelling unit exposure for 19 of the 109 units. The proposed project would remove an existing surface parking lot and construct a new, 12-story, 112,600 gsf, mixed-use building, with 109 dwelling units, 52 off-street parking spaces, and approximately 2,400 sf of ground-floor retail space. The project site is located within the C-3-G (Downtown General) Zoning District and 120-X Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: ZA Continued Indefinitely
3. 2013.1668T (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
BONA FIDE EATING PLACE - Planning Commission consideration of an Ordinance [BF 131064] amending the Planning Code to expand the definition of “bona fide eating place” to include a definition based on food sales per occupant and modifying the definition of a Bar to include establishments with an ABC License Type 47 that are not Bona Fide Eating Places; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval with Modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 19, 2014)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
4. 2013.1620D (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
812 – 814 GREEN STREET - north side of Green Street, between Mason and Taylor Streets; Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block 0119 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(e), of Building Permit Application No. 2013.11.06.1249, proposing to make interior modifications to merge two dwelling units into one unit, resulting in the elimination of one unit in an existing three unit building within a RM-2 (Residential-Mixed, Moderate Density) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 14, 2014)
(WITHDRAWN)
B. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and may 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. 2012.0059C (O. MASRY; (415) 575-9116)
431 BALBOA STREET - along the south side of Balboa Street, between 5th and 6th Avenues, Lot 047 in Assessor’s Block 1639 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 711.83 and 303 to allow a macro wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would feature nine (9) panel antennas screened by a combination of faux elements (vent pipes, rooftop mechanical screens, and a faux decorative parapet extension), on the roof of an existing three-story mixed-use building. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in a ground floor room. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 5 Site (Mixed-Use Building in a High-Density District) within a NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) 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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Ted Vriheas – Project presentation
- John Makibo – Views, light, RF emissions reports – not direct measurements
- Sho Lu Makibo – Aesthetics, notice
- (F) Speaker – Opposed, view
- Sue Chin Hung – Opposed, health
- Anne Chassey – No service need
- Daniel Wu – Radiation effects
- David Osgood – Opposition
ACTION: After being pulled off of Consent; Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
MOTION: 19237
6. 2014.1240T (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING CODE’S DEFINITION OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION REQUIREMENTS [BOARD FILE NO. 140775] - Ordinance amending the Planning Code to amend the definition of Residential Unit and clarify the requirements for a Residential Conversion of a Residential Hotel Unit regulated under Administrative Code, Chapter 41; making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: After being pulled off of Consent; Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Wu, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: Antonini
RESOLUTION: 19238
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
7. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for September 4, 2014
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
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.
8. 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:
A couple of things, last night I was able to go to see a preview of the renovated Masonic Auditorium. It had been before us and it was approved, as you know, and I think it was very well done and as we had mentioned during our discussions and as I voted, ultimately had been mostly to improve the facility, which I think in my opinion they did and made it a lot more functional. The other item I wanted to mention, I hope many of you have been able to watch Ken Burns’ excellent series on PBS Channel 9, on the Roosevelt’s, which is going to have its fifth night, tonight. I have seen three of the four nights and I think it's extremely well done, and from the histories I have read over the period, it seems to be very accurate and the nice thing about it is they don't hesitate to mention the warts, that is, the times when these individuals did things that might not have been the best or not made the best decisions. In any case, it is very important in the formation of the America we know today, the period of time characterized by both Presidents, Teddy Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and of course Eleanor Roosevelt also is featured extensively in there. And the second episode ended with one of my favorite quotes by then President Theodore Roosevelt at the Sorbonne in 1905, the quote is known as, "It is not the critic that counts,” but basically what Roosevelt was saying to his audience is, it’s the one, the man in the arena, as he puts it, the one who is actually doing the deeds and risking his life and doing the best he can to do good is the one who really should get the credit not the person who just criticizes, and doesn’t offer any constructive criticism or anything in replace of what is being proposed and the job that’s being done by as he says, the man in the arena. I think it's one of my favorite quotes and it was a fitting ending to the second episode.
