Planning Commission - July 2, 2015 - 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, July 2, 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 12:09 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Kevin Guy, Nicholas Foster, Kimia Haddadan, Steve Wertheim, Jonathan DiSalvo, Natalia Kwiatkowska, Jonathan Speirs, 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.
14a. 2013.0883DV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1364 PACIFIC AVENUE - north side of Pacific Avenue; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0155 – Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2014.0812.3674 proposing to demolish the existing one-story commercial building and construct a new four-story building, reaching a height of 40 feet, containing one dwelling unit and ground-floor retail space. The project is located within the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 7, 2015)
SPEAKERS: + Robyn Tucker – Continue to 8/13;
+ Melinda Sarajapur - Continue to 8/13;
ACTION: Continued to August 13, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
14b. 2013.0883DV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1364 PACIFIC AVENUE - north side of Pacific Avenue; Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 0155 - Request for: 1) Rear Yard Modification from Planning Code Section 134 to allow the first and second stories of the proposed building to encroach into the required rear yard, and 2) Variance to allow the proposed curb cut and driveway along Lynch Street to exceed the maximum parking entry width limitations of Planning Code Section 145.1. The project proposes to demolish the existing one-story commercial building and construct a new four-story building, reaching a height of 40 feet, containing one dwelling unit and ground-floor retail space, located within the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 7, 2015)
SPEAKERS: + Robyn Tucker – Continue to 8/13;
+ Melinda Sarajapur - Continue to 8/13;
ACTION: ZA Continued to August 13, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
15a. 2013.0884DV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1370 PACIFIC AVENUE - north side of Pacific Avenue; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 0155 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2014.0812.3679 proposing to demolish the existing one-story commercial building and construct a new four-story building, reaching a height of 40 feet, containing one dwelling unit and ground-floor retail space. The project is located within the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 7, 2015)
SPEAKERS: + Robyn Tucker – Continue to 8/13;
+ Melinda Sarajapur - Continue to 8/13;
ACTION: Continued to August 13, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
15b. 2013.0884DV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1370 PACIFIC AVENUE - north side of Pacific Avenue; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 0155 - Request for 1) Rear Yard Modification from Planning Code Section 134 to allow the first and second stories of the proposed building to encroach into the required rear yard, and 2) Variance to allow the proposed curb cut and driveway along Lynch Street to exceed the maximum parking entry width limitations of Planning Code Section 145.1. The project proposes to demolish the existing one-story commercial building and construct a new four-story building, reaching a height of 40 feet, containing one dwelling unit and ground-floor retail space, located within the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 7, 2015)
SPEAKERS: + Robyn Tucker – Continue to 8/13;
+ Melinda Sarajapur - Continue to 8/13;
ACTION: ZA Continued to August 13, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
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
1. 2015-004576CND (N. FOSTER: (415) 575-9167)
1338-1340 UNION STREET - north side of Union Street between Larkin Street and Polk Street, Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block 0525 - Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert two (2) buildings on the same lot - a two-story, two-unit building, and a two-story, three-unit building—into residential condominiums within an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION: M-19402
2. 2014-000285CUA (N. FOSTER: (415) 575-9167)
1515 PINE STREET - south side of the street between Polk Street and North Van Ness Avenue; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 0667 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 723.44, 790.142, and 303, to establish a Restaurant (name TBD) serving beer and wine in conjunction with a Bona Fide Eating Place at the subject property within the Polk Street NCD (Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District) and 65-A Height and Bulk District. This project has been reviewed under the Community Business Priority Processing Program (“CB3P”) that was adopted by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2015 under Resolution Number 19323. 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 May 28, 201)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION: M-19403
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
3. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for June 18, 2015
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
4. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Richards:
