SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

 

Meeting Minutes

 

 

 

Commission Chambers, Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

 

 

 

Thursday, August 6, 2015

12:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting

 

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis Johnson, Moore, Richards

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12: 15 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Sarah Jones – Acting Planning Director, Lisa Chen, Aaron Starr, Christopher Thomas, Claudia Flores, Nicholas Foster, Kevin Guy, Chris Townes, Lily Yegazu, Rich Sucre, Alexandra Kirby, Brittany Bendix 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.

 

                None

 

 

B.         COMMISSION MATTERS

 

1.             Consideration of Adoption:

·         Draft Minutes for July 16, 2015

 

SPEAKERS:           None

ACTION:                                Adopted

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Richards

ABSENT:                Johnson

 

2.             Commission Comments/Questions

·         Inquiries/Announcements.  Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).

·         Future Meetings/Agendas.  At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

               

Commissioner Antonini:

Thank you. I'm reading a very interesting book. It was published maybe 30 years ago. It is on Christopher Buckley, the blind boss of San Francisco and his time. It’s a lot about the period in San Francisco from the 1850s to about 1890 and among the things that’s discussed is the Consolidation Act of July 1, 1856, that was the time when the City and County were consolidated into one unit, and fortunately part of that was, the County of San Francisco which had extended down to the  line between what is now San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, was eliminated and the line for San Francisco County was established where it currently is, and it has some bad effects as we now realize because we are kind of constricted in our land but at that time that was lots of land in the area that is now San Francisco and there was a fear that the smaller town’s administrations –in what is now San Mateo County would be a burden, that they really didn’t want to deal with, instead of having a separate county in a separate city, would be more efficient to combine the two of them. So, sometimes efficiency is a great thing, but hindsight is always 50/50 but they have no way of knowing, it was done at a state level, and certainly is something that perhaps could be revisited sometime in the future, if there is any unincorporated lands in San Mateo County, which could become part of San Francisco might not be the worst thing to pursue. Also, I would like to ask that we adjourn today unfortunately Jim Meko has passed away, and his memory, I think other Commissioners would like also to make remarks about Jim. And also, jointly Rosario Anaya, who was Executive Director for forty years of the Mission Language and Vocational School, wonderful institution, which emphasized skills in English for her pupils as well as vocational training, that was a wonderful thing, and she was a great San Franciscan an advocate for the Mission District so I ask that we adjourn in her memory too.

 

Commissioner Moore:

 I'd like to ask that we close in memory of Jim Meko today, he passed away on the evening of August 3^rd and all of us including many people in the audience, and probably everybody knew Jim. He spoke passionately in front of this Commission on many, many issues affecting the community and very recently he spoke to us on an issue that is very close to his heart, and those are the five foot commercial retail space in the Folsom corridor. I hope that we find a way I don't have quite the leverage but ultimately dedicate those five feet in perpetuity to the Jim Memo five feet. Jim was a tireless community leader in support of everything South of Market. He served at the Entertainment Commission, he was critical the continuation of valets and vibrant entertainment uses would stay South of Market, he served on the SOMA Leadership Council, his hand is very, very visable in the SOMA Western, SOMA Community Plan effort. He was a member of the San Francisco Neighborhood Network, where he voice was extremely important, when it came to collective speaking of the neighborhood group in front of us, he was a community organizer, and I personally like the word that the Chronicle termed, they called him a community hero in 2011. PDR was big on his list, the continuation of small businesses and the perpetuation of artists South of Market. Jim was a voice for protection of PDR, he spoke passionately in support of the youth and family zone, at this time he had a quiet voice to help them really stand in front of us with their support to make themselves be heard and I couldn't - I could speak about him in so many ways, I think, we all remember him it was so very recent, he stood there, I can still see him being \there, and it is hard for me to know he's not here anymore.

 

Commissioner Richards:

I'd like to kind of piggyback on what Commissioner Moore said,  for those who do really want to take a look at what Mr. Meko did, it’s on page 11 of the Bay Area Reporter, also on EBAR.com, just a couple – maybe points, on how I felt about Jim, we always didn’t agreed on everything, but I always knew he came from a place of his heart, he followed his heart, he really had the community
spirit in mind. I'm proud to call him a fellow member of the gay, lesbian community. We always did not agreed, like I said, at times he could be difficult to deal with, most recently we sparred on the idea of where the garages need to be place, on the alley or Folsom Street, and unfortunately, we voted to put them on the alley, but I had a conversation with Jim after the voter and he really understood where we were coming from. I really think that where South of Market is going especially Western SOMA is really --a huge part of all of Jim's effort for about the past decade, decade and half, he will be sorely missed, and I’d appreciate adjourning the meeting in his memory.

