Planning Commission - February 25, 2016 - Minutes
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, February 25, 2016
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:13 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Scott Sanchez, Aaron Starr, Andrew Perry, Carly Grob, Kimia Haddadan, Doug Vu, Claudine Asbagh, Menaka Mohan and Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary
SPEAKER KEY:
+ indicates a speaker in support of an item;
- indicates a speaker in opposition to an item; and
= indicates a neutral speaker or a speaker who did not indicate support or opposition
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2013.1753E (C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)
1066 MARKET STREET - located on a parcel bounded by Golden Gate Avenue to the north, Market Street to the south, and Jones Street to the west; Lot 003 of Assessor’s Block 0350 – Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the demolition of an existing two-story vacant commercial building constructed in 1966 and surface parking lot, and construction of a 120-foot-tall, 12-story mixed-use building containing 304 dwelling units, 4,540 square feet of retail space on Market and Jones Street, and 102 off-street vehicle parking spaces accessed via Jones Street. The project site is in the C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Use District and 120-X Height and Bulk District.
(Proposed for Continuance to March 17, 2016)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 17, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
2. 2013.1696C (W. FARRENS: (415) 575-9172)
1737 POST STREET (AKA 11 PEACE PLAZA), SUITE 300 – southwest corner of Post and Buchanan Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 0700 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 303.1 to legalize a Formula Retail use (dba “The Face Shop”) in the Japantown Mall, established without Conditional Use authorization, within a NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) Zoning District, the Japantown Special Use District, and 50-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.
(Proposed for Continuance to March 17, 2016)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 17, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
3. 2015-007896CUA (W. FARRENS: (415) 575-9172)
1699 VAN NESS AVENUE - southwest corner of Sacramento Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0642 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 303.1 to establish a Formula Retail use (dba “First Republic Bank”), within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High-Density) Zoning District, the Van Ness and Van Ness Automotive Special Use Districts, and 80-D 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.
(Proposed for Continuance to March 17, 2016)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 17, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
4. 2013.1516C (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
450 SOMERSET STREET - west side of Somerset Street, between Bacon Street and Wayland Street, Lots 007, 007A and 008A in Assessor’s Block 6044, and Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 6045 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.1, 303 and 304 to enlarge a school (d.b.a. Alta Vista School) from 26,438 gross square feet up to 42,357 gross square feet, and to increase the maximum enrollment of 315 students up to 393 students. The project is seeking a modification to the rear yard requirement of Planning Code Section 134 as a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Planning Code Section 304. The proposal also includes up to 47 accessory off-street parking spaces for use by St. Elizabeth Roman Catholic Church. The property is within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 17, 2015)
WITHDRAWN
5. 2014-002527DRP (V. FLORES: (415) 575-9173)
2186 14TH AVENUE - east side on the northeast corner of the intersection with Rivera Street; Lot 014A in Assessor’s Block 2204 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2014.11.25.2509 proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition with a roof deck above a stair penthouse for access within a single family dwelling within a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The vertical addition will be set back 15 feet from the front of the building with a roof deck within the setback area. The project would not increase the existing building depth. 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 17, 2015)
WITHDRAWN
B. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing
6. 2015-014178CUA (A. PERRY: (415) 575-9017)
653 UNION STREET (FERRY PLAZA SEAFOOD) - southern side of Union Street between Columbus Avenue and Powell Street, Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 0117 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 303 and 722.44 to permit an upgrade from ABC License Type 41 (beer and wine) to Type 47 (general) at an existing Restaurant (d.b.a. Ferry Plaza Seafood), operating as a Bona Fide Eating Place. The project is located within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) 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: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
MOTION: 19571
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
7. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for February 4, 2016
· Draft Minutes for February 11, 2016
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
8. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