Actually four things today, I'll try to be brief. I’ll start with the lighthearted one. There was an article in the Sunday paper by Carl Nolte about the change in the city. It’s a really good article it talks about what if we hadn't changed the way we're changing and to what extent it is actually really good or bad, and so, in the very end he talks about San Francisco's intangible soul and the fact that of all the change we're seeing we really don't want to lose that soul. I think you can interpret that in any way you can, but I think it really talks about some of the soul of the city in terms of artists being displaced, people being displaced and being replaced by new people with less invested in the community. It is a really good balanced article and I suggest you read it. The second one is in this morning's paper, I see Airbnb law gets stricter oversight, a there is a new body being proposed by the Mayor. Kind of imbedded in one of the items we had before us, when we do the Airbnb second round of legislation it talks about, three enforcement folks and three other folks to streamline the process of registration and enforcing, I’m assuming the three enforcement folks or the three additional folks that we asked for in the Budget, that they be moved over? Okay. Great. Then the fourth thing is, I know that during the Budget discussions and further when we had Supervisor Kim's Housing Monitoring and Balance Report come, we talked about when we thought the resources would be available to actually delver the report, we went back and forth, and I believe it was May, June or July, I’d like Director if you have any information on that to help us understand that. And then lastly I'm excited to hear from folks in the community, people in the Mission that there will be a meeting on Monday to talk about Planning Department initiated soft interim controls. Maybe interim controls is a polarizing word, around acquisition of housing sites. I understand there will be a presentation next Thursday, and I am look forward to it. One of the things I also wanted to mention, for staff maybe to bring, well not maybe to bring, please try to bring with us is in putting that dimension with the dimension we saw on the 2000 Bryant Street project around PDR space, nighttime entertainment space, commercial space, potential legacy business space and then demolishing rent controlled structures, I really would like to expand the discussion to include maybe interim controls or at least policies that the Commission can have around, where we make these kind of trade-offs because I know each project we get might, this one’s a very complicated one. I’d love to have the Commission to kind of weigh in and talk about where they are, where they land, to provide some certainty to the development community, so when they bring a project to demolish PDR space, what do we think of that, if we're demolishing a nonprofit space, what do we think of that, and what we think about displacement, so something I'd like to get a sense of the rest of the Commissioners if they have a second and can talk about that next week in conjunction with the Mission 2020 Plan.
Commissioner Antonini:
I also read Nolte’s column, always excellent and the one thing we have to realize is we always view the past through rose colored glasses. And we remember the things we liked about the past, but don’t remember the bad parts of the past. And change has been a part of America since the beginning it is one of the reasons for our greatness. I think, we do change and do adopt and innovative. So I think, it is especially true of San Francisco. If you study it’s history it's been on the cutting-edge of innovation and been doing new things since the times of the Gold Rush, so there's going to be change, change is a good thing but we have to just guide it and make it beneficial, and in regards to Commissioner Richards I think that obviously we have set standards for projects and if they abide by the standards you know they should be approvable, however, projects that go out of their way to add additional things like, you know, mitigating possible displacements or things like that, certainly stand a better chance of approval I would say, project sponsors, even though the letter of the law says a certain thing, in reality, with the political realities, you really are going to have to be receptive to things that might help to mitigate what is viewed by many as negative impacts of your project, so I think that's a wise word of wisdom, for all.
Commissioner Wu:
On the question of the Commission considering interim controls possibly for the Mission, I just ask that the Department, if they can bring kind of a menu of possibilities to Commission, as opposed to just one, strictly outlined set of controls. I think that just allows the Commission to have more robust conversation and maybe dig into the issues in a slightly different way.
Commissioner Moore:
I was out having a conversation, City Attorney is looking at us, I’d like to also get a couple of brief examples on the history of interim controls and how that tracks across legally.
Commissioner Richards:
I think to expand on Commissioner Moore's point, I was unaware of what the Commission’s role was and being able to propose or adopt soft interim controls, not legislative controls, because we’re not legislators. Maybe some discussion around that, as well, before we talk about that next week I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Deputy City Attorney:
Excuse me. Deputy City Attorney, Susan Cleveland-Knolls can I just ask a clarifying question, through the Chair? To Commissioner Moore, the Planning Department history of initiated interim controls was that the question.
Commissioner Moore:
Emphasis on that, but also generally speaking I think the topic is interesting to the public and I might as well hear both sides of what it really takes, because we have the ability to talk with the Board of Supervisors the policy question including examples of what has been done in the past.
Deputy City Attorney:
Okay, not just in this area of the City, but and generally. Okay. Thank you.
5. 46 COOK STREET - Consideration of Landmark Nomination of a tree.