 

Commissioner Fong:

Commissioner Antonini is usually pretty good about reporting travels, and just want to draw some parallels about Seattle, which I just came back from, and they are really experiencing the same kind of growth, in a good way and also in the challenging way that San Francisco is, I think just probably the same of number of cranes in the sky there and projects approved, but there's still also, like us juggling keeping a vibrant historical city as well as a new vibrant city. So I have one unrelated, an important question for the Zoning Administrator Sanchez, and that is yesterday maybe even as of last night how old were you?

 

Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator:

Yesterday, I can firmly say that I was 39.

 

Commissioner Fong:

And a follow question, how old are you this morning - - today?

Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator:

39 plus one.

Commissioner Moore:

Happy birthday, I want to comment on a memo updating us on 620 Mission, Ms. Carly Grob wrote, a very good summary on the status of us and trying to monitor the rooftop uses on that particular building. The memo writing concisely  and the addresses of all the issues together, with her  checking, there has being  no complainants  and indeed it is operating as planned and as approved by us, so thank you Carly Grob that  is a very good report.

 

 C.        DEPARTMENT MATTERS

3.             Director’s Announcements

 

Sarah Jones, Acting Planning Director:

Good afternoon, Commissioners, Sarah Jones I'm acting Planning Director while John relaxes in Italy. In the interest of time we have a full agenda and so, I won’t be making further announcements today. Thank you.

 

4.             Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission

               

LAND USE COMMITTEE:

·                     150365 Planning, Administrative Codes - Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Haddadan. Recommended as Amended

·                     150585 Planning, Administrative Codes - Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units. Sponsor: Christensen. Staff: Haddadan. Recommended as Amended

                The proposed ordinances would permit the addition of Accessory Dwelling units in Supervisorial Districts 3 and 8. The Planning Commission heard this item on July 16 and voted 4-2 to approve with modifications.

 

At the first Land Use Committee hearing two weeks ago, Supervisor Kim introduced three amendments that would apply to both ordinances.  The amendments include:

1.                   Prohibit the construction of ADUs in buildings where tenants have been displaced by the Ellis Act within 10 years. This amendment passed unanimously.

2.                   Prohibit ADUs from being used as Short Term Rentals. The amendment passed with Supervisor Wiener voting against; and

3.                   Prohibit condominium conversion or fractional ownership of ADUs, requiring ADUs to be permanently maintained as rental units if not occupied by the owner, and restricting the conversion of rental units to ownership for individual sale. This amendment passed with Supervisor Weiner voting against it. 

 

The last amendment was referred back to the Planning Commission for their consideration in a duplicate file.

 

At this week’s hearing, the Committee discussed the two other amendments. As amended the Ellis Act prohibition as well as the Short Term Rental prohibition for ADUs would apply to all ADUs including seismic retrofit ADUs. Per the City Attorney’s advice these amendments were also referred back to the Planning Commission in a duplicated file.

Supervisor Cohen then made an amendment to the original Ordinance to require the Planning Department to monitor ADUs for Short Term Rental use; and to require applicants for ADUs to indicate in their application whether or not they intend to register the new unit for STRs.

 

The two Ordinances along with Supervisor Cohen’s amendments were recommended to the Full Board.

 

·                     150465 Planning Code - Accessory Use Entertainment in Specified Western South of Market Districts. Sponsor: Kim. Staff: D. Sanchez. Recommended

                The Ordinance would allow accessory use entertainment with Limited Live Performance (LLP) permits in the Regional Commercial District (RCD) and the Western South of Market Mixed Use-General District (WMUG).  The Planning Commission heard the item on July 16, 2015 and recommended approval to the Board by unanimous vote.

 

At the Land Use Committee heard, Supervisor Wiener spoke in favor of the Ordinance, noting the benefits of allowing eating and drinking establishments to provide live music to patrons.  There was no public comment on this item.  By unanimous vote the Land Use committee voted to recommend the Ordinance to the full Board.

 

·                     150748 Hearing - Annual Housing Balance Report – 2015. Sponsor: Kim. Staff: Chiu, Rodgers, Kelley, Rahaim. Continued to September 14, 2015

 

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

·                     150571 Planning, Building Codes - Fee Waiver for Legalization of Secondary Dwelling Units Sponsor: Mayor. Staff: Starr. PASSED Second Read

·                     150348 Planning Code - Applying Inclusionary Housing Requirements to Group Housing. Sponsors: Avalos, Kim. Staff: Haddadan. PASSED Second Read

·                     150681 Planning Code - Allowing an Existing Restaurant to Open a Second Location with a Conditional Use Authorization - North Beach Special Use District. Sponsor: Christensen Staff: Guy. PASSED Second Read

·                     150584 Zoning - Interim Prohibition on Commercial Mergers in the Proposed Calle 24 Special Use District. Sponsor: Mayor, Campos. Staff: D. Sanchez. PASSED Second Read

·                     Public Hearing - Appeal of Final Negative Declaration - Recology Landfill Disposal Agreement - Hay Road Landfill in Solano County. Staff: Maltzer and Jones. CONTINUED to September 29, 2015

·                     Public Hearing - Appeal of Tentative Map - 645 Texas Street. Staff: Watty. This appeal was filed based on concerns over massing and shading of the proposed development, issues that the Planning Department contended should have been brought up during the entitlement process and not as part of a tentative map appeal.  After a very short hearing where the appellant was not present and represented by a third party, the Board voted to uphold DPWs decision to issue the tentative map.