Yeah. I think that we – I think Commissioner Richards had mentioned that looking for this, a couple of meetings ago, but there was a study by the California Legislative Analyst Office, and the conclusion drawn from this, was that in low income neighborhoods where there is significant amount of construction of new market rate housing, the rate of displacement is half of that, which it would occur in the same neighborhood where there is no new construction of market-rate housing. And a very interesting study and I think it does answer the question of what impact new housing has on displacement and prices within the neighborhood of existing housing. It is an interesting study. Tt was also written up in the Washington Post and I'll see if I can get Commission Secretary Ionin, I’ll get the link to that study, so anybody, member of the public can read it an interesting point it brings up very extensive substantiation of their conclusion is that the filtering that was the case in the past does not exist in areas of San Francisco, Oakland and other cities; filtering is a concept that older housing is less valuable and we saw that in 50s and 60s in San Francisco when older housing within the Western Edition, the Mission and other neighborhoods most notably older Victorians, were felt to be not as desirable, people left, people move to other areas of San Francisco or out of San Francisco entirely, and the rents and prices in those areas fell, and it was so dramatic that even parts of Western Edition unfortunately were torn down, and strangely enough that whole thing has turned 180 degrees around, were now the remaining structures in those areas are much more valuable than was built new in those areas after the older homes had been torn down. We have the filtering doesn't exist anymore, in fact people interested in denser housing, interested in more historic housing, interested in being close within urban areas, so that explains part of the reason why older housing within all neighborhoods has increased in value and will continue to do so unless there is a big change in public perception of what is desired in housing, very interesting study.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
9. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Good afternoon, Commissioners, just wanted to let you know about a forum I attended on Saturday. I think there were many people from the public and the community. It was a forum in the displacement that was sponsored by the MTC and ABAG on displacement issues with respect to regional planning, very well attended event, probably 300 people, very broad cross section from the region and elected officials, community activists, developers and several of the department staff were there, and there was a number of very interesting solutions discussed. I think the most important thing, I can say from the results, is simply that there is a growing acceptance and awareness that the issues of affordable housing and displacement are regional issues. They are not just local issues and I appreciate that discussion and I very much appreciate seeing MTC and ABAG for having this discussion, and for being willing to put this on, but also to have future events on the same topic, before they complete and as they are completing Plan Bay Area, so I'll be happy to answer questions for the Commission on that and let you know, how is that proceeding in the future. Thank you.
10. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
• 151004 Planning Code - Projecting Signs in the Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Breed. Staff: Starr.
First on the land use agenda was Supervisor Breed’s ordinance to allow projecting signs within the Fillmore Street neighborhood Commercial Transit District. This ordinance would essentially allow the Fillmore Auditorium to have a blade sign, which is currently not permitted. The Planning Commission heard this item on December 17 of last year and voted unanimously to recommended approval with modifications.
The Commission’s proposed modifications were as follows:
1. Require the sign to employ a remote transformer and that the sign is designed with a minimum profile to be narrow as structurally feasible.
2. Require the sign to have an indirect means of illumination during business hours, such as reverse halo-lit lettering.
3. Limit the proposed sign to one per building and only for the primary occupant of the building.
The Supervisor included all of the Commission’s recommended modifications into the ordinance.
At the land use hearing, there was a presentation by Supervisor Breed’s staff and the Planning Department. There was no public comment and no questions of comments from the Committee members. The Committee voted unanimously to forward the ordinance to the Full Board with a positive recommendation.
• 160026 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Rezoning Noe Valley Town Square. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Burns.
Next on the agenda was Supervisor Wiener’s Ordinance to rezone the Noe Valley Town Square parcel from Noe-24th Street NCT to Public and Open Space to allow for the conversion of a parking lot to a public open space. This item was heard by the Planning Commission on February 11 of this year, and was unanimously recommended for approval. At the hearing there was no public comment and no comments or questions form the Committee members. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend approval to the Full Board.
• 160115 Planning, Building Codes - Conditional Use Required to Remove Any Residential Unit; Mandatory Legalization of Illegal Units; Permeable Surfaces and Landscaping Requirements. Sponsor: Avalos. Staff: Haddadan.
Last on the agenda, the Committee heard Supervisor’s Avalos’ Ordinance that would require CU authorization for the removal of residential units, including unauthorized units. You may recall that this ordinance has had a few hearings at the Land Use Committee. At the February 8th hearing, the Committee recommended approval of an amended version that would only apply to C-3 districts. This amendment was related to an urgent issue regarding certain unauthorized units in C-3 districts, were 200 tenants were in danger of eviction. At that hearing, Supervisor Wiener also made an amendment to maintain the administrative approvals for single-family homes in single-family districts that are deemed unaffordable.