Commissioner Moore:
I’d like to ask the Director; if at all possible, the Commission received a letter from Perkins and Coie, who are now representing the Academy of Art, giving the Commission an update on the Academy. I believe that that update is a little thin relative to the detail many of us have spent on it over the years and I do think the public, just as well as, the Commission deserves a slightly more detailed update because we have asked more detailed questions. The second point is in yesterday's e-mail I received a wonderful copy of San Francisco Heritage with a draft on the Cultural History of the City. It takes, like snapshots of particular events and buildings and places. I understand the Historic Preservation Commission had a presentation by Heritage. I am wondering if we could have a similar presentation, because ultimately we at least should know -- while it does not influence what we do, it gives us a broader understanding of the larger issues which tie it all together. Would you consider that to be possible, Director Rahaim?
Director Rahaim:
Absolutely, we can work with the Chair to make that happen.
Commissioner Moore:
Thank you.
Commissioner Richards:
I guess parlaying off what Commissioner Moore said, I too was pleasantly surprised to receive these documents from San Francisco Heritage in the mail. I think, you know, we look at preservation through kind of a physical environment lens, the style of architecture, how old the building is, and maybe what happened there, but from a cultural point of view we have a little bit of catching up to do. I know the Gay and Lesbian Context Statement was adopted more than ten years ago. I know that there was an African American Context Statement that was adopted and I know it’s in the works to have a Latino Context Statement that’s coming, and I think, part of what makes San Francisco the wonderful place it is, is the social and cultural heritage that we have, and case in point, if you go online and look at the Heritage booklet on sustaining our living history, some of the most recent kind of things that have been publicized around changes in the social and cultural heritage started with the Pied Piper Bar and I think Commissioner Antonini, you could probably speak to that. That kind of started the ball rolling, on well wait a minute, if we had the Pied Piper go away and the Golden Dust Lounge go away and the Tonga Room go away, what is San Francisco going to look like? We had The Eagle go away which is a leather bar South of Market, went away for two years, it’s come back, that’ great, Esta Noche in the Mission is gone, the Roxy Theater’s lease is up for renewal, I know Sam Wo is gone, they were there 100 years, Marcus Books is gone, and now the The End Up, which has been around, if you ever read Tales of the City, probably 40 years now, it ‘s a fixture in the nightlife scene in the South of Market, their building is up for sale. So, I really think that getting our arms around what we can do strategically to prevent displacement for these kinds of businesses is good. And, actually on the back of one of the pamphlets, they talk about strategies that they would like to implement, that's why I would like them to also come to the Commission. The second thing I wanted to mention is, I asked Director Rahaim and staff if they could produce, I guess a pro forma in the pipeline report for the housing coming online. We keep referring to the income levels of housing, above moderate, is 120% of AMI, moderate is 80-120%, and then low income, lower than 80. I’ve only been here two meetings, we've had some discussion around what kinds of BMR units they are going to be, folks in the Mission want 55% or less or even lower than that. We hear that there is a big gap in the moderate income units to the point of, that we only produced about a quarter of what we need. And low income on 61 percent and we’re way above moderate, at about 200 percent. I asked Director Rahaim if he could actually take a look at and maybe eyeball, for the 4,000 units coming, beyond 2014 in Hunters Point, Treasure Island and Park Merced, to give us an idea of what the world would look with those projects online. Would it move any of these numbers significantly or are we still, basically operating with the same deficit foundation in the low and moderate? I look forward to receiving that. My last point is, I struggle with the last two meetings with definition of family housing. I came across something on Twitter two days ago that what was retweeted by San Francisco Business Times and it was the First Republic Luxury Home Index. It kind of opened my eyes to, wow, this is what we are kind of dealing with. The luxury home defined by First Republic, and I’m sure that there’s other barometers out there, is a home that’s valued at $3 million, it has three or more bedrooms, and it has 3,000 or more square feet. You can fit a family in that, of course, you can fit a family in a size less than that, but I think for my purposes and my lens moving forward, I'm going to call that definition a luxury family house, anything less than that would be family housing. So, the 26th and Clement we had called into a definition of what a family housing really would be. The 115 Telegraph Hill certainly is a luxury family house. That's kind of the lens I'm going to start looking at. If you want to refer to it, it’s the First Republic Luxury Home Index, it’s online. Thank you.