·                     150365 Planning, Administrative Codes - Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Haddadan. Passed First Read

·                     150585 Planning, Administrative Codes - Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units. Sponsor: Christensen. Staff: Haddadan. Passed First Read

 

INTRODUCTIONS:

·                     150816 Planning Code - New Restaurants and Bars in the North Beach Special Use District. Sponsor: Christensen. Staff: D. Sanchez

·                     150814 Administrative, Planning Codes - Digital Light Displays on the East Façade of City Hall Sponsor: Mayor. Staff: Starr

·                     150790 REINTRODUCTION Planning Code - Establishing a New Citywide Transportation Sustainability Fee. Sponsor: Wiener, Breed, and Christensen. Staff: L. Chen.

 

Additional Notes

Commission’s recommended modifications to the ADU legislation

1.                   Modifying the number of ADUs allowed in District 8, to align with proposed District 3’s ADU program and the existing seismic retrofit ADU program;  District 8 ordinance permits one ADU for buildings with 10 units or less and 2 ADUs for building with 11 or more units, and District 3 and the Seismic retrofit program permits one ADU in buildings with four units or less, and no limit on building with 5 or more units; and

2.                   Prohibit conversion of ground floor retail to ADUs.

 

BOARD OF APPEALS:

The Board of Appeals did meet last night, a couple items that might of interest to the Commission, first, there were two appeals related to the project on 1050 Valencia Street. They were appeals of Public Works permits for excavation, also for the vault that is on the sidewalks to power the building, those appeals were withdrawn just prior to the hearing, and the items were not heard. Two other items 238 Presidio Avenue which was before you as a discretionary review at the beginning of the year. The Board --the Commission didn't take discretionary review on this item, it was appeal subsequently to the Board of Appeals, and last night the Board denied the appeal and upheld the permit as approved. Lastly 721 Beach Street that was before you a couple of years ago, is in the C-2 Zoning District, did not required neighborhood notice, but was brought before you anyway for a discretionary review, at the hearing the Commission took DR and wanted the project sponsor to continue work with staff to  reduce – eliminate the stair penthouses and reduce the railings that permit subsequently was appealed to the Board of Appeals after this hearing and the Board upheld a permit during the addenda review, they did come with revisions, to the elevator penthouse, which  remained on the property, was not required to be remove, by any of the Board or Commission that reviewed this, they increased the height from 9 ft. 6 to 14 ft. 6 because of the type of mechanical equipment that was required this was something that was I believe dictated by the review of the permit by DBI, our staff approved that permit, it was being constructed and there were concerns raised by neighborhood, we suspended the permit, verified that everything was constructed as per the approved addenda. I request a release of the suspension that I initiated, that was appealed by the neighbors. Last night the Board of Appeals upheld the appeal, so the suspension remains, and in fact the Board has concerns of the change that was made during the addenda process, so we'll continue to work with the project sponsor on addressing that. They had revised it to from reduce it from the 14 ft. 6, is now between 11 ft. 2 and 12 ft. 8.  They've worked as much as they can to minimize that, and we continue to see if there are ways to further minimize that, but I just want it make aware of those items. Also, lastly Victor Pacheco, who has served as the legal assistant at the Board of Appeals for about 15 years has moved on to more temperate climates, he is now residing in Florida, Victor has a long history at the Board of Appeals, and helped it be a very efficient operation, and many of us may have encountered him over the years, he's a wonderful guy to work with, we will miss him, but he left last week.

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:

Commissioners on behalf of the Preservation Coordinator, there was a very brief meeting yesterday at the Historic Preservation Commission, where one item was on interest at 350 University Street, The Old Ladies Home was initiated for landmarking.

 

D.         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:       Georgia Schuttish – Noe Valley alterations that are demos

                                            John Elberling – VMU districts

                                            Holly Friedman – Potrero Hill development

                                            Sean Ingalls – Potrero Hill development

                                            Tony Kelley – Eastern Neighborhood infrastructure and development

                                            Diane Curbio – Procedural matter on time for public comment

 

E.            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.

 

5.                                                                                                                                            (L. CHEN: (415) 575-9124)

TRANSPORTATION SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM - Informational Presentation regarding the Transportation Sustainability Program - The Transportation Sustainability Program is an interagency effort to ensure that the City can upgrade and expand its transportation system to accommodate new residents and jobs. Components of the program include: (1) updates to transportation impact analysis metrics to better align the environmental review process with City policies; (2) increased on-site transportation strategies that encourage sustainable travel; and, (3) the Transportation Sustainability Fee (TSF), a development impact fee that would raise revenues for transit and safer streets.

Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational

 

                SPEAKERS:           - Bernie Choden – Servicing the people, mechanics operation

                                                = Sue Hestor – Cutting out the public

                                                = Jim Lazarus – Concerns for small business

                                                = Viktoriya Wise – Response to questions

                                = Michael Schwartz – Response to questions

ACTION:                                None – Informational

 

6a.        2014.1370W                                                                                                  (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

PARKMERCED PHASE 1 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW - Informational Presentation - Pursuant to the project’s Development Agreement, the Planning Director approved the Phase 1 Application on Jun 3, 2015, finding it consistent with the Development Agreement and related Plan documents. Phase 1 is comprised of four Subphases (A through D), and includes in total approximately 1,668 housing units, 3,500 square feet of retail, and Community Improvements and CEQA Mitigation Measures associated with planned residential development. Applications have been submitted for design review of community improvements for Subphases 1A and 1B for the Planning Department to assess conformance with the Parkmerced Design Standards and Guidelines and other Plan documents. This an informational item to provide an overview of Phase 1.

Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational

               

SPEAKERS:           - Bernie Choden – Safety issues, PG&E gas pipes

                                = Glen Takayama – Air and soil samples

                                = Mark Christensen – Mitigation measures for air and soil

                                = Diane Carbio – Project consideration

                                + Jeanne Scott – Meet the needs of the future

                                + Artie Larson – Environmentally conscientious

                                + J. J. Panzer – SF needs more housing

                                + Rob Poole – Well thought out plan

                                + Michael Terriot – Housing on the west side of town

                                + Donald Jussup – Good example of how to address housing is SF

                                + Carol Koppel – Increase housing, no more delays

                                + Joel Koppel – Family housing

                                + Brook Turner – Time to get building

                                + Ella Louiser McGewen – Monitoring and accountability

                                = Jeff Silioni – Construction mitigation measures

ACTION:                                None – Informational

 

6b.         2014.1370W                                                                             (N. TRAN OR V. FLORES: (415) 575-9174)

PARK MERCED PHASE 1A AND 1B PROJECT DESIGN OVERVIEW - Informational Presentation - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.64, proposed development in the Parkmerced Special Use District shall be presented to the Planning Commission in accordance with the Project’s Development Agreement. Proposed buildings greater than 65 feet in height, new construction of more than 25,000 gsf and a project with more than 150 linear feet or more of contiguous street frontage shall be presented to the Planning Commission for its review and comment prior to decision by the Planning Director. The following projects meet one or more of the criteria above: (1) 300 Arballo Dr; (2) 99 Vidal Dr; (3) 455 Serrano Dr & 850 Gonzalez Dr; (4) 1188-1198 Junipero Serra Blvd; and (5) 21 & 25 Chumasero Dr.

Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational

 

                SPEAKERS:           Same as Item 6a.

ACTION:                                None – Informational

 

7.             2015-006717PCA                                                                                            (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

ELIMINATE THE RENTAL INCENTIVE FROM THE EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICTS [BOARD FILE NO. 150496] - Planning Code Amendment to eliminate the Rental Incentive from the Eastern Neighborhood Urban Mixed Use Districts that permits project sponsors to lower their Inclusionary Affordable Housing requirements and applicable Eastern Neighborhood Public Benefit Fee by agreeing to maintain the units in their market rate development as rental units for 30 years; and affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act, 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

 

SPEAKERS:           + Supervisor Kim – Amendment introduction

ACTION:                                Adopted a Recommendation for Approval

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore

ABSENT:                Richards

RESOLUTION:      19425

 

8a.          2013.0792E                                                                                                   (C. THOMAS: (415) 575-9036)

400 BAY STREET - northwest corner of Bay and Mason Street; Lot 030 of Assessor’s Block 0030 - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the demolition of an existing, vacant building (formerly a bar) and construction of a four-story, approximately 15,000-square-foot, 40-foot-tall hotel occupying the approximately 3,300-square-foot project site. The proposed project would include 13 rooms, meeting facilities and outdoor decks on the second floor and roof. The project site is in a C-2 (Community Business) Use District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the PND

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 9, 2015)

 

SPEAKERS:           - Marla Knight – Not best use of land

                                + Russ Naylor – Project presentation

-   (M) Speaker – Affordable housing

ACTION:                                Upheld the PMND

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore

ABSENT:                Richards

MOTION:               19426

 

8b.          2013.0792CU                                                                                                (N. FOSTER: (415) 575-9167)                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

400 BAY STREET - north side of the street between Mason Street and Taylor Street; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 0030 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 240.2(b) and 303, to establish a Hotel within a C-2 (Community Business) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).