SPEAKERS: - Dayle Rogers – Private property rights;
+ Nance Wuerfel – support for nomination;
+ Vanessa Rudo – 123 year old tree is worthy;
+ Rose Hillson – Support for inititation;
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution Initiating Nomination
AYES: Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini
RESOLUTION: R-19404
6. Commission Rules & Regulations - Consideration of Amendments and Adoption.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt
(Continued from Regular hearing of June 4, 2015)
SPEAKERS: = Hiroshi Fukuda – hearing submittal procedures;
= Mari Eliza – “public” in record, transperancy;
= John Sinclair – earlier release of case reports;
- Sue Hestor – Action Item list, hearing submittal guidelines;
- Rick Hall – Minutes for May 14;
- Saif Shaikh – two week notice, case reports;
- Rose Hillson – Please amend proposed “Hearing Submittal Guidelines” timeline for submission/mailing documents to the public. The flawed 14-day process period for Planning/Repromail does not give public requested 2 weeks advance notice per the Executive Summary. Planning has case information months in advance for report. Planning’s rush to adopt this schedule knowing first-class snail mail is frequently delayed up to 4 days from postmark in SF creates an avoidable deliberate delay to public when electronic and regular mail receipt being unequal. With vital case reports not due until after Commission packets are posted on the website, these Guidelines cause the public to be blind of critical time-sensitive information essentially rendering them unable to provide input at the hearing. Planning and Commission - - who serve the public - - should adopt CSFN’s “21, 19, 18, 16 days prior to” timeline (May 28, 2015 letter) to allow fair process.
ACTION: Adopted Amendments 2-5; omitting language regarding alternating Pres. & VP and scheduled a future hearing to consider a Hearing Submittals Guidelines document.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: None
C. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
7. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Thank you, Jonas. Several things I wanted to report on today. One, the final Budget related to short-term rental as Commissioners mentioned earlier, you had approved a Budget and sent on to the Mayor's Office a Budget that included the three positions that we already have, plus the three additional positions that were, provisional is the wrong word, but they were positions that were to be created, but not necessarily filled unless there was funding identified and in the Mayor’s final Budget proposal, those three additional positions were put into the Mayor’s, the City Administrator’s Office, with a request that the two agencies work together to form an Office of Short-Term Rental. That was the announcement that you saw in the paper today, we're still working out the logistics of this, but the idea is all six positions would be working together, in one location, have an office the public can come both to register, to file complaints, and to do anything related to short-term rental. Where that physically is located is not specifically determined yet, it will likely be on Mission Street, either in our building or the DBI building next door, we hope to get all that nailed down in about a month. So, that was the final disposition of how that played out. The second thing I wanted to mention was the work that we're doing with the groups in the Mission, the Mission 2020 Plan is part of that. We have convened and I personally chaired and will continue to chair a meeting of a group of Mission District organizations and their representatives. We had the first of those meetings last week the first topic on the agenda is the interim controls that was mentioned earlier, that we proposed to bring to you next week to initiate as the Commission has the authority to initiate and adopt interim controls under the City Code, but I want to make it clear and I think it’s important to recognize that the interim controls are only one aspect of the work that we’re doing, and you'll see in your packets you receive today and next week, we're proposing these interim controls for a period of six months and during those six months we will continue to convene these groups and have discussions about whole aspects, a whole range of things in the Mission. Including controls and including work with the Mayor's Office of Housing and how to achieve higher levels affordable housing numbers in the Mission. And then including land control issues, a whole series of things that are, some of which the Planning Code related, and some of which are not. The Mayor's Office of Housing is at the table, we are convening and I'm personally chairing those, and I commit to personally chair those over the next few months. So we will, again, I just want to emphasize the interim controls are just one aspect of that work, and I’d like to make sure that the whole package of issues related to the Mission are considered in these discussions as we move forward. Thirdly, I wanted to just mention that there was a request earlier and a question about the Housing Balance Report that is due. Staff is in the very final stages of doing that, we have 90 percent of it complete there were issues with the data that took a lot of time to work out, but we expect that report to come out next week, wo staff has been working vigorously on that. And then, finally, I wanted to mention that there's been a lot of discussion about the impact of new development on the surrounding neighborhoods the economic and displacement impact. There was a discussion, that I think Commission Richards asked about whether we should include that in our nexus study. In our discussions with City Economist Ted Egan, I think we think this should be analyzed not in the nexus study, but in a separate economic study that he’s doing. So, we've been having those discussions with him, we are working on the scope of that and he's proceeding with that as part of scope of his work I want to report on that in the future as we move forward, that concludes my report unless there are any questions.
