SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, November 20, 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: 09 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Andrew Perry, Esmeralda Jardines, Kate Conner, Kevin Guy, Michael Jacinto, Aaron Starr, Jon Swae, Menaka Mohan, Rich Sucre, Laura Ajello, Tina Chang , and Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2014.0966T (K. DISCHINGER: (415) 558-6284)
2013 CITYWIDE NEXUS STUDY - Planning Code Amendment to adopt the San Francisco Citywide Nexus Analysis supporting existing development fees, including fees in the Downtown and other Area Plans, to cover impacts of residential and commercial development in the areas of recreation and open space; pedestrian and streetscape improvements; childcare; and bicycle infrastructure; making findings related to all of the fees in Article IV generally and certain development fees supported by the Nexus Analysis specifically; 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: Adoption
(Proposed for Continuance to December 11, 2014)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to December 11, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Moore,
ABSENT: Johnson, Richards
2. 2013.1340D (J. LOOK: (415) 575-6812)
1423 OCEAN AVENUE - south side between Granada Avenue and Miramar Avenue; Lot 063 in Assessor’s Block 6941 - Request for a Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 737.84 and 790.141 in association with Building Permit Application No. 2013.04.23.5179, proposing to establish a Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a. “Bay Area Compassionate Health Center”) on the ground floor of an existing building, this project lies within the Ocean Avenue NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit ) Zoning District and 45-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 Approve the MCD with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 22, 2014)
NOTE: On May 22, 2014, following public testimony, the Commission continued the matter to July 17, 2014 by a vote of +6 -0 (Commissioner Antonini was recused).
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 17, 2014)
(Proposed for Continuance to February 5, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to February 5, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Johnson, Richards
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
3. 2014.1540Q (A. PERRY: (415) 575-9017)
3330-3334 16TH STREET - north side of 16th Street between Dolores Street and Landers Street on Assessor’s Block 3557, Lot 014 - Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story-over-garage, six-unit building within a RTO (Residential Transit Oriented) 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
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Johnson, Richards
MOTION: 19278
4. 2014.1146C (E. JARDINES: (415) 575-9144)
2575 3RD STREET - east side between 22nd and 23rd Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 4173 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 249.37, 843.45 and 303, to allow the expansion of an indoor rock climbing facility/gymnasium (d.b.a. Dogpatch Boulders), within a PDR-1-G (General) District and 68-X Height and Bulk District, and the Innovative Industries Special Use District. Planning Code Sections 249.37 and 843.45 require a Conditional Use authorization for retail businesses including personal service establishments, such as a health club, fitness, gymnasium or exercise facility, over 4,000 SF in area. The project proposes a 5,000 SF expansion of the existing rock climbing facility/gymnasium from 17,500 SF to 22,500 SF. 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: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Moore,
ABSENT: Johnson, Richards
MOTION: 19279
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
5. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for November 6, 2014
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adoptede
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore
ABSENT: Richards
6. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
Just now we approved another of many condo conversions, which were allowed by legislation from last year, and that's the good news because many people who were, most of the time, unrelated and had been living in groups of - in this case 6 different units, sometimes 5 relying on each other to remain solvent and to pay their parts of the shares worth in this unwieldy partnership with TIC were they are allow to convert, because they are all owners anyway, and most of these are entirely owner occupied and a few that have occasional renters within them so that's is a good news, the bad news is part of the legislation, I think in my opinion, is contrary to some of the parts of general plan, because we should encourage affordable homeownership and TIC’s were one of the methods where people in this situation, could get into, often unrelated people, who would come together to buy a unit as a group, as a tenants in common and get into the homeownership thing, which is something we should support because the more home ownership we have the less problem we have with people being displaced, I think, because even if someone does want to take over something that you own, they have to pay you for your property, so, I think, it should be encouraged and it's just too bad that that’s the way this legislation came down because now they're not going to allow the conversion of 5 and 6 unit TIC’s, maybe, I am not sure about that and there’s a 10 year moratorium on the conversions of existing TIC’s is getting into the loop, that often time is a 10 year wait. Anyway, it maybe something that in the future we can deal with to encourage people to pursue homeownership if possible.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
7. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Good afternoon Commissioners, just wanted to report, last night there was an ULI event, that I spoke as part of a panel on Proposition M where the office allocation, I guess there was some confusion as to whether it was Prop M or actually 5M, and the -- it was a discussion, Commissioner Richards actually attended last time, there was about a hundred people in attendance, I presented this, essentially the same presentation that staff presented to you a few weeks ago and there was a discussion amongst panel members about the effects of Prop M on what they perceived would be the effects would be on their office development, and in the future of office development in the City and it was a fairly lively discussion very, very interesting group people who attended, so I just wanted to report on that.
8. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
· 140875 Ordinance Amending the Third Street Alcohol Restricted Use District. This Ordinance seeks to exempt Small Beer Manufacturing from the prohibitions on establishing new on-sale and off-sale liquor establishments in the 3rd Street Alcohol RUD. Currently the Third Street Alcohol RUD prohibits new liquor stores, bars, and nightclubs serving liquor/alcohol without food service. The Planning Commission heard the proposed Ordinance on October 23 and unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed Ordinance with modifications. The Commission proposed modification was for the Board to consider requiring Conditional Use authorization for Small Beer Manufacturing. On November 17 the Land Use Committee heard the proposed Ordinance. The public comment was again favorable. The Land Use Committee voted to move the Ordinance to the full Board of Sups with a favorable recommendation without requiring a CU for Small Beer Manufacturing.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
· 120881 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Uses, Conformity of Uses, Parking Requirements for Uses, and Special Use Districts. Otherwise known as the NE Ordinance passed its second read and is awaiting the Mayor’s signature.
· 140844 Planning Code - Formula Retail and Large-Scale Retail Controls. Also passed its second read and is awaiting the Mayor’s signature.
· 141060 Public Hearing - Appeal of Environmental Determination - 115 Telegraph Hill Boulevard.
· 141064 Public Hearing - Appeal of Conditional Use Authorization - 115 Telegraph Hill Boulevard.
· This project includes the construction of a new three-unit residential building with three off-street parking spaces on a mostly vacant lot. The project required a Conditional Use because it would result in 4 units on a property zoned RH-3. The Commission heard the CU on September 11, 2014, and approved the CU with a 5-2 vote. The appellants were appealing the CU because they believed that the Project does not meet Section 303 of the Planning Code, General Plan’s Priority Policies, the Residential Design Guidelines or the Urban Design Element and that the project does not comply with the Housing Element. They also believed that the Planning Commission erred in determining that the existing rear yard building included only one unit and that the Planning Commission’s Conditions of Approval were inadequate to address the Project’s construction impacts. The Board heard the Environmental appeal and the CU appeal together, there was a lot of testimony against the project, mainly around impacts on the neighborhood and views from the nearby open space, but there were also several members of the public that spoke in favor of the proposed project. Supervisor Yee asked questions about the size of previously approved projects on the site as well as how many square feet the original housing on the site contained. Supervisor Chiu asked for staff to clarify the point on public views and whether the project was consistent with the General Plans protection of public views, which Staff assured him it was. The first vote was to uphold the Department’s Categorical Exemption for the project, which the Board did by a vote of 7 (Breed, Chiu, Cohen, Farrell, Tang, Wiener, Yee) to 3 (Avalos, Kim, Mar) with Supervisor Campos absent. The second vote was to uphold the Commission’s CU decision, which the board did again by a vote of 7-3. The motion included 11 additional conditions of approval added by Chiu that dealt with construction management, many of which were on the plans that the Commission Approved. They also included a condition requiring the sponsor to consult with Garfield Elementary School and the School District prior to finalizing construction plans.
INTRODUCTIONS: There were no introductions this week.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Board of Appeals did meet last night, one item of interest to the Commission was the Discretionary Review you heard for the property back at 1264 6th Avenue, you heard back at the end of April, the appellants in this case, raised concerns about the compatibility of the proposed addition, which I think this Commission found to be modest, it was about a two foot extension overall for the building, the appellants argued that the building was not compatible with the neighborhood and also that there were procedural issues and failures with the Planning Commission and how the DR hearing was processed. The Board of Appeals found there was no issues with the project, that it was compatible with the neighborhood, Commissioner Honda in particular, noted the diligence of this Planning Commission in reviewing and processing this discretionary review request, and the Board unanimously upheld the decision of the Commission not to take DR in the project, the next meeting for the Board of Appeals will be on December 10th.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
Good afternoon Commissioners, Tim Frye, Department staff, here to share with you, a couple of items from yesterday’s Historic Preservation Commission hearing. The Commission initiated landmark designation on two properties yesterday, the first is Swedish American Hall, located at 2168 to 2174 Market Street, the Swedish American Hall has been on the HPC landmark designation work program since 2011, we've been working very closely with the new tenants of Swedish American Hall and also the Swedish Society to garner their support, and the designation report was very well received, the HPC complimented staff on the thoroughness of the report and initiated the landmark designation based on events and architecture. Events because of the Swedish American Hall Building significance for its long-standing association with San Francisco Swedish and Scandinavian communities, and under architecture, as a architecturally significant work by master architect, August Nordeen. The next property that the HPC initiated landmark designation was 186 to 194 Gough Street, this is also known as the R.L. Goldberg Building, this was a community requested initiation, the two existing tenants requested that the HPC add this building to the landmark designation work program in June. As a result, they hired their own consultant to prepare the designation report and we presented the Department’s analysis and that designation at yesterday's hearing. The Commission also unanimously designated the landmark designation on this property as significant architecture expression of an early 20th Century mixed used classically inspired designed building. The building is significant under architecture, which is Criterion C. Both items will be heard at the December 17th HPC hearing, where the Commission will finalize its recommendation for the Board of Supervisors, which we believe they will take up the items early 2015, that concludes my comments.