Preliminary recommendation: Approve with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 25, 2015)

 

SPEAKERS:           + Russ Naylor – Project presentation

ACTION:                                Approved with Conditions

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore

NAYES:                  Johnson

ABSENT:                Richards

MOTION:               19427

 

9.             2015-000988CWP                                                                                         (C. FLORES: (415) 558-6473)

PROPOSED COMMISSION-SPONSORED INTERIM CONTROLS RELATED TO THE MISSION ACTION PLAN (MAP) 2020 - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 306.7(e), on July 9, 2015 the Planning Commission initiated Interim Controls in the Mission District. The interim controls are intended to make explicit the Commission’s expectation for a dialogue about affordability; allow time for analysis of affordable housing needs; assess sites for affordable housing production; and stem the loss of existing income protected units while maintaining production, distribution, and repair (PDR) capacity in PDR zoned lands and preserving vital community resources. The proposed controls would require a Conditional Use authorization for certain projects which result in any of the following: 1) the loss of more than one rent-controlled dwelling unit; or 2) the production of five or more dwelling units; or 3) demolition or conversion of certain assembly, recreation, arts and entertainment or institutional uses. The area proposed for interim controls is generally defined by the following boundaries: 13^th and Division Streets to Mission Street, to Cesar Chavez Street, to Potrero Avenue, and back to 13^th and Division Streets—except that the Mission Street boundary would include any parcel with a property line on either side of Mission Street. The interim controls would be proposed for a period of six months. At this hearing the Commission may amend and adopt the interim controls and/or adopt an interim policy.  

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Interim Policy and Continue Interim Controls

 

SPEAKERS:           = David Carlos Salavery – Timing for interim controls

-   (M) Speaker – Support policy

-   Laura Guzman – Support the policy statement

Speaker – More housing

John Schartz –

(F) Speaker – Moratorium does not address the needs of the Mission

- (M) Speaker – Mission 2020 Plan

+ Lou Demataze – Support for policy statement

= Susan Marsh –

= (M) Speaker – Interim controls do not go far enough

= (M) Speaker – Affordability levels

-   Naomi Tsung – Interim controls do not go far enough

+ (M) Speaker – Displacement

-   Patricia Kerman – Band aid on a broken leg

ACTION:                Adopted an Interim Policy and Continued the Interim Controls to September 3^rd

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore, Richards

RESOLUTION:      19428

 

10.          2011.0409PCA                                                                                                      (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)

925 MISSION STREET – (“5M Project”) Multiple properties generally bounded by Mission Street to the north, Fifth Street to the east, and Howard Street to the south (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).

 

a.       Informational Presentation of the 5M Project, which proposes to demolish surface parking lots and four existing buildings, retain three existing buildings, and construct three new towers on the project site, with occupied building heights ranging from approximately 200 feet to 450 feet. The project includes approximately 821,300 square feet of residential uses (approximately 690 units), 807,600 square feet of office uses, and 68,700 square feet of other active ground floor uses (a mix of retail establishments, recreational and arts facilities, restaurants, workshops, and educational uses). The project would also include vehicular parking, bicycle parking, and loading facilities, private- and publicly-accessible open space, and streetscape and public-realm improvements. Topics to be discussed will include how the project relates to the context of the surrounding neighborhood.

Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational

 

b.    Consideration of a Resolution of Intent to Initiate General Plan Amendments to various General Plan Maps and Figures (including the Downtown Plan, South of Market Area Plan, and Urban Design Element) in association the “5M” Project. The 5M Project proposes to demolish surface parking lots and four existing buildings, retain three existing buildings, and construct three new towers on the project site, with occupied building heights ranging from approximately 200 feet to 450 feet. The project includes approximately 821,300 square feet of residential uses (approximately 690 units), 807,600 square feet of office uses, and 68,700 square feet of other active ground floor uses (a mix of retail establishments, recreational and arts facilities, restaurants, workshops, and educational uses). The project would also include vehicular parking, bicycle parking, and loading facilities, private- and publicly-accessible open space, and streetscape and public-realm improvements.