SPEAKERS: = Sue Hestor – ZA Chartered authority
8. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
Board of Supervisors:
Week June 29- July 3, 2015
Planning Commission Report: July 2, 2015
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
• 150081 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishing the Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Breed. Staff: Starr.
• 150082 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishing the Divisadero Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Breed. Staff: Starr.
These two items would establish the Fillmore Street and the Divisadero Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit Districts, respectively, and remove the density limitations based on lot area in these districts. Instead density would be limited by building height and bulk, rear yard, exposure, and open space requirements. The Planning Commission heard these two items on April 2 of this year and voted unanimously to recommended approval with modifications. The Commission’s proposed modification for both NCTs was to apply the lot merger restrictions in Planning Code Section 121.7, and the one addition Planning Commission modification for the Fillmore Street NCT was to rezone a property currently zoned NC-1 to NCT. All of the Planning Commission’s recommend modifications were included in the two ordinances. At the hearing, there was only one speaker who seemed to be generally adverse to any zoning changes in the Fillmore District because of the area’s troubled history with the Redevelopment Agency. Supervisor Kim asked Planning Staff some general questions about the history of density controls based on lot area, and Supervisor Wiener expressed his strong support for these two ordinances and relaxing density controls where appropriate. The Committee then voted unanimously to forward the two ordinances to the Full Board with a positive recommendation.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Canceled this week for 4th of July Holiday
INTRODUCTIONS:
None
BOARD OF APPEALS:
No Report
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
The Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday, and they reviewed and commented on the Ferry Terminal Expansion project. They also approved a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Hibernia Bank rehabilitation and restoration effort at 1 Jones Street and also initiated landmarking of 90-92 2nd Street, which is a 1906 earthquake surviving building. After they, the full Commission adjourned the Cultural Heritage Assets Committee convened and considered the Preservation Element, and specifically how to incorporate and recognize cultural heritage assets, as well as, historic properties, as well into that Element.
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: Jim Meko – 15’ Ground Floor retail
Peter Cohen – Extra floors
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.
9. 2015-005457PCA (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
APPLYING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS TO GROUP HOUSING [BF 150348] - Planning Code Amendment to clarify that the Inclusionary Affordable Housing Program applies to housing projects, as defined, including group housing projects; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings, including findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1. As part of this item, the Planning Commission will also consider changes to Planning Code Section 124(f) which are not included in the subject Board File. The proposed changes would extend the term of the rental restriction under this code section from 20 years to the life of the project, require projects to provide rental units up to 120% AMI or ownership units up to 150% AMI, require that these units be two to three bedrooms, subject these units to the procedures set forth in Planning Code Section 415, and other clarifications and modifications.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: + April Verenacion Ang, Aide to Supervisor Kim – support for staff amendments;
+ Mike Anderer – apply inclusionary requirement to group housing;
+ Kim – apply inclusionary to all housing, increase to 30%;
+ Alexandra Goldman – support for Avalos and Kim legislation;
+ Mary Huells – base rates on a neighborhood basis;
- Tim Colen – further study;
+ Steven Roberson – group housing is good;
+ Kevin Man – support;
+ Jackie Jenks – support;
+ (F) Speaker – support;
+ Peter Cohen – support, close the loophole in group housing;
+ Joe Wilson – support;
+ Jim Meko – support;
+ Kim Cavalleri – support;
+ Kanishka Burns, Aide to Supervisor Christensen – Amendments to the legislation
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution Recommending Items 1-4; omitting Item 5, finding that the Commission did not have enough information to recommend approval or disapproval.
