Planning Commission - July 28, 2016 - Minutes
SAN FRANCISCO
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, July 28, 2016
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Wu
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Hillis
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:14 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Rich Sucre, Chelsea Fordham, Tina Chang, Andrew Perry, Kimberly Durandet, Britany Bendix, Veronica Flores, Wayne Farrens, Marcelle Boudreaux, Jeffrey Horn, 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.
1a. 2014.1302CUA (R. SUCRE: (415) 575-9108)
2906 FOLSOM STREET - southwest corner of 25th and Folsom Streets, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 6525 (District 9) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317 and Board of Supervisors File 150532, for a residential merger at 2906 Folsom Street. Currently, the subject property possesses four dwelling units. The proposed project would demolish the existing garages, subdivide the existing lot into two lots, reconfigure and retain two dwelling units in 2906 Folsom Street, and construct two new dwelling units at 2904 Folsom Street and 3203 25th Street. Overall, the project would maintain four dwelling units on the project site. The project site is located within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapprove
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 14, 2016)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
1b. 2014.1302VAR (R. SUCRE: (415) 575-9108)
2906 FOLSOM STREET - southwest corner of 25th and Folsom Streets, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 6525 (District 9) - Request for a Variance from the Zoning Administrator to address the requirements for minimum lot width and area (Planning Code Section 121) and rear yard (Planning Code Section 134). The proposed project would demolish the existing garages on the project site, subdivide the existing lot into two lots, reconfigure and retain two dwelling units in 2906 Folsom Street, and construct two new dwelling units at 2904 Folsom Street and 3203 25th Street. Overall, the project would maintain four dwelling units on the project site. The project would create two lots, which are narrower than 25-ft and less than 2,500 square feet, and would construct new dwelling units within the required rear yard. The project site is located within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 14, 2016)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: ZA Continued Indefinitely
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
2. 2016-004115CUA (A. PERRY: (415) 575-9017)
644 BROADWAY - north side between Grant Avenue and Stockton Street; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 0146 (District 3) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 803.2(b)(1)(B)(iii), and 810.41 to authorize a change in use from a Movie Theater to an Other Entertainment use (d.b.a. Boxcar Theatre), and to establish a Bar use for the sale of alcohol during performances. Separate authorization as a Bar is required, as the sale of alcohol may not otherwise be permitted as an accessory use. The project is located at the basement level of an existing four-story over basement building, and is located within the CCB (Chinatown Community Business) District and the 65-N 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: = Andrew Perry – Staff report
+ David Gluck – Project presentation
+ George Chen – Alley trash, noise
+ Judy On – Chinatown potential
+ Chris White – Cultural resource venue
= Eric Yan – Strangers walking through private property
= Hiro Yu – Alley safety
= Joe Milstrelli – Alley is not suited for the proposed use
- Trista – More time, alley before and after
- Jun Tin-Yu – Alley noise
+ Tyler Hayford – Support
+ Jeff Lee – Support
+ Tom Discher – Support
ACTION: After being pulled off of Consent, Approved with Conditions as amended by staff and the Commission to include:
1. Allow alley use up to 8:30 pm for patron entry only;
2. Greeters shall be stationed at the gate and the door to the venue;
3. All Exiting to occur thru Broadway Street exit, with staff directing patrons;
4. Maintain alley cleanliness; and
5. Six month staff update.
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19706
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
3. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for July 14, 2016
SPEAKERS: Sylvia Johnson - Inaudible
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
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 Antonini:
In the Chronicle on Tuesday, July 26, a very unfortunate story about -- Albert Samuel’s clock on Market Street, which has been in existence for 100 years and painstakingly repaired and made to work, and has been frequently vandalized with graffiti and needless destruction, and I think this is terrible. I connect it to land use because we have all these comments about activating streets, and often we say the businesses there are not activating the streets there, their employees are not coming out, a bunch of reasons, I think one of the biggest reasons on some of the streets is, people are not really feel safe being there, when there is violent activities occurring frequently there, the kind of things like the destruction of this clock, and I think we have to move away from the culture of non-punishment, because I think we ask for problems and we ended up getting them, because the word is out, if one is caught they won't be held accountable for their actions, and if they're caught the penalty will be very small, modest, and the attitude now is, if no one gets hurt, it’s not really – it’s not a violent crime, so, therefore we don’t have to do much. They have a different attitude in San Diego, they had a problem with a graffiti-vandal, who, between ages 12 and 16, had caused over $100,000 of damage and they documented it they caught him and told his parents, you know, they had to make amends for it, and had to cover the costs and they refused to do so, either the city or the county put a lien against their house, and that changed the attitude in San Diego, they don't have a lot of problems with graffiti because there is some teeth in their laws, and I think we need to take that sort of attitude in San Francisco, if we really want to have vibrant, safe and attractive streets, and we keep repairing these treasures that are historical, and they continually are being destroy by vandals, and the same happens with children's playgrounds, that we spend valuable tax dollars and make them pay for what they do. I'd like to see that has a way of helping us to make our streets things that people can enjoy once again.
Commissioner Richards:
We're having before us – I want to discuss briefly, so please indulge me. We’re having before us a lot of projects that resulted in demolition, de-facto demolitions, actual demolitions, dwelling units mergers, and the policy issues that are coming up that I keep bringing up over and over, that we really, I think we need to look through the lens of is the demolition of rent control units, the demolition of relatively affordable housing, and that is a term we are going to have to figure out, what that actually means, and density equity we actually have two of these today coming up. I went back to the Housing Element and there several policies that jumped out on me that I really think we need to pay attention to when we approve these projects, one is discourage the policy 2.1. Objective 2: Retaining system housing units and promote safety and maintenance without jeopardizing affordability. Policy 2.1: Discourage the demolition of sound existing housing, unless the demolition results in a net increase in affordable housing. So, if we’ve demolishing housing that it is relatively affordable, and we are creating larger units at a higher a price per square foot, we are going backward, that goes against this policy. Policy 2.6: Discourage conversion of housing supply to de-facto commercial use and short-term rentals, that’s one here we have those issues come up, we designed issue so they wouldn’t be able rented easily, etc. So, I think we're on to that one. Objective 3: Protect the affordability of the existing housing stock, especially rental units. Policy 3.1: Preserve rental units, especially rent control units to meet the City affordable housing needs. So, when we get these demolitions we need to understand whether or not we're taking, actually rent-controlled units off the market or not, and if it we are what are we getting in its replacement. We approved a project on Lombard Street that was a Joe Toboni project, we did get rid-off of two rent control units, but we got about 3 BMR units and 8 additional market rate too, that actually help - we were in a better position in the end of the day than we were. It is not hard and fast thing, but we need to consider what we're getting in return. Policy 3.3: Maintain balance and the affordability of existing housing stock by supporting affordable moderate ownership opportunities? Is it a 7,000 square foot home at $1400 a foot? I doubt it! Is it a small unit that is relatively affordable that would be demolishing if somebody could actually buy a starter home and get in? Probably. And the last one Policy 3.4: Preserve nationally affordable housing types, such small and older ownership units. I'm imagining when we actually see the redefinition of Section 317, we’re potentially we are going to have more under what we consider demo. I don’t know yet, but I am assuming, based on what I understand that would be the case. I want to remind myself and the rest of the Commission that these policies is – we really need look at those policies through all these projects through the lens of these policies, and the Element and take a look at it. There are demos we approved last week, San Bruno Avenue was a small cottage on very large lot, wasn’t historic at all, actually there is no integrity. We approved 4 units, where one unit used to be, that make sense, is not a hard and fast rule, we are looking at. We need to make sure that we just don’t take these project by project, and I hope we look at them through the policy lenses. Second quick item in Sunday’s paper, Airbnb, third annual report by the Chronicle, I don’t want to get into all the details, but the end result was basically they said that Airbnb is not causing housing crisis, it is exacerbating, so, it is a good read, take a look at it. I think with once we sort this out with whether or not we can actually have real enforcement on Airbnb, we can actually figure out what the impact would be, but until then everyone is guessing. And lastly, the latest San Francisco Business Times, talks about expecting delays in traffic, on what it does to the economy. What it does to track people here to the Bay Area? So, it is a balance between jobs, housing, transportation, and other things. If we keep adding housing, we can’t have ways to get around the City or the Bay Area. It is causing more problems; we really need to figure this out. We had an MTA joint Planning Commission hearing last week; it was a really good meeting because we started talking about these issues. It was another good reading in the San Francisco Business Times this week Chronicle. Sorry for taking so long.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
5. Director’s Announcements
None
6. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic
Preservation Commission
Land Use Committee:
· No Planning Items at Land Use this week.