          Preliminary recommendation: Adopt Resolution Initiating Amendments

 

SPEAKERS:           + Peter Albert – Transporation issues

                                      + Kate Hartely – Affordable housing

                                      + Ken Rich = Response to questions

                                      + Charles  __ - Historic resources

                                      + Alexa – Project presentation

                                      + Laura Kressmyer – Design presentation

                                      + Michael Terriot – Exactly where it should be

                                      + Rob Poole – Looking forward to see this more ahead

+ (F) Speaker – SPUR support

+ Bill Werthen – Strong support, vibrant community development

+ Moi Ng – Affordable artist space

+ Keikani Oki Izu – Economic vitality

+ Jordan Langer – Small businesses

= Stephanie Min Travis – Affordable housing vs senior housing

= Sue Hestor – Not in C-3-0

+ (M) Speaker – Center for the arts

+ (M) Speaker – Good project

+ Peter Bartomei – Off the grid, Mission statement

-   Sal Rachman – Traffic

-   Barbara Rachman - Opposition

+ (M) Speaker – Support

+ (M) Speaker – Support

+ Nicole Embaani – United Playaz support

-   Caroline Calderon – Reject request to initiate spot zoning, gentrification

-   (F) Speaker – Displacement, youth and family zone

-   Vivian Arajello – Income inequality

-   Theresa Imperial – Include 5M in Central SOMA Plan

-   Chris D’orazi – Reject staff recommendations

-   Juanito Gorzagaron – Seniors in Mint Mall Building

-   (F) Speaker – Affordable housing for seniors on Mission Street

+ Lorenzao Gustano – Senior housing, mitigation measures

-   (F) Speaker – Stop making this about money, I-Hotel, Fillmore

-   (F) Speaker – Displacement, luxury housing

-   Chita Buktah – Do not initiate

-   Andy Blue – Plaza Blue opposition

-   Erik Arguello – Dangerous precedence, affordable rates

+ (M) Speaker – Increased liveability

-   Mari Sorenson – EN Plaza?

= Scott Kiper – Changing plan areas.  Brookly Forest City D.A.

-   Cuvy – Magniture of the project

-   Gabe Odiena – Spot zoning

-   Kimberly Russos – Gentrification

= Brian Webster – The project could be better

    Angelica Cobande -

ACTION:                Adopted a Resolution to Initiate and scheduled an informational hearing for September 3^rd and a potential Joint Hearing for September 17^th.

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Richards

NAYES:                  Moore

RESOLUTION:      19429

 

11.          2015-005689DNX                                                                                         (L. YEGAZU: (415) 575-9076)

855 STEVENSON STREET - east side of 10^th Street between Market and Jessie Streets; Lot 055 in Assessor’s Block 3508 - Request for Downtown Project Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 309 for the construction of a new sky-bridge connecting two existing buildings at 1355 Market Street (Lot 001, Block 3508) and 875 Stevenson Street (Lot 039, Block 3508). Specifically, the common areas on the 9th floors of each building will be connected with visual access provided form the 10th floor of the 875 Stevenson Street building. The proposed sky-bridge will be setback approximately 146-feet from 10th Street, will span the approximately 38-feet distance between the two buildings and will be approximately 101-feet above grade. The project site is located within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and 150-S, 120-X & 200-S Height and Bulk Districts. One of the buildings, 1355 Market Street, is listed as Category I (Significant) Building within Article 11 of the Planning Code. On July 15, 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a Permit to Alter for Case No. 2015-005689PTA. 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: Approve with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:           + Noah Clarke – Project presentation

                                + Greg Natola – Design presentation

-   Sue Hestor – Opposition

-   Scott Kiper – Get people out into the streets

-   (M) Speaker – Don’t approve a sky bridge

-   (F) SPeaker – Ridiculous proposal

-   Andy Farawise – Opposition

+ Donald Dusseff – Support

-   Marei Soranson – Conspicuous consumption

                                ACTION:                                Approved with Conditions

AYES:                     Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis

NAYES:                  Wu, Richards

MOTION:               19430

 

12a.        2014.0567BC                                                                                                  (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)

2101 MISSION STREET – southeast corner of the Mission and 17^th Street intersection, Lot 091 in Assessor’s Block 3575 – Request for Office Development Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 320 and 321, for 48,660 gross square feet of office use from the Office Development Annual Limit. The subject property is located in the Mission Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT) 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

 

SPEAKERS:           + Toby Levy – Project presentation

+ Steve Vettel – PDR, building uses

-   Gabriel Medina – Organized opposition, building has been out of compliance

-   (F) Speaker – Poor artist spaces

-   (M) Speaker – Displacement of the working class, gentrification

-   Denise Laws – Opposition

-   Adam Berry – Opposition

-   (F) Speaker – Opposition

-   Mark Garrett – Opposition

-   (F) Speaker – Support artist

-   Erik Arguello – Support of artists

-   Own Shew – Opposition

-   Michael Electronica – Opposition

-   John Shenberger – Opposition, loss of artist space

-   (M) Speaker – Opposition

-   Marissa Vella – Opposition

-   Flora Davidson – Arts deserve your help

+ Corey Crayle – Support, improved ownership

+ Mitsu Kamira – Supportive of the owner

+ Tom Michaelson – Support

+ Kim Peterson – Good owners

+ Ron Roadlander – Improved ownership

+ Greg Kay – Support

+ Benny Wawarski – Good owner

+ Gwen Banduchi – Support

+ Nate Watson – Support

+ (M) Speaker – Support

-   Mary Eliza – Enforcement of illegal offices

-   Brian Webster – Could be better

+ Louis Calenda – Community benefits

+ Scott Halek – Community benefits, education

+ Jeff Frock – Youth SF

-   Kate Nichols – Displacement

-   Scott Kiper – Artis are in trouble

+ Jeff Hooper – Submitted recorded testimony

= John Elberling – Compromise

= Amy Farawise – Arts and culture in crisis

+ Lane Stein - Support

ACTION:                After hearing and closing public comment; Continued to September 3, 2015