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: Anastasia Glickstein – Natural areas program and management plan
(M) Speaker – Swedish Americal Hall
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.
9. (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)
MAYOR’S HOUSING WORKING GROUP UPDATE – Informational Item.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: = Sue Hestor –Shifts in demand between counties
= Calvin Welch – Short-term rentals
= Peter Cohen – 10,000 unit goal vs the housing element
= Kate Hurtley, MOH – Response to questions
ACTION: None – Informational
10. 2011.0409B (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
925 MISSION STREET – (“5M Project”) Informational Item – (Assessor Block 3725/Lots: 005, 006, 008, 009, 012, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 076, 077, 086, 089, 090, 091, 093, 097, 098; air rights parcels 094, 099, and 100). The 5M project entails construction of four new buildings ranging in height from approximately 180 feet up to approximately 470 feet on a four-acre site at 925 Street (et.al) in the South of Market (SoMa) neighborhood. The project also proposes an elevated, multi-story connector between two of the buildings that would span a portion of Natoma Street. In total, the project would entail construction of 1.8 million square feet of office, retail, residential, cultural, educational, and open space uses.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: + Andrey Tendell – Project presentation
+ Trent Tesh – Design presentation
- John Elberling – Economic wind fall for developer
= Luis Antonio – More community benefits discussion
+ Ruby Campos – Fund raising support for 5M Team
= Vivian Aurallio – Delay the public hearing till after the holidays
= Theresa Imperial – SOMA affordable housing
- Prescott Revis – Design and engagement process
+ Cy Tompkin – Affordable housing
= Angelica Tombabete – Open space, jobs, Filipino translation
= Jane Wild – Do not destroy the heart of the City, it is out of scale with the neighborhood
- Sue Hestor – Re-zoning in the area
= James Powell – Waider sidewalks
+ Heather Phillips – Focus groups since 2009
= Peter Cohen – Affordable housing
+ Ken Rich – Development agreement
ACTION: None - Informational
11. 2011.0409E (M. Jacinto: (415) 575-9033)
925 MISSION STREET – (“5M Project”) - Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report – (Assessor Block 3725/Lots: 005, 006, 008, 009, 012, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 076, 077, 086, 089, 090, 091, 093, 097, 098; air rights parcels 094, 099, and 100). The 5M project entails construction of four new buildings ranging in height from approximately 180 feet up to approximately 470 feet on a four-acre site at 925 Street (et.al) in the South of Market (SoMa) neighborhood. The project also proposes an elevated, multi-story connector between two of the buildings that would span a portion of Natoma Street. In total, the project would entail construction of 1.8 million square feet of office, retail, residential, cultural, educational, and open space uses. The project would result in retention and renovation/rehabilitation of the Chronicle Building (901-933 Mission St.) and 447-449 Minna St.; would entail demolition of a building at 430 Natoma St. (an historic resource); as well as five existing buildings found through EIR evaluation as ineligible for listing on the California Register: 910 Howard, 912 Howard, 924–926 Howard St.; 110 Fifth and 190 Fifth St. The project site is located in the C-3-S [Downtown Support] and RSD [Residential Service] zoning districts and 90-X and 40-X height and bulk districts. The project requires General Plan, Planning Code, and Zoning Map text amendments as well as adoption of a Special Use District (SUD) to permit the project’s uses at the heights and land use intensities proposed.
NOTE: Written comments on the DEIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on December 1, 2014.