Full Board:
· 160632 Planning, Administrative Codes - Planning Department Fees - Future Fee Adjustments. Sponsor: Mayor. Staff: DiSanto. PASSED Second Read
· 160657 Planning, Administrative Codes - Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units Citywide. Sponsor: Farrell, Wiener, Peskin. Staff: Haddadan. PASSED Second Read
· 160477 Planning Code - Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities. Sponsor: Avalos. Staff: Masry. Passed First Read
· 160683 Public Hearing - Appeal of Final Environmental Impact Report Certification - 901-16th Street and 1200-17th Street Project. Staff: Jones. Items 49-52
Also at the Board was the appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the Final EIR for 901-16th Street. You may recall that the project proposes 395 units, 25,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of onsite open space on a large site that was once the Pacific Rolling Mill Lumber Yard. It's located in lower Potrero Hill, at 16th and Mississippi.
The site currently contains a brick office building, which is a historic resource under CEQA, and several metal warehouse buildings that have been determined to not be resources.
The Appellants raised a number of issues including height, PDR loss, traffic, and historic resources. The biggest source of contention was the rejection of the alternative supported by the appellants, termed the "Metal Shed Reuse Alternative", which would retain the metal sheds for PDR use and reduce the unit count to 177. This alternative was included at the request of some members of the community; while it was rejected for a number of reasons and most especially for the fact that it would reduce the project’s unit count by over 200, the appellants focused on the issue of financial feasibility.
Although the appellants were contesting many issues associated with the approval of the project and not the environmental review, they chose not to appeal the Large Project Authorization to the Board of Appeals, stating that they didn’t pursue that appeal because “the project was code compliant.”
In the end The Board of Supervisors voted 9-1 (Peskin opposing) to uphold the Planning Commission's certification of the Environmental Impact Report.
In a cautionary tale for Supervisors and Commissioners alike, Supervisor Cohen had to be recused from the vote because of comments she made during the hearing regarding voluntary community benefits the sponsor was providing, She asked that he give more and the sponsor immediately offered up an additional $800,000. At that point, the City Attorney reminded the Board that the question before them was the adequacy of the CEQA review and they should only be considering issues pertinent to that. After conferring with the attorneys, Supervisor Cohen asked the Board to recuse her from the vote to avoid any perception that the vote was tainted. Other supervisors started asking many questions about the appropriateness of negotiating with developers. The City attorney repeated that such conversations shouldn’t be part of CEQA appeal hearings. A very puzzled Board voted to recuse Supervisor Cohen, and then immediately thereafter voted to uphold the EIR certification.