AYES: Wu, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: Fong, Antonini
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION: R-19405
10. 2015-007030MAP (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)
PLANNING CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO REZONE A PORTION OF DAGGETT STREET TO PUBLIC USE/OPEN SPACE ZONING [ Board File No. 150586] – Planning Code and Zoning Map Amendments to rezone a portion of Daggett Street between 16th Street and 7th Street from UMU (Urban Mixed Use)/68-X Height and Bulk District to P (Public)/OS (Open Space) as part of the establishment of the Daggett Park; and making 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: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Moore
RESOLUTION: R-19406
11. 2015-001201CUA (J. DISALVO: (415) 575-9182)
899 VALENCIA STREET - east side of the street between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 113 in Assessor’s Block 3596 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.2, 145.4, 726.21, and 303, to establish a new approximately 7,100 square foot medical services use (dba Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation) within the existing vacant ground floor commercial space located in the Valencia Street NCT and a 55-X Height and Bulk District. The project exceeds the non-residential use size limitation of 2,999 square feet in the Valencia Street NCT Zoning District. Additionally, the project exceeds more than 75 contiguous linear feet of ground floor commercial frontage along Valencia Street. No building expansion is proposed. 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 May 21, 2015)
Please Note: On May 21, 2015, after Hearing and Closing Public Comment; the Commission directed the Sponsor to consider independently accessible retail spaces and Continued to July 2, 2015 by a vote of +7 -0.
SPEAKERS: + Vahram Massehian – Request for more presentation time;
+ Toni Brayer – Sutter Health presentation;
+ Johnson Wong – support;
+ David Serrano-Sewel – needed facility;
+ Judith Tollsen – retail component, healing;
+ Judy Jones – support;
+ (F) Speaker – support;
- Lisa Fromer – workable transportation plan, wrong place in the wrong neighborhoood;
= Bob Prentice – development agreement implications, defer the decision;
- Steven Shula – opposed to the scale and size;
= Kim Cavaloni – defer this decision to work with the Health Department;
- David Auerback – opposed to location;
= Peter Cohen – Development Agreement;
- Sue Hestor – CPMC & St. Luke’s, how will Valencia Street work?;
+ Vahram Massehian – response to questions
ACTION: After Hearing and closing Public Comment; Approved a motion of intent to disapprove and Continued the matter to July 16, 2015; with the option for the Sponsor to revise the Valencia Street frontage to incorporate the Commission’s concern for retail activation on the ground floor.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Hillis
12. 2015-003493CUA (N. KWIATKOWSKA: (415) 575-9185)
3545 – 3555 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between Spruce Street and Locust Street, Lots 005-006 of Assessor’s Block 1035 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a non-residential use exceeding 5,999 sq. ft. (Planning Code Section 713.21), and to allow the expansion of a Formula Retail use (Planning Code Section 703.4). The project proposes to expand the existing hardware and general store (dba “Standard 5 & 10”) measuring approximately 4,960 sq. ft., into the vacant adjacent storefront, for a total use size of approximately 6,210 sq. ft., within a (NC-S) Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center (Laurel Village Shopping Center) 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: + Mark Loper – Project presentation
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include the 2nd storefront door to remain operational.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: M-19407
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.
13a. 2014.0133D (J. SPEIRS: (415) 575-9106)
2146 3RD STREET - west side between 18th] Street and 19th Street; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 4044 - Request for a Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317 in association with Building Permit Application No. 2014.01.06.5653, proposing to demolish a 2-story mixed use building containing one dwelling unit, this project lies within the UMU (Urban Mixed Use)) Zoning District and 68-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve
SPEAKERS: + Stanley Saitowitz – Project presentation
ACTION: No DR, Approved Demo
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Hillis
DRA NO: DRA-0423
13b. 2013.1109D (J. SPEIRS: (415) 575-9106)
2146 3RD STREET - west side between 18th Street and 19th Street; Lot 003 in Assessor’s Block 4044 - Request for a Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317 in association with Building Permit Application No. 2014.01.06.5657, proposing to construct a new 6-story 7-unit residential building, this project lies within the UMU (Urban Mixed Use)) Zoning District and 68-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve
SPEAKERS: + Stanley Saitowitz – Project presentation
ACTION: No DR, Approved New Construction
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Hillis
DRA NO: DRA-0423
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: 5:50 p.m.
ADOPTED: July 16, 2015