AYES:                     Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore, Richards

NAYES:                  Fong

 

12b.        2014.0567BC                                                                                                  (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)

2101 MISSION STREET – southeast corner of the Mission and 17^th Street intersection, Lot 091 in Assessor’s Block 3575 – Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.2, 303, 320, 321, 736.65 and 736.70 to (1) establish a 25,601 gross square-foot administrative service use (d.b.a. PlanGrid), (2) establish a 8,311 gross square-foot administrative service use (d.b.a. Crowd Flower); (3) establish a 14,748 gross square-foot administrative service use (tenant to be determined); (4) establish a 6,266 gross square-foot trade shop (repair) use (d.b.a. Orion); and, (5) expand an existing trade shop (artisan craft) use from 10,000 gross square feet up to 25,215 gross square feet. The subject property is located in the Mission Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT) Zoning District and 65-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary recommendation: Approve with Conditions

 

                SPEAKERS:           Same as Item 12a.

ACTION:                After hearing and closing public comment; Continued to September 3, 2015

AYES:                     Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore, Richards

NAYES:                  Fong

 

13.          2014.0954C                                                                                                       (R. SUCRE: (415) 575-9108)

1314 Fitzgerald Avenue and 1409 Egbert Avenue - located on a rectangular lot bounded by Egbert Avenue, Jennings Street and Fitzgerald Avenue, Assessor’s Block 4912, Lots 001, 002, and 016 - Request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.9, 303 and 304, to subdivide large lots within a PDR District, demolish six industrial buildings (approximately 27,170 square feet), and construct two new, 30-ft-tall, industrial buildings (collectively measuring 28,200 square feet). The proposed project would retain an existing industrial building (1324 Fitzgerald Street) and the mixed-use buildings with ground floor retail and approximately five dwelling units (1401 Egbert Avenue/2814-2822 Jennings Street; 2824-2836 Jennings Street; and, 1300-1306 Fitzgerald Avenue). Under the PUD, the project is seeking a modification to the off-street parking requirements, as required in Planning Code Section 151. The subject property is located within the PDR-1-B (Production, Distribution and Repair-Light Industrial Buffer) and PDR-2 (Core Production, Distribution and Repair-Bayview) 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 San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:           None

ACTION:                                Continued to September 3, 2015

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore, Richards

 

14.        2014-000040CUA                                                                                               (A. KIRBY 415.575.9133)

1126 IRVING STREET - north side of Irving Street between Funston and 12th Avenues; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 1738 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 317 and 730.37, to allow the demolition of a two-story-over-garage, two-unit building and the construction of a four-story, three-unit building with ground-floor commercial space. The property is within the Inner Sunset NCD (Neighborhood Commercial 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:           None

ACTION:                                Continued to September 3, 2015

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore, Richards

 

F.            DISCRETIONARY REVIEW CALENDAR 

 

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.

 

15.          2014-000817DRP                                                                                           (L. AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)

26 ROSSI AVENUE - east side between Anza Street and Lone Mountain Terrace; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 1134 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2014.0521.6353 proposing to construct a three-story addition at the rear of a three-story single-family dwelling. The project is located within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) 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

WITHDRAWN

 

16.          2015-000685DRP                                                                                       (C. TOWNES: (415) 575-9195)

548 RHODE ISLAND STREET - west side between 18^th and Mariposa Streets; Lot 001H in Assessor’s Block 4009 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.01.16.5908 proposing a one-story vertical third floor addition, a two-story horizontal rear addition and interior/exterior alterations to an existing single family residence 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 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:           None

ACTION:                                Continued to September 3, 2015

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore, Richards

 

17.          2014-002235DRM                                                                                        (N. FOSTER: (415) 575-9167)               

214 CALIFORNIA STREET - north side of California Street between Front and Battery Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 0237 - Request for Mandatory Discretionary Review of an application to allow for a Medical Cannabis Dispensary (MCD) to operate at the subject property. The Project Sponsor seeks to develop up to twelve (12) office suites on the second floor of an existing two-story building for multiple medical cannabis businesses (collectives). Each of the suites will serve as the principal place of business for each collective, and activities may include: administration; product development; product packaging; quality control; storage; and compliance inspections by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH). The proposed MCD would not be open to the public at the project site, nor would any of the collectives offer on-site distribution (sales) of medical cannabis. All distribution would be delivery-only (off-site distribution). Only employees registered with SFDPH will be at the subject property on a day-to-day basis. Edible medical cannabis products would be prepared on-site; however, no cannabis plants would be cultivated on-site. Additionally, no on-site medication of medical cannabis (e.g. smoking, vaporizing, and consumption of medical cannabis edibles) would be permitted. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:           None

ACTION:                                Continued to September 3, 2015

AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Hillis, Moore, Richards

 

G.            PUBLIC COMMENT

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Adjournment – 11:40 P.M.