Commissioner Johnson:
Thank you very much. My first point here, I was thinking about this since our first meeting and would really like to request starting with a presentation from SFMTA. I would like to see how, starting with at least, starting how they are going to phase in the transportation improvements particularly in the area encompassed by the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan and eventually what will encompass the new Central SOMA Plan. We talk a lot about, there is a lot of maps of what the future state will look like, future, future, but I would like to understand what the phasing is going to look like and how that is going to come in over time, and how they are actually measuring when one phase is completed and when you need to move to the next phase in terms of density, in terms of intensification of various MUNI lines. I would like to have at least an informational presentation on that and potentially maybe in the future we can move to maybe a joint meeting or some other method of having a little bit more coordination between the Planning Department and SFMTA. My second one, is so minor, I almost hate myself for saying it. I noticed in our last few hearings when we had DR's, when it came time for comment that oftentimes individuals who technically are part of the project sponsor team, either they are co-owner of the property or they are related to the owner of the property or there is a very close relation would come up for comment and be confused as to why they couldn't speak because they should have been considered part of the project sponsor team. You are always going to have people who are unfamiliar with how the Planning Commission works, maybe they haven’t come to a hearing before, so we are going to have to deal with that, but I think that one thing we could make a little bit easier is in our agendas we have standard language underneath the regular calendar that talks about the project sponsor team includes, colon, and then it lists off a few things. One of the first ones says the sponsor or their designee and I’d like to find a way to maybe add another clause that just clarifies who else would be considered part of the sponsor team, so if you have an ownership interest in the property or some sort of clarifying language I think that would be helpful. I wasn't going to say it the first couple of times, but then it happened a few more times and I want people to understand when they can make comment, what group they should be a part of, who they should be communicating with, so they are not confused when they get here. Thank you.
Commissioner Wu:
I think that's something we can work on with the Commission Secretary.
Jonas Ionin, Commission Secretary:
If there is nothing further we can move on but, just quickly to respond to Commissioner Johnson. The Historic Preservation Commission just yesterday adopted new rules and regulations for their procedures, and as a part of that Commissioner Johns is actually working with staff on a handout that would go along with how to make a public presentation and what to expect. Maybe we can adopt something similar for the Planning Commission that could be a part of applications that go out to applicants.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
9. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Thank you. Good Afternoon, Commissioners, just two things. With respect to the Academy of Art, we will be happy to prepare a more detailed memo on the status. Just so you do know, we are on track for the release of the Draft EIR in November, which has been the kind of date that we've been working toward for quite a few months. Secondly, I wanted to just let you know that we are working with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development and the developer of the Flower Mart. There has been a lot in the media about this; there has been a lot discussion in the community about this. There is no architectural design that is yet proposed but, but we believe it’s possible given the size of the site to fully maintain a Flower Mart on that site. The developer is willing to work with us on this. Further, the Mayor has directed the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to work with us and the developer to ensure that the Flower Mart is actually maintained on site, with any new development that is there. We are very early on the process; they haven't even applied for their Preliminary Plan Assessment yet, but we will soon be working with them when they do make that application to ensure the Flower Mart does, in fact, stay on site. We anticipate that it's physically possible to do that. We will let you know as the applications come in, over the next twelve months or so on the status of that. That concludes my presentation. Happy to take any questions.
10. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
· Short-Term Rentals. Commissioners, you heard this item on August 7. At that time you recommended approval with 16 amendments be made to the legislation. These requested changes were delivered to the Board. At the land use hearing, the Director emphasized the shared goal of created a legal avenue for this use and thanked the Supervisor for taking on this challenging issue. At the same time, the Director emphasized the need to focus on three key changes: 1) Ensure that the system is not abused by creating real limits on the number of days a unit can be rented. 2) Dedicated budget for enforcement staff. And 3) Limits for hosted units too. There was about 7 hours of public comment. A representative from one hosting platform, AirBNB, came to the hearing and addressed the Board.