This week the duplicated file that includes all zoning districts, was back at the Committee with six additional amendments1. These additional amendments
1 1) DBI would review applications for removal of unauthorized units to determine that there is a legal path for legalization; 2) that the DBI would not re-issue the outstanding NoVs for the unauthorized units; 3) clarify that the units with imminent safety hazard would not require to go through the CU process for removal; 4) clarify that the NoV would be suspended during the process of application of CU for removal; 5) NoVs will be rescinded upon completion of the CU process when removal is approved; and finally the last one is related to the Planning code and is to include a new criteria finding for removal of unauthorized units that specifies whether the legalizations imposes financial hardship for the property owners in cases where no City funds are available for legalization. The Committee discussed and agreed the use of a newly established Code Enforcement Fund to help property owners in the legalization process through revolving loans.
primarily addressed concerns from the Building Inspection Commission, which heard this item for the second time last week.
At this week’s hearing, there was again significant public comment, about half in favor of the ordinance and about half against. In particular, the Apartments Association raised concerns that the process for property owners of single-family homes should be simpler; one suggestion was to require a Mandatory DR instead of a CU for removal of unauthorized units within single-family houses. Based on that suggestion, Supervisor Wiener proposed an amendment to yet another duplicated ordinance. This amendment would require a DR for removing an unauthorized unit from a single family home instead of a CU. Supervisor Wiener also proposed to extend the timeline by which the legalization needs to be done to 3 years. These amendments will be considered at next week hearing once the City Attorney has had time to draft the proposed amendment.
After all that, the Committee voted unanimously to send the original ordnance to the full Board with a positive recommendation. The duplicated and amended ordinance will be considered next week.
FULL BOARD:
• 150494 Planning, Building Codes - Conditional Use Required to Remove Any Residential Unit; Mandatory Legalization of Illegal Units; Permeable Surfaces and Landscaping Requirements. Sponsor: Avalos. Staff: Haddadan. PASSED Second Read
• 151257 Planning Code - Increasing Transportation Sustainability Fee for Non-residential Projects. This ordinance passed its First Read on a 6 to 5 vote.
• 151269 Public Hearing - Appeal of Categorical Exemption from Environmental Review - Proposed Commuter Shuttle Permit Program. Staff: Jones, Navarrete. This appeal was withdrawn and the Board tabled the item.
INTRODUCTIONS:
None
BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Board of Appeals met last night. We had a full agenda they and concluded at the
stroke of midnight, a couple of items that might be of interest of the Commission: we had an informational presentation by Jeff Joslin and David Winslow to the Board of Appeals about the Residential Design Guidelines and how we implement them through the Residential Design Team. We had an appeal of your design review for a project in Mission Bay, the office buildings that are associated with the Warriors Arena. The Board denied the appeal there. We also had an appeal of the variance and rear yard modification for the Harding Theatre. You had heard this as a conditional use authorization. The conditional use authorization was not appealed. This was just the variance of the rear yard modification to facilitate the development of the residential building at the rear of the lot and the Board unanimously denied that appeal. Had an appeal of a variance that I had denied for 893 Ashbury. It was an off-street parking. They were seeking to potentially take one on-street parking space and park in front of the setback in a space that measured, really less than 15 feet deep and really would be an substandard space. The Board unanimously denied that appeal, and finally an appeal for a building permit 1801 Fulton Street, which you had heard as a discretionary review. This was for accessory use wireless facility at the corner property here and the Board denied that appeal. They ultimately upheld the permit as well on that, and that's all.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
No Report
11. 2014.0103CXV (C. GROB: (415) 575-9138)
1036 MISSION STREET – Informational Presentation of the 1% Public Art Requirement for a newly constructed nine-story, 83-unit building.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: = Carly Grob – Staff presentation
+ Dan Sullivan – Public art presentation
+ Jim Campbell – Artist presentation
ACTION: Reviewed and Commented
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: Georgia Schuttish - Story Poles For All Residential Projects
Story Poles should be included for all projects that require a 311 Notification. They can be part of the 311 process.
Story poles should be installed prior the mailing of the 311 to the owners and residents within the 150 foot radius. There is a period of time when Mr. Vallejo alerts the Project Sponsor that the 311 Notification is ready for mailing.
Once the Project Sponsor are alerted, they should install the Story Poles while simultaneously sending out the 311 Notification.
When the Project Sponsor signs the affidavit confirming the mailing to the neighbors, they can also affirm the installation of the story poles with a photo of the poles and a letter from the installer.
The Story Poles should also be included in the description of the Building Permit Application and Project Sponsor can be told at Intake of this requirement.
Donald Dewsnup - NIMBY policy
Allison Heath – Jackson Park, 88 Arkansas
Raji Raja – 891 Carolina St. opposition
June Deckenbock – Green open space, Jackson Park, rested bedrooms
Chris Hansen – 891 Carolina St.