ADOPTED: September 3, 2015

 

 

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. A thorough description of the issue(s) by the Director or a member of the staff.

2. A presentation of the proposal by the Project Sponsor(s) team (includes sponsor or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors) would be for a period not to exceed 10 minutes, unless a written request for extension not to exceed a total presentation time of 15 minutes is received at least 72 hours in advance of the hearing, through the Commission Secretary, and granted by the President or Chair.

3. A presentation of opposition to the proposal by organized opposition for a period not to exceed 10 minutes (or a period equal to that provided to the project sponsor team) with a minimum of three (3) speakers.  The intent of the 10 min block of time provided to organized opposition is to reduce the number of overall speakers who are part of the organized opposition.  The requestor should advise the group that the Commission would expect the organized presentation to represent their testimony, if granted.  Organized opposition will be recognized only upon written application at least 72 hours in advance of the hearing, through the Commission Secretary, the President or Chair.  Such application should identify the organization(s) and speakers.

4. Public testimony from proponents of the proposal:  An individual may speak for a period not to exceed three (3) minutes.

5. Public testimony from opponents of the proposal:  An individual may speak for a period not to exceed three (3) minutes.

6. Director’s preliminary recommendation must be prepared in writing.

7. Action by the Commission on the matter before it.

8. In public hearings on Draft Environmental Impact Reports, all speakers will be limited to a period not to exceed three (3) minutes.

9.        The President (or Acting Chair) may impose time limits on appearances by members of the public and may otherwise exercise his or her discretion on procedures for the conduct of public hearings.

10.     Public comment portion of the hearing shall be closed and deliberation amongst the Commissioners shall be opened by the Chair;

11.     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.        A thorough description of the issue by the Director or a member of the staff.

2.        A presentation by the DR Requestor(s) team (includes Requestor(s) or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors) would be for a period not to exceed five (5) minutes for each requestor.

3.        Testimony by members of the public in support of the DR would be up to three (3) minutes each.

4.        A presentation by the Project Sponsor(s) team (includes Sponsor(s) or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors) would be for a period up to five (5) minutes, but could be extended for a period not to exceed 10 minutes if there are multiple DR requestors.

5.        Testimony by members of the public in support of the project would be up to three (3) minutes each.

6. DR requestor(s) or their designees are given two (2) minutes for rebuttal.

7.        Project sponsor(s) or their designees are given two (2) minutes for rebuttal.

8.        The President (or Acting Chair) may impose time limits on appearances by members of the public and may otherwise exercise his or her discretion on procedures for the conduct of public hearings.

 

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

Advance Submissions: To allow Commissioners the opportunity to review material in advance of a hearing, materials must be received by the Planning Department 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) hardcopies and a .pdf copy must be provided to the staff planner. Correspondence submitted to the Planning Commission after eight days in advance of a hearing must be received by the Commission Secretary no later than the close of business the day before a hearing for it to become a part of the public record for any public hearing.

 

Correspondence submitted to the Planning Commission on the same day, must be submitted at the hearing directly to the Planning Commission Secretary. Please provide ten (10) copies for distribution. Correspondence submitted in any other fashion on the same day may not become a part of the public record until the following hearing.

 

Correspondence sent directly to all members of the Commission, must include a copy to the Commission Secretary (commissions.secretary@sfgov.org) for it to become a part of the public record.

 

These submittal rules and deadlines shall be strictly enforced and no exceptions shall be made without a vote of the Commission.

 

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. 

 

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.

 

Protest of Fee or Exaction

You may protest any fee or exaction subject to Government Code Section 66000 imposed as a condition of approval in accordance with Government Code Section 66020.  The protest must satisfy the requirements of Government Code Section 66020(a) and must be filed within 90 days of the date of the first approval or conditional approval of the development referencing the challenged fee or exaction.  For purposes of Government Code Section 66020, the date of imposition of the fee shall be the date of the earliest discretionary approval by the City of the subject development.  

 

The Planning Commission’s approval or conditional approval of the development subject to the challenged fee or exaction as expressed in its Motion, Resolution, or Discretionary Review Action or the Zoning Administrator’s Variance Decision Letter will serve as Notice that the 90-day protest period under Government Code Section 66020 has begun.