As part of the Board discussions, there were Significant amendments were made to the V2 ordinance. Supervisor Chiu introduced 8 amendments which were incorporated into the ordinance. (person can only have 1 perm. residence, only 1 registrant per unit, suspend permission if there is an outstanding Code violation—until violation is cured, posting ads w/o registration is a violation, need a valid business registration, hosting platform shall maintain record of tax payment—not maintaining these records is a violation by the platform, hosting platform can respond to alleged violations at the administrative hearing). Supervisors Wiener (in consultation w/ Farrell) amended the ordinance to require that the Planning Department shall send mailed notice to the property owner when a resident applies for the registry. Supervisor Kim amended the ordinance to add the HOA (if any) related to the unit to the interested parties list who are eligible to sue. The Committee orally amended the Ordinance to limit the rentals to 265 every year and not just the year prior to getting on the registry.
Supervisor Kim stated that she wanted to create a 90-day limit for both hosted and non-hosted units. She was interested in the funding to support the program and wanted to hear about how DBI’s codes would come into play. Supervisor Chiu offered to bring the DBI director to a LU hearing the next week, but Supervisor Kim felt more time would be needed to resolve the outstanding questions. She referenced the 16 modifications of this commission. Supervisor Cohen suggested a two-week continuance and the committee voted to reconsider the issue on September 29.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: No Planning items
INTRODUCTIONS:
· 140982 Arcades in the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Ordinance amending the Planning Code to permit arcades in the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Zoning Administrator Scott Sanchez:
The Board of Appeals did meet last night. One item that might be of interest to the Commission is 70 Crestline. This was before you as a Discretionary Review at the end of 2012. It was staff initiated. Staff had recommended denial of the application. The Commission approved it. It was for new construction of a 4-unit building in Twin Peaks. Subsequently to that, the neighbors who were opposed to the project appealed it to the Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals denied the application. There was some question about whether or not there were some limitations associated with the subdivision that established this property back in 1962 and Public Works had issued a condition saying that you could not build on this area. They subsequently revoked that and asked the Planning Department and Building Department to look into it further. We researched that and actually did find evidence through minutes from 1962 Planning Commission hearings which did indicate that this was to be maintained as open space. So, we conditioned the subdivision, as such, that was issued earlier this year and it was not appealed to the Board of Supervisors, as such conditions could be. So those conditions are in full effect. Last night was a rehearing request brought by the project sponsor. The Board’s noting that these conditions are in place and that they had previously denied the permit, denied the rehearing request, so their denial of the application stands and the project could not move forward. I'm available for any questions.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
Preservation Coordinator Tim Frye:
Good afternoon, Commissioners, Tim Frye, here to share with you the results of yesterday's Historic Preservation Commission hearing. To begin though, I do want to mention that Commissioner President Hasz appointed two members to a Cultural Heritage Assets Subcommittee at yesterday’s hearing. Commissioners Hyland and Matsuda will form that Committee. I'm sure if we asked the Commission they would be delighted to have a member of the Planning Commission as part of that Subcommittee. They intend on meeting over the next month and provide specific recommendations how the Department and the Commissions can implement some of the recommendations in the San Francisco Architectural Heritage White Paper on Cultural Heritage Assets, but we are happy to relay the information to the Commission, if this Commission does want to participate in that Subcommittee. The hearing started with a meeting of the Architectural Review Committee. They reviewed the design for the Van Ness BRT that's going to run in front of City Hall and in the portion located within the Civic Center Landmark District. As you are probably aware, the Historic Preservation Commission, as well as, the Civic Design Review Committee of the Arts Commission is reviewing the design for the public realm improvements and platforms proposed by MTA as part of Van Ness BRT. There are still several meetings, design review meetings that need to take place before either Committee or either Commission make a final recommendation and we'll keep you posted on those results. Ultimately though, the Commissioners, the Design Review Committee was supportive of the project. They did request some more information in particular around replacement trees, minimizing some of the details of the platforms. They had some questions about the canopy structures and the wind screens. We will be preparing a memo of the Architectural Review Committee’s recommendations. If you are interested we can certainly forward you a copy as well. The Commission then moved on to approve several Certificates of Appropriateness. Several were located in Liberty Hill Landmark District, one in the Alamo Square Landmark District, and one in the Jackson Square Landmark District. All were approved as recommended by staff. Finally, Preservation staff gave an overview of all Planning Code incentives related to preservation. It was more of an informational presentation to set the stage for the review of Supervisor Cohen's legislation regarding PDR conversion to office in landmark properties. Ultimately, during the discussion of the proposed legislation, the HPC continued the item to its October 