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.
12a. (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
Update on Implementation of the Transbay Redevelopment Plan – Informational Presentation by the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) on progress of development projects underway within the Transbay Redevelopment Plan Zone 1.
SPEAKERS: = Kimia Haddadan – Staff presentation
+ Jose Campos -= Transbay Plan presentation
+ (M) Speaker – Plan presentation
+ Harry Sankston – Design presentation
= Scott Embledge – Respect the process
+ Danny Campbell – More housing
- Elise Thonroger – Financial deal with developer
+ Donald Dewsnup – Rincon Park is not a city park
+ Armon Morgan – Support
+ Joel Koppel – Support
+ Lauren Post – Support
+ Laura Clarke – Support
+ Ramon Hernandez – Support
+ Tommy Newmanville – Support
- Lance Kerns – Opposition
+ Adrian Simi – Support
+ Monica Wilson – Support
+ Imani Davis – More affordable housing
+ Peter Hartman – Support for height increase
+ Carmen Fornageda – Shadows
+ (M) Speaker – BMR programs help get people into homes
+ Robert Devlin – Support
- Jerry Dodson – Spot zoning, shadow
- Marlene Morgan – More affordable housing
+ Mark English – AIA support
+ Rob Poole – Project has improved
+ (M) Speaker – Housing
+ Annie Fryman – Great architectural precedence
+ John Elberling – New standard for on-site affordable housing
+ John Shwerck – Support
= Josh Switzky – Response to questions
ACTION: None - Informational
12b. 2015-012730GPR (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
TRANSBAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN – Adoption of Environmental Findings pursuant to the California environmental quality act and approving the amendment to the redevelopment plan for the Transbay redevelopment project area to increase the maximum height limit from 300 feet to 400 feet on Block 1 of Zone 1 of the Transbay redevelopment project area, adopting general plan and planning code section 101.12 findings, and recommending the Transbay redevelopment plan amendment to the board of supervisors for approval.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 12a.
ACTION: Adopted CEQA findings and a Resolution, as amended by staff and the City Attorney’s Office, Recommending the Amendment to the GP
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Wu
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT: Johnson
RESOLUTION: 19573
12c. 2016-000003GPA (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
MAP 5 OF THE DOWNTOWN PLAN - General Plan Amendment, Revising Map 5 of the Downtown Area Plan to include a note stating that the proposed Height and Bulk Districts on Assessor's Block 3740, Lots 027, 029, 030, 031, and 032 (Transbay Block 1) and Assessor's Block 3739, Lot 004 within the Trans bay Redevelopment Project Area shall be consistent with those provided in the Transbay Redevelopment Plan Development Controls; and making findings, including findings under the California Environmental Quality Act, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 12a.
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution, as amended by staff and the City Attorney’s Office, Recommending the Amendments to the GP
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Wu
NAYES: Moore
ABSENT: Johnson
RESOLUTION: 19572
13a. 2014-0832ENX (D. VU: (415) 575-9120)
988 HARRISON (AKA 377 6TH STREET) - north side between 5th and 6th Streets – Lot 148 in Assessor’s Block 3753 - Request for Large Project Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 329 including exceptions for rear yard and exposure (Planning Code Sections 134 and 140, respectively) for the proposed construction of a new eight-story, 85-foot tall building consisting of approximately 6,485 square feet of commercial space at the ground floor and up to 100 dwelling units totaling 62,400 gross square feet on the second through eighth floors. The subject property is located within the MUR (Mixed Use Residential) District and 85-X Height and Bulk Designation. 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: = Doug Vu – Staff presentation
+ Wil Mallar – Project presentation
+ Mike – Design presentation
+ Rob Poole – Support
= Anastasia Anapolis – Family size residences
= Sue Hestor – Ask questions
(M) Speaker – Shadow impact
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
MOTION: 19574
13b. 2014-0832CUA (D. VU: (415) 575-9120)
988 HARRISON STREET (aka 377 6TH STREET) - north side between 5th and 6th Streets – Lot 148 in Assessor’s Block 3753 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections and 202.5 and 303 for the conversion of an automobile service station and demolition of all existing structures on the property to allow the construction of a new eight-story, 85-foot tall mixed-use building consisting of approximately 6,485 square feet of commercial space at the ground floor and up to 100 dwelling units totaling 62,400 gross square feet on the second through eighth floors. The subject property is located within the MUR (Mixed Use Residential) District and 85-X Height and Bulk Designation. 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: Same as Item 13a.