SPEAKERS: = Joseph Snoot – Relavance to Central SOMA plan, extension for substantive comments to the end of January
- Sonja Kos – Inadequate, displacement of PDR uses
- David Jones – Grossl inadequate
- Dan McVae – M & M Tavern, notice
- Sharon McVae Pedigrou – Light and air, bulk of the project
- (M) Spekar – Chiefton Irish Pub and Restaurant, traffic implications
+ Jennifer Warberg – SPUR support
- John Elberling – Extend the comment period to the end of January, so much missing
- (F) Speaker (TODCO) – Open space
+ Heather Phillips – Well drafter EIR
+ Randy Rollason – the __, human experience @ grade
- Sue Hestor – Adjacent plan areas, transit and transportation
- Calvin Welch – Insufficient in: 1) Public policy, Prop K; 2) Development Agreement Ordianance; 3) Housing data nexus
- Peter Cohen – Real affordable housing needs
ACTION: Reviewed and Commented
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
12. 2013.0647T (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO Consolidating Definitions, Reorganize Article 2, and Make Other Nonsubstantive Changes to Update, Clarify, and Simplify Code Language - Planning Code Amendment to consolidate definitions into Section 102, reorganize Article 2 to create Zoning Control Tables, and make non-substantive changes to various sections in Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 in order to update, clarify, and simplify Code language; affirming the Planning Department’s California Environmental Quality Act determination and making 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 October 23, 2014)
NOTE: On October 23, 2014, after Hearing and Closing Public Comment, the Commission Continued the item to November 20, 2014 by a vote of +4 -2 (Johnson, Fong against; Moore absent).
SPEAKERS: + Jennifer Warburg – SPUR, support
+ Rose Hillson – Support
+ Paul Webber – Support
+ Greg Scott – Support
+ Charlotte Max – Support
+ Barbara Graham – Support
+ Jeff Wood – Support
+ Hiroshi Fukuda – Support
+ Mary Elisah – Support
+ John Bardis - Support
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval as Amended and Modified
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19280
13. 2013.1517ME (J. SWAE: (415) 575-9069)
URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN (PHASE 1: STREET TREES) - Consideration of adoption of General Plan Amendment. Staff will request the Commission to consider approving a Resolution amending the San Francisco General Plan (Recreation & Open Space Element), pursuant to San Francisco Charter Section 4.105, Planning Code § 340(c) and § 306.3, to adopt the San Francisco Urban Forest Plan Master Plan (Phase 1: Street Trees) by reference. The Urban Forest Plan (Phase 1: Street Trees) includes policies and strategies to proactively manage and grow the city’s street tree population.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 6, 2014)
NOTE: On November 6, 2014, after Hearing and Closing Public Comment, the Commission Continued the item to November 20, 2014 by a vote of +5 -2 (Hillis, Fong against).
SPEAKERS: - Dee Seligman – Canary in the coal mine
+ Dan Flannigan – Deferred maintenance issue
= Anastasia Glickstein – Tree definition
- Frank Mason - Planting
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19281
14. 2014.0156T (M. MOHAN: (415) 575-9141)
REASONABLE MODIFICATION LEGISLATION - REASONABLE MODIFICATION TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES SEEKING FAIR ACCESS TO HOUSING - Planning Code Amendment to establish a process for making and acting upon requests for reasonable modifications for Persons with Disabilities to seek fair housing - The process will be established under Planning Code Section 305 under two procedures. The first procedure will be considered under an administrative variance procedure for ramps, parking without a structure, elevators, and habitable space within the permitted building envelope. All other requests will proceed under the standard variance procedure. Applicants will be required to provide grounds for the modification as well as documentation describing why the modification is necessary.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 6, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + Donna Altkins – ADA coordination
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19282
15a. 2013.0986CX (R. SUCRE: (415) 575-9108)
1140 FOLSOM STREET - located at the northeast corner of Folsom and Rausch Streets, Lots 015, 075, 077, 078 and 080 in Assessor’s Block 3730 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization and Planned Unit Development (PUD), pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.1, 121.7, 303 and 304, for the new construction of a four-to-six-story, mixed-use building (approximately 153,675 gsf) with 112 dwelling units, ground floor corner retail (approximately 5,600 sq ft), 88 off-street parking spaces, 104 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces, 8 Class 2 bicycle parking spaces, and private and common open space. Per Planning Code Sections 121.1 and 121.7, the project is required to obtain Conditional Use Authorization for development on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet within the Folsom Street NCT Zoning District, and for the merger of lots, which would create more than 50-ft of street frontage within the RED Zoning District. Under the PUD, the project is seeking modification to certain Planning Code requirements, including: 1) rear yard (Planning Code Section 134); 2) open space (Planning Code Section 135); 3) dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Section 140); 4) off-street parking (Planning Code Section 151.1); and, 5) off-street loading (Planning Code Section 152.1). The subject property is located within the Folsom St NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) and Residential Enclave (RED) Zoning Districts, and 40-X/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
SPEAKERS: + John Bickford – Project presentation
+ Chris Hagelin – Project design
= April Veneracion, Aide to Supervisor Kim – Request for continuance
= Charles Schroeder – driveway entrance
= (M) Speaker – Request for continuance
= Martha Bridegan – Request for continuance
= Jessica Spurlin – Request for continuance
= Harold Smith – Pay me, how much and when?