2nd hearing. In the interim they are interested in providing a letter to this Commission for your consideration, just so you know some of the thoughts going on in their heads about how they believe the legislation could be more effective. Some of the questions they still have and staff is working on some response right now is, they want to be as useful as possible to the Zoning Administrator, Department staff, and this Commission as the final deciders on whether or not this PDR space should be converted to office. They do have some questions about process. They do want to have a better idea of what's expected to them and they discussed how they could provide some criteria so they are able to discuss the merits of proposals for buildings and really how these buildings could be rehabilitated provided that the PDR is converted to office. Like I said, we'll be providing this Commission a letter before your hearing on the item on October 2nd and they’ll be having a discussion the day before to provide you some more robust recommendations on how they think they can be more effective in that process. Finally, just to let you know, at the beginning of the summer we presented an overview of the Draft Preservation Element as part of the General Plan. The HPC spent the entire summer reviewing the Draft Preservation Element. We had our open house at the Old Mint last week. We had a great turnout; there were about 50 participants, a lot of folks providing great recommendations on how to make that part of the General Plan an effective document. We had various organizations, neighborhood organizations, SPUR, the National Trust and the Presidio Trust attended. There were a variety of preservation and design firms that participated and we are still continuing to receive written comments. Once we have compiled those comments, we will certainly forward them to you, as well as, the HPC before we bring that to you for adoption, we believe in early 2015. That concludes my comments to you and I'm happy to entertain any questions. Thank you.
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: Patricia Vaughey – Renovations to historic buildings
John Elberling – Everyday solutions and communicating
Dino Adelfio – Policy from N. European cities to America
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
The Commission Hearing Procedures provide for presentations by staff; followed by the project sponsor team; followed by public comment for and against the proposal. Please be advised that the project sponsor team includes: the sponsor(s) or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors.
11. 2014.1193T (D. SANCHEZ; (415) 575-9082)
ARCADES IN THE HAIGHT STREET NCD [BOARD FILE 140804] - Ordinance amending the Planning Code to permit arcades in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District and update references in the Planning Code to Arcade regulations in the Police Code, affirm the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act, and make Planning Code Section 302 findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval with Modifications
SPEAKERS: + Conner Johnson, Aide to Supervisor Breed – Arcades
+ (M) Speaker – Assett to the neighborhood
+ Eric Wagensenner – Pinball
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval as amended to include: “for the purposes of the Planning Code”
AYES: Wu, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19239
12. 2011.1388E (K. UCHIDA: (415) 575-9048)
110 THE EMBARCADERO/115 STEUART STREET - through-lot fronting the west side of The Embarcadero and east side of Steuart Street between Mission and Howard Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 3715 - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for: 1) vertical addition of a third story, roof deck, and circulation penthouse to the existing two-story-over-basement, 19,374 square-foot vacant building - a net increase of 4,445 square feet, raising the building’s height from 35 feet to 51 feet; 2) replacement of the Embarcadero façade; and 3) rehabilitation of the building for office and assembly use, to house functions for the Commonwealth Club of California.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 14, 2014)
SPEAKERS: - David Osgood – Appellant presentation
+ Anna Mok – Commowealth Club presentation
+ Marsha Maydem – Design proposal
+ Ilene Dick – Rebuttal to appeal
- Ralph Schunman – 1934 general strike
- Hiroshi Fukuda – Opposition
- Bradley Wiedmaier – Opposition
- Andre Dawkins – Bloody Thursday
+ Ron Miguel – Thorough environmental analysis
- Jim Worshell – Good context to the neighbors
- Roland Soleto – Correct staff mistakes in case report
+ Joe Goldman - Support
ACTION: Upheld PMND
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
MOTION: 19240
13a. 2014.1295U (W. WIETGREFE: (415) 575-9050)
HEALTH AND BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT - Amending Health Code, Article 38 [Board File No. 140806] - Ordinance amending the Health Code, Article 38 to require an enhanced ventilation system for sensitive use projects within the Air Pollutant Exposure Zone, and establishing document review fees; amending the Building Code to correspond to the Health Code changes, and making environmental findings, and findings under the California Health and Safety Code; and directing the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to forward this Ordinance to the California Building Standards Commission upon final passage.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: + Andrea Bruss, Aide to Supervisor Cohen – Introductions to the amendments
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19241
13b. 2014.1296U (W. WIETGREFE: (415) 575-9050)
ADMINISTRATIVE AND ENVIRONMENT CODE AMENDMENT - Amending Clean Construction Ordinance [Board File No. 140805] - Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to require a Construction Emissions Minimization Plan and monitoring for public projects within the Air Pollutant Exposure Zone, as mapped pursuant to Health Code, Article 38; amending the Administrative and Environment Codes to reflect these requirements; and making environmental findings.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 13a.