Introductions:
· No new introductions
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Board of Appeals did meet last night, a couple of items first; the Board of Supervisors did confirm the reappointment of Commissioner Rick Swig's, Frank Fung, and Darryl Honda to the Board of Appeals for a 4-year term. Darryl Honda is the current President, and Commissioner Fung is the current Vice President of the Board of Appeals. Two items that were decided last night, I think they might be of interest to the Commission, both relate to the ongoing efforts to retain PDR uses and insure that those uses are enforced. First is a letter of determination for 425 Brannan Street, this I found that the second story of the building had been illegally converted to an office use, giving that is not permit history establishing an office use, the appellant provided permit history that showed office to office, where the permit listed the existing uses of office and proposed use of office as evidence of an ongoing legal office use of property. I pointed out that was never a
permit that went from the previous industrial use to an office use, that actually authorized the change of use, but the Board felt that the permit history was sufficient to confirm that there was a legal office use. One of the facts here, that -- we felt this supported our decision that had been used during the 90s and the Zoning District Office is not allowed since 1990, but in the 90’s was used by SF Weekly as their office and under the Planning Code that is very squarely within a definition of business service, which is an allowed use office is not, but the Board felt this was legal offices in the building and overturned my determination. We had another notice of violation penalty, that -- was Corey Teague have issued, it was for illegal conversion of the PDR previously a contractors office to general office use, is in M-1 zoning district, it does allows office use, but it is also, within the area subject to the interim moratorium, that has been in place since September or October of 2014 and this use was established in that location in 2015 picture I think we had a very strong case and the Board unanimously upheld our determination. This is one of the sites that have an application pending for a large project under Central SOMA. We’ve seen couple of these has been in the Central SOMA area, actually both of the one last night, were under Central SOMA – will be under Central SOMA. I want to make aware of that. Thank you.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
No Report
7. 2011.0671X (R. SUCRÉ: (415) 575-9108)
1395 22nd STREET/790 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE - located on the north side of 22nd Street at Texas Street and on the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue between 22nd and 25th Streets, Lots 011 & 013 in Assessor’s Block 4167 (District 10) - Informational Presentation on the redesign of the proposed project for new construction of a three-story industrial building and a four-to-eight-story residential building on 22nd Street with 250 dwelling units and 213 off-street parking spaces. On December 3, 2015, the Commission approved the proposed project per Planning Commission Motion No. 19523. The Commission added a condition of approval to redesign the project with Department staff and community. The subject property is located within the UMU (Urban Mixed-Use) Zoning District and PDR-1-G (Production, Distribution and Repair-General) Zoning Districts, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: = David Winslow – Staff report
+ Steve Perry – Design presentation
ACTION: None - Informational
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: Brad Paul – AAU DEIR, support
Paul Werner – AAU, DEIR, support
Sylvia Johnson – Inaudible
Kris Schaffer – AAU
Karen Kai – AAU
Dino Adelfio – Traffic
Ramo Quintero – Low income
Tom Jones – AAU
Sue Hestor – Building housing, AAU
Spike Khan – Rent control units, AAU
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.
8. 2015-014314MAP (A. STARR: 415-558-6362)
1493-1497 POTRERO AVENUE HEIGHT REZONING - Planning Code and Zoning Map Amendments to correct an error in Section Map HT08 of the Zoning Map to rezone the Height and Bulk Designation for 1493-1497 Potrero Avenue, Block 4277, Lot 16, from OS (Open Space) to 55-X, as a result of the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning.
Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend Approval with Modifications
SPEAKERS: Jim Abrams – Potrero Avenue
Spike Khan – Increasing heights near “The Farm”
Sylvia Johnson - Inaudible
ACTION: Continued to September 8, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
9. 2008.0586E (C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)
ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY PROJECT - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - Academy of Art University (AAU) is a private postsecondary academic institution that occupies buildings throughout the City (predominantly in the northeast quadrant). AAU plans on expanding its facilities and programs to accommodate a projected on-site student enrollment of approximately 17,282 students and 3,511 faculty and staff by 2020, resulting in a total increase of approximately 6,100 students and 1,220 faculty and staff. The Proposed Project consists of four general components: study area growth, project site growth, legalization of prior unauthorized changes, and shuttle service expansion. Study area growth consists of approximately 110,000 net square feet (sf) of additional residential uses (to house approximately 400 students, equivalent to about 220 rooms) and 669,670 sf of additional institutional space in 12 geographic areas (study areas) where AAU could occupy buildings to accommodate future growth. The study areas generally include the following areas: Study Area 1 (SA-1), Lombard Street/Divisadero Street; SA-2, Lombard Street/Van Ness Avenue; SA-3, Mid Van Ness Avenue; SA-4, Sutter Street/Mason Street; SA-5, Mid-Market Street; SA-6, Fourth Street/Howard Street; SA-7, Rincon Hill East; SA-8, Third Street/Bryant Street; SA-9, Second Street/Brannan Street; SA-10, Fifth Street/Brannan Street; SA-11, Sixth Street/Folsom Street; and SA-12, Ninth Street/Folsom Street. Project site growth consists of six additional sites that have been occupied, identified, or otherwise changed by AAU since publication of the September 2010 Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this EIR. The six project sites would include a total of 411,070 sf of institutional, bus storage, and community facility uses. The project sites include the following addresses: 2801 Leavenworth Street (The Cannery) (Assessor’s Block/Lot: 0010/001); 700 Montgomery Street (Assessor’s Block/Lot:0196/028); 625 Polk Street (Assessor’s Block/Lot:0742/002); 150 Hayes Street (Assessor’s Block/Lot:0811/022); 121 Wisconsin Street (Assessor’s Block/Lot:3953/004); and 2225 Jerrold Avenue (Assessor’s Block/Lot:5286A/020). The Proposed Project also includes extension of AAU’s shuttle service to serve growth in the study areas and at the project sites. The Proposed Project also includes legalization of changes in use and/or appearance undertaken without benefit of permits prior to issuance of the NOP at 28 of AAU’s 34 existing sites. The Proposed Project includes the occupation and use of existing buildings, as well as construction activities that would be limited to interior tenant improvements, exterior modifications such as signage, window replacements, and security system installation, and in limited circumstances, seismic upgrades.
NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on April 27, 2015. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR
SPEAKERS: = Chelsea Fordham – Staff report
- Zane Gresham – Findings
- Sue Hestor - Findings
ACTION: Certified with Staff Modifications
AYES: Fong, Richards, Johnson, Antonini, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19704
10. 2012.0646PCA, 2016-000559PCA, & 2016-007198PCA (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY - Initiation of Planning Code Text Amendments related to Academy of Art University (AAU) - The Planning Commission will consider the proposal from the Planning Department to reject two Ordinances proposed by AAU and to instead initiate an Ordinance developed by the Planning Department for a limited conversion of Existing Housing to Student Housing Use for two specific properties. The Ordinance recommended for Initiation by the Planning Department would waive the applicability of the prohibition on conversion of Residential Units to Student Housing set forth in Planning Code Section 317(e) to 2209 Van Ness Avenue (Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0570) and 2211 Van Ness Avenue (Lot 029 in Assessor's Block 0570). The proposed Ordinance would also establish criteria for conditional use authorization applicable to conversions to Student Housing for 2209 Van Ness Avenue and 2211 Van Ness Avenue; make findings under the California Environmental Quality Act; make findings under Planning Code Section 302 of public necessity, convenience, and welfare; make findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1; and provide for expiration of the provision by operation of law three years after its effective date.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution to initiate the Planning Code amendments and enable consideration of approval of the Ordinance on or after September 22, 2016.