= Cindy Casey – Request for continuance
+ Adrian Simi, Local 22 – Support
+ DeAngelo Hicks – Support
+ (M) Speaker – Move the project forward
= John Spurling – Potential to improve the neighborhood, request for continuance
+ (M) Speaker – Housing
+ Phillip Winter – Bike ramp
+ Susan Schindler – Opposed to a ramp on Folsom Street
= Jamie Black – Continuance
= John Dunlap – Quality of life
- Jim Meko – Department policy
+ Dillon McNaven – Driveway, no continuance
ACTION: After Hearing and Closing Public Comment, requested additional public outreach, provided direction on design; and Continued to December 18, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
15b. 2013.0986CX (R. SUCRE: 415/575-9108)
1140 FOLSOM STREET - located at the northeast corner of Folsom and Rausch Streets, Lots 015, 075, 077, 078 and 080 in Assessor’s Block 3730 - Request for a Large Project Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 329, for the new construction of a four-to-six-story, mixed-use building (approximately 153,675 gsf) with 112 dwelling units, ground floor corner retail (approximately 5,600 sq ft), 88 off-street parking spaces, 104 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces, 8 Class 2 bicycle parking spaces, and private and common open space. Under the LPA, the project is seeking a modification to certain Planning Code requirements, including: 1) rear yard (Planning Code Section 134); 2) open space (Planning Code Section 135); 3) dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Section 140); 4) off-street parking (Planning Code Section 151.1); 5) off-street loading (Planning Code Section 152.1); and, 6) horizontal mass reduction (Planning Code Section 270.1). These modifications are similar to the modifications sought under the PUD. The subject property is located within the Folsom St NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) and Residential Enclave (RED) Zoning Districts, and 40-X/65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 15a.
ACTION: After Hearing and Closing Public Comment, requested additional public outreach, provided direction on design; and Continued to December 18, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
16. 2014.0799C (L. AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)
3600 GEARY BLVD - northwest corner of Palm Avenue; Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 1061 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c), 303(i), 307(i), 703.4 and 712.40 to establish a Formula Retail pharmacy store (d.b.a CVS Pharmacy) within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and 80-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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of November 6, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + Tom Tunney – Project presentation
+ Paulette Ottin – Geary needs retail
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended by staff and prohibited the sale of tobacco and alcohol
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
MOTION: 19283
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.
17. 2014.1379D (L. AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)
2985 LAKE STREET - west side between El Camino Del Mar and 30th Avenue; Lot 002 in Assessor’s Block 1327 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2014.04.01.2150 proposing to construct a 2nd story addition above the existing attached garage and a 2-story addition on the south side of the building located within a RH-1(D) (Residential House, One-Family, Detached) 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: - DR requestor representative – DR presentation
- Keila Vetty – Out of character and scale
+ George Sum – Project presentation
+ Diana Young – No intent to offend
ACTION: Did Not Take DR and Approved
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
DRA No: 0393
18. 2014.0177D (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
53 STATES STREET - south side of States Street between Castro and Douglass Streets; Lot 074 in Assessor’s Block 6623 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling unit to construct a new four-story, two-family dwelling within a RH-2 (Residential, Home, Two-Family) 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: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 2, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + John Lum – Project presentation
- Judith Hoyem – Save the building
- (M) Speaker – Misrepresentations
- Catherine Morrell – Affordability
- Roxanne – Alfos – Opposed demolition
- Hector Martinez – Opposed to demolition
- Chris Parks – State street conditions
- David Canon – State street is a jewel
- Anne Marie Goldman -
ACTION: After Hearing and Closing Public Comment, provided direction on bulk and scale; and Continued to January 8, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
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 – 8:01 p.m.
ADOPTED: December 4, 2014