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
MOTION: 19575
14a. 2014.0284CUAVAR (C. ASBAGH: (415) 575-9165)
1567 CALIFORNIA STREET - Southeast corner of California and Polk Streets, Lots 015, 014 and 014A in Assessor’s Block 0645 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Section 303 to: 1) construct a new building on a lot greater than 10,000 square feet in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District (Section 121.1); 2) exceed the maximum building length of 110’ along the California Street façade in an 80-A Height and Bulk District (per Section 270); and 3) construct a garage entry on California Street (per Section 155(r)(3)). The proposal is to demolish the existing building and associated surface parking lot and construct a new 7-story building, reaching a roof height of 80 feet, containing approximately 63 dwelling units, 8,000 square feet of retail uses, and 41 off-street parking spaces. The project is located within the Polk Street NCD 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 December 17, 2015)
SPEAKERS: = Claudine Asbagh – Staff presentation
+ Cyrus Sanaundaji – Project presentation
+ Riad Ganum – Design presentation
+ Moe Jemeel – Middle Polk support
+ Rob Poole – Support
+ Joel Koppel – Support
+ Danny Campbell – Support
= Sylvia Johnson – Inaudible
+ Chris Schulman – Support
= Michael Spolnick – Superior outdoor space design
(M) Speaker – Loss of character and retail
ACTION: Approved with Conditions, with the suggestion that the Sponsor continue working on the design per Commissioners Moore’s comments
AYES: Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
NAYES: Fong
ABSENT: Johnson
MOTION: 19576
14b. 2014.0284CUAVAR (C. ASBAGH: (415) 575-9165)
1567 CALIFORNIA STREET - Southeast corner of California and Polk Streets, Lots 015, 014 and 014A in Assessor’s Block 0645 - Request for a Variance from the Zoning Administrator to address the requirements for rear yard (Planning Code Section 134) - The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing building and associated surface parking lot and construction of a new 7-story mixed-use building, reaching a roof height of 80 feet, containing approximately 63 dwelling units, 8,000 square feet of ground floor retail uses, and 41 off-street parking spaces. The project is located within the Polk Street NCD and 80-A Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 17, 2015)
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 14a.
ACTION: After hearing and closing public comment, ZA indicated an intent to grant
3:30 p.m.
Items listed here may not be considered prior to the time indicated above. It is provided as a courtesy to limit unnecessary wait times. Generally, the Commission adheres to the order of the Agenda. Therefore, the following item(s) will be considered at or after the time indicated.
15a. 2014-001503GPA (M. MOHAN: (415 575-9141)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS PROGRAM - General Plan Amendment to make conforming changes in association with legislation creating the Affordable Housing Bonus Program by amending the Housing Element, Urban Design Element, Van Ness Avenue Area Plan, Chinatown Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, and Northeastern Waterfront Area Plan; making findings, including findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 28, 2016)
SPEAKERS: = John Rahaim – Introduction
+ Supervisor Kathy Tang – Support
= Gil Kelly – Staff presentation
= Kearstin Dischinger – Staff presentation
= Paolo Izekoe – Staff presentation
= Darnit (?) SFMTA – Long range transportation process
= Sophie Hayward – Housing presentation
= Kate Hartley – Response to questions
- Doug Engman – Organized opposition
- (F) Speaker – Do not approve
- Dennis Moscofinn – Displacement
= George Wooding – Forward with not recommendation
- Calvin Welch – Still ugly
- Georgia Schuttish - AHBP Local
Please start this local program with just the soft sites as enumerated and see how well or how poorly we do in expanding the Affordable Housing Market.
Meanwhile here are two other possible amendments:
1. A Twitter-like five to ten year tax break to all property owners that have kept units out of the market for whatever reason. Water bills are a very good indicator of occupancy. If a bill for a unit is consistently under $20.00 that unit has not been occupied. These are existing, affordable units that could be incentivized back onto the market under this program and with this property tax break.
2. Eminent Domain for the 22nd and Mission site to produce 100% affordable housing to not compound the tragedy there.
Also keep CU for all projects.