SPEAKERS: = Tina Chang – Staff report
- Zane Gresham
- Jim Brosnian – Settlement
- Kris Schaffer – Student housing, mitigation fees
= Sylvia Johnson – Inaudible\
+ Brad Paul – Student housing
+ Tom Jones – Rental rates
+ (M) Speaker – TNDC
+ (F) Speaker – SOM CAM
+ David Wu – Student housing\
+ Tony Robles – Staff recommendation
+ Paul Werner – September 22, hearing
+ Sue Hestor – 1,200 to 10,000 students
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval and scheduled a hearing for September 22, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Moore, Wu
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
RESOLUTION: 19705
11a. 2015-014715PCA (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)
2070 FOLSOM STREET - located on the west side of Folsom Street between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 3571 (District #9) - Request for a Zoning Map Amendment pursuant to Planning Code Section 302 to amend the Planning Code by revising the Zoning Use District Map Sheet No. ZN07 and the Height & Bulk District Sheet No. HT07 to rezone 2070 Folsom Street, Assessor’s Parcel Block No. 3571, Lot No. 031, from its current designation as Public (P) and 50-X, to Urban Mixed Use (UMU) and 85-X. The Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor David Campos and is identified as Board of Supervisors File No. 160509. The Planning Commission will consider a resolution recommending these Zoning Map Amendments to the Board of Supervisors; adopting findings, including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors
SPEAKERS: = Kimberly Durandet – Staff report
+ Elaine Yee – Project presentation
+ Ann Tourney – Design presentation
+ Alan Murphy – Shadow analysis
+ Corey Smith – Support
+ Dillon Hamilton – Support
+ Dido Romero – Support
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Johnson, Moore
RECUSED: Wu
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19707
11b. 2015-014715SHD (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)
2070 FOLSOM STREET - located on the west side of Folsom Street between 16th and 17th Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 3571 (District 9) - Request for Adoption of Findings, pursuant to Planning Code Section 295, regarding the shadow study that concluded the new construction of a nine-story, 85-foot tall, 100% affordable housing project with approximately 165,350-square feet and 134 dwelling units, would not be adverse to the use of 17th & Folsom Park (currently under construction), which is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Commission. Currently, the project site is located in the P (Public) Zoning District and 50-X Height and Bulk District. Per Case No. 2015-014715PCA, the Project Sponsor is seeking to rezone the project site to UMU (Urban Mixed-Use) Zoning District and a 85-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Findings
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 11a.
ACTION: Adopted Findings
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Johnson, Moore
RECUSED: Wu
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19708
12. 2014.1604CUA (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
1848-1850 GREEN STREET - north side of Green Street between Octavia and Laguna Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor’s Block 0543 (District 2) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317(d), to allow a major alteration that is tantamount to the demolition of a three-story two-family dwelling within a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal includes vertical and horizontal additions, renovation of the front façade, and demolition of the detached garage. The resulting four-story building will contain two dwelling units. 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
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 30, 2016)
SPEAKERS: = Brittany Bendix – Staff presentation
+ Daniel Oberook – Project presentation
+ Tom Tunney – Response to questions
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Wu
NAYES: Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19709
13. 2015-002039CUA (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
1241 SHRADER STREET - located on the west side of Shrader Street, between Grattan and Alma Streets, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 1282 (District 5) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317, to demolish a two-story single family dwelling and construct a new four-story single-family dwelling within a RH-2 (Residential-House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 7, 2016)
SPEAKERS: = Brittany Bendix – Staff presentation
+ William Pashelinsky – Project presentation
- Sam Trissslow – Negative impacts
- Darlene Ferdell – Negative impacts
- Marjorie Crocket – Negative impacts
+ Sean Kiegran – Fourth floor
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to eliminate the 4th level front roof deck
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19710
14a. 2014.0409CUA (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
1740 MARKET STREET - located on the north side of Market Street at Octavia Boulevard, Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block 0855 (District 5) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.1, 731.11 and 303, for development on a lot exceeding 10,000 square feet in a Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT-3) District and 85-X Height and Bulk District. The project proposes to construct an approximately 82’-11 tall, 88,000 gross square-foot, nine-story mixed-used building containing 100 residential units, approximately 4,385 square feet of retail space, 160 Class 1, ten (10) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces and approximately 7,900 square feet of common and private open space. A Planning Commission approval at the public hearing would constitute the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: = Tim Chang – Staff report
+ Patrick Zito – Project presentation
+ Warner Schmaltz – Design presentation
+ Corey Smith – Support
+ Rev. Arnold Townsend – Support
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
MOTION: 19711
14b. 2014.0409VAR (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
1740 MARKET STREET - located on the north side of Market Street at Octavia Boulevard, Lot 010 in Assessor’s Block 0855 (District 5) - Request for Rear Yard Modification, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134(e); and Variance from exposure requirements pursuant to Section 140 in a Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT-3) District and 85-X Height and Bulk District. he project proposes to construct an approximately 82’-11 tall, 88,000 gross square-foot, nine-story mixed-used building containing 100 residential units, approximately 4,385 square feet of retail space, 160 Class 1, ten (10) Class 2 bicycle parking spaces and approximately 7,900 square feet of common and private open space.