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19242
14. (W. WIETGREFE: (415) 575-9050)
UCSF LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Informational presentation - on the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) 2014 Long Range Development Plan (2014 LRDP). UCSF’s 2014 LRDP will guide physical development at its campus sites through the year 2035. UCSF previously provided the Planning Commission with an overview of plans under consideration for the 2014 LRDP on April 18, 2013. In May 2014, UCSF published the Draft 2014 LRDP for public review, available at www.ucsf.edu/LRDP. UCSF will provide an overview of the Draft 2014 LRDP as published, along with the anticipated schedule for finalization and adoption of the Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: Lori Yamaguchi – Plan presentation
ACTION: None - Informational
15. 2014.0487C (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
1501 FOLSOM STREET - southwest corner of the intersection of Folsom and 11th Streets, Lot 058 in Assessor’s Block 3521 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 145.2, 303, 823, 845.13 and 845.56 to expand the existing nighttime entertainment use (d.b.a. Calle-Once) and to establish an outdoor activity area within the WMUO (Western SoMa Mixed Use-Office) Zoning District, the Western SoMa Special Use District, and 55-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed expansion will result in a third story up to approximately 1,480 square feet and a roof deck of approximately 1,180 square feet. The resulting nighttime entertainment use will be up to approximately 8,913 gross square-feet. 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
SPEAKERS: + John Kevlin – Project presentation
+ Laticia Luna – Owner presentation
- Mike Talley – Leather community Febe’s
+ Marsha Garland – Sponsor presentation
+ Amanda – Neighborhood
+ Ku Hong Chung – Sushi Training
= Kathleen Courtney – Balance of retail vs. restaurants
= Dawn Trenuert – Polk Street retail corridor
+ Angelaz Longyear – Previous tenant
+ Jeremy Bladas - Support
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include:
1. Ground floor double doors;
2. A six month report back;
3. Work with the Leather Community to recognize the history of the site; and
Work with SF Heritage to recognize the history of the site.
AYES: Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Fong
MOTION: 19243
15a. 2014.0270C (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
2206 POLK STREET - east side, between Vallejo Street and Green Street; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 0549 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303 723.44 and 790.91 to establish a Restaurant (d.b.a. Kinjo) which will operate as a Bona Fide Eating Place in a vacant commercial space. The property is located within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and 65-A 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.
(Continued from September 11, 2014 Hearing)
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include:
1. Closing hours Sun-Thurs: 10:00 pm; and Fri-Sat: 11:00 pm
AYES: Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Fong
MOTION: 19244
16a. 2013.0419CV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
1830–1834 SUTTER STREET - north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets, Lot 071 in Assessor’s Block 0676 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3, 249.31 and 303 to allow the construction of a new building to accommodate the Nihonmachi Little Friends School. The new building will be constructed on a parking lot and play area immediately west of the existing school on the subject lot. The subject property is within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed) Zoning District, the Japantown Special Use 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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Adrienne Shazaki Wu – Sponsor presentation
+ Tad Sakino – Design presentation
+ Karen Kai – Project presentation
+ Joyce Oishi – Support
+ Paul Werner – Jchess
+ Alice Koahatsu – Neighborhood asset
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19245
16b. 2013.0419CV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)
1830–1834 SUTTER STREET - north side between Buchanan and Webster Streets, Lot 071 in Assessor’s Block 0676 - Request for Variances to allow the construction of a new building to accommodate the Nihonmachi Little Friends School. The new building will be constructed on a parking lot and play area immediately west of the existing school on the subject lot. Variances are required from Planning Code Section 134 as the proposed building projects into the required rear yard of the lot, and Planning Code Section 151 for off-street parking within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed) Zoning District, the Japantown Special Use District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 16a.