- Ozzie Brown – Opposed
- Nina Jones – Opposed
- Bruce Bowen – Revise or restart
- Matt McAbe – Shotgun approach
- Anastasia Yoagnopolis – Not developed by multiple stakeholders, charrette
- (F) Speaker – Tenant displacement
- Rett Courier – Targeted too many lots
- Melissa Kennedy – Opposed, charrette styled community plans
- (M) Speaker – Soft sites
- Carol Britshke – Affordable for whom?
- Edward Mason – Seattle example
= Lilly Wu – Close loopholes
+ Daniel Kemp – Support
- Nick Caspierello – “Affordable” forward it with no recommendation
+ Andy Thornly – Attractive alternative
+ (F) Speaker – Support
+ Laura Clark – Support
+ Tim Colen – Support
+ Corey Smith – Stop talking solutions, build solutions
+ Mark McDonald – Support
- Hiroshi Fukuda – Opposition
+ Ben Woosley – Work toward solving the problem
- (F) Speaker – Soft sites, charrettes
- Kathy Lipscomb – More revision is needed
= Dave Dippel – Test run
= Paul Webber – Affordability, forward with no recommendation
- Stan Hayes – Opposed
- Eileen Boken – Opposed
- Tess Welbourn – Opposed
+ Elissa Kia – Support (SPUR)
+ Katherine – NIMBYism, build more
- Katherine Howard – Loss of open space
- Fernando Martis – No recommendation
- Peter Cohen – Opposed
- Malcolm Perkins – Clean integrity, negative response
- Penelope Clarke – Opposed
= Steve Devincenzi – One modification
- Susan Brock – Density
- Robin Tucker – One size does not fit all
+ Sylvia Johnson – Building, court
- Kathleen Courtney – Community planning
- Dennis Antenore – Neighborhood businesses
+ (M) Speaker – More housing
- Laure Leaderman – Devil in the details
+ Yasserman – Support
+ Sonja Transs – Support
+ (M) Speaker – Support
+ Donald Dewsnup – Necessary program
- (F) Speaker – Honey bees, not the solution
- Judith – Meeting in District 9
- Katherine Devincenzi – CEQA
- John Bartis – Affordable housing
= Sue Hestor – Send it on to the BoS
+ John Schwerk – Pass the program
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval, as amended, to be contingent on the AHBP being approved by the BoS
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis
NAYES: Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
RESOLUTION: 19577
15b. 2014-001503PCA (M. MOHAN: (415 575-9141)
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONUS PROGRAM - Planning Code Amendment to create the Affordable Housing Bonus Programs, consisting of the Local Affordable Housing Bonus Program, the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Bonus Program, the Analyzed State Density Bonus Program and the Individually Requested State Density Bonus Program, to provide for development bonuses and zoning modifications for affordable housing, in compliance with, and above those required by the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code, Section 65915, et seq.; to establish the procedures in which the Local Affordable Housing Bonus Program and the 100 Percent Affordable Housing Bonus Program shall be reviewed and approved; and amending the Planning Code to exempt projects from the height limits specified in the Planning Code and the Zoning Maps; 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: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 28, 2016)
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 15a.
ACTION: After hearing and closing public comment, the Commission voted on five individual topics where staff suggested modifications to the proposed ordinance:
Topic 1 – Program Eligibility
1. Remove parcels with residential units;
2. Adopt a phased approach to implementation starting with vacant soft sites and service stations first;
3. Evaluate remaining sites with an emphasis on small businesses and historic preservation;
4. Evaluate value recapture for AMI limits; and
5. Conduct a community planning process (charrette).
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis
NAYES: Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
Topic 2 – Infrastructure
No suggested modifications proposed.
No Vote
Topic 3 – Urban Design
1. Direct Planning Staff to include analysis of a project’s conformity to design guidelines in a Planning Commission staff report;
2. Prohibit lot mergers until such time the Planning Commission adopts new design guidelines; and
3. Refine the review related to light and air.
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis
NAYES: Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
Topic 4 – Review
1. Require CUA for all LPA projects.
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis
NAYES: Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
Topic 5 – Small Business
1. Allow the Planning Commission to reduce commercial use sizes or require commercial uses in AHBP projects to protect neighborhood serving businesses.
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis
NAYES: Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
Topic 6 – Affordability
1. Establish neighborhood specific rates; and
2. Lower middle income AMI’s.
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Wu
NAYES: Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Johnson
AHBP
Moved to the BoS with No Recommendation
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Johnson
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 Public20145- 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 - 11:51 P.M.
adopted: March 10, 2016