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 14a.
ACTION: ZA Closed the PH and indicated an intent to Grant
15. 2015-010615CUA (V. FLORES: (415) 575-9173)
399 SAN FERNANDO WAY - northeast corner of the intersection of San Fernando Way at Ocean Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 3257 (District 7) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.1to legalize an existing child care facility (d.b.a. YMCA) serving more than 30 children. The facility has been operating at the project site since 1998. The project does not seek to physically expand the building, but replace three windows at the front façade facing onto Ocean Avenue. The child care facility would operate Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. The subject property is located within the RH-1(D) (Residential – House, One Family – Detached) Zoning District and a 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: = Veronica Flores – Staff report
+ Chris Dorman – Project presentation
+ (F) Speaker - Project presentation
+ (M) Speaker - Project presentation
+ Theresa Didios – Support
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Richards, Antonini, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
MOTION: 19712
G. 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.
16. 2015-006696DRP (W. FARRENS: (415) 575-9172)
259 AVILA STREET - west side between Beach Street and Capra Way; Lot 002B in Assessor’s Block 0441A (District 2) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.05.13.6187, proposing construction of a one-story vertical addition above a two-story single-family house. The project also includes minor façade changes and interior renovations. The property is located within the 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.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to August 4, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
17a. 2015-001214DRP (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9140)
3636 21st STREET - north side of 21st Street between Church and Sanchez; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 3605 (District 8) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 201501155832 proposing rear horizontal addition, roof modification, and façade and interior alterations to an existing single-family dwelling. The site is within a RH-1 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, 40-X Height and Bulk District and Dolores Heights SUD. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
WITHDRAWN
17b. 2015-001214VAR (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9140)
3636 21ST STREET - north side of 21st Street between Church and Sanchez; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 3605 (District 8) - Request for Variance from rear yard requirements (Section 241 – Dolores Heights SUD). The project proposes rear horizontal addition, roof modification, and façade and interior alterations to an existing single-family dwelling. The site is within a RH-1 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District, 40-X Height and Bulk District and Dolores Heights SUD.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: ZA Closed the PH and indicated an intent to Grant
18. 2015-007009DRP (V. FLORES: (415) 575-9173)
2355 14TH STREET - west side of 14th Avenue between Santiago and Taraval Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 2343 (District 7) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.05.27.7248 proposing to construct a vertical and horizontal addition to a single family dwelling the RH-1(D) (Residential – House, One Family – Detached) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal will also include a rear deck on the new third floor. 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: = Veronica Flores – Staff report
- Steve Menasche – DR presentation
- (M) Speaker – Opposition
+ Noel Deleone – Project presentation
+ Jaime Valle – Design presentation
+ Todd Ikamoto – Support
+ Raymond Lin – Support
+ Christine Tom – Support
ACTION: Took DR and approved with modifications:
1. Notch the south side of the 3rd floor deck;
2. Review necessity, location and proportionality of the rear stairs
AYES: Fong, Richards, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Hillis, Johnson
DRA No: 0472
19. 2015-