ACTION: ZA Closed the PH and indicated an intent to Grant the Variance
The Commission Discretionary Review Hearing Procedures provide for presentations by staff; followed by the DR requestor team; followed by public comment opposed to the project; followed by the project sponsor team; followed by public comment in support of the project. Please be advised that the DR requestor and project sponsor teams include: the DR requestor and sponsor or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors.
17a. 2013.0831DV (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)
1784 SANCHEZ STREET - west side between Randall and 30th Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 6653 - Staff-Initiated request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2014.03.14.0813, proposing to remove the existing one-story utility room at the rear of the building and construct a two-story, flat roofed addition at the rear of the building. The addition would extend the existing building depth by five feet and remove a small portion of the existing gabled roof at the rear. The project requires a rear yard variance pursuant to Section 134 of the Planning Code, which will also be considered at this hearing by the Zoning Administrator. The property is located within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-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: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: - Isabella Escolada – Negative impacts
- Anthony Grumback – Light, open space, privacy
- Ilene Dick – Variance, rear yard
+ Anastasia Michaels – Sponsor presentation
+ James Mouschke – Variance
+ Brett Gladstone – Project description
+ Kristen – Family housing
+ Gregory Young – Support
+ Jennifer Mesitas – Support, family housing
+ Joan Weinburger - 1908 façade
+ Tom Peck – Support
+ Barry Milgram – Support
+ Jessica Lankler – Support
+ Andy Rogers – Response to questions
ACTION: Took DR and eliminated two feet from the proposed extension at the second level of the most recently submitted plans.
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Richards
NAYES: Johnson
DRA No: 0379
17b. 2013.0831DV (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)
1784 SANCHEZ STREET - west side between Randall and 30th Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 6653 - Request for a rear yard variance pursuant to Section 134 of the Planning Code for Building Permit Application No. 2014.03.14.0813, proposing to remove the existing one-story utility room at the rear of the building and construct a two-story, flat roofed addition at the rear of the building. The addition would extend the existing building depth by five feet and remove a small portion of the existing gabled roof at the rear. The property is located within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 17a.
ACTION: ZA Closed the PH and indicated an intent to Grant the Variance conditioning a five foot setback from the rear at the second level.
18. 2014.1009D (E. TUFFY: (415) 575-9191)
300 WAWONA STREET - west side, at the intersection with 14th Street; Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 2482 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2014.06.21.0174 proposing interior rehabilitation, construction of a one-story vertical addition and a horizontal rear addition off the westernmost corner of an existing single-family dwelling. The subject property is located within a RH-1(D) [Residential House, One-Family (Detached)] District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal was subject to additional review by Preservation staff to meet design guidelines for historic resources under CEQA. 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: - Marilyn Amini – DR Requestor presentation
+ Kim Clash – Sponsor presentation
ACTION: No DR, Approved as proposed
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
DRA No: 0380
19. 2013.0433DDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
2853 BRODERICK STREET - west side between Filbert and Union Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 0947 - Staff-Initiated and two publicly-filed requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2013.10.28.0336, proposing to clarify a height discrepancy approved under Building Permit Application No. 2011.03.25.2839, which permitted the existing three-story-over-basement, two-unit building to be lifted 3 feet to insert a two-car garage within the basement level. The current project also proposes additional work including a dwelling unit merger from 2 to 1 unit, a side horizontal addition at the south side façade, and vertical additions and rear façade alterations to construct dormers and a deck at the roof/attic level within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-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: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 7, 2014)
SPEAKERS: - Irving Zaretsky – DR Requestors presentation
- Don Moorehead – General, impacts to existing neighborhood
- Patricia Vaughey – Worst she’s ever seen
+ Ilene Dick – Sponsor presentation
+ Gregory Cook – Property measurements
+ Stephen Antonaros – Architect comments
+ Pam Whitehead – Sponsor remarks
ACTION: No DR, Approved as proposed
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
DRA No: 0381
H. 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 – 8:49 P.M.
ADOPTED: October 2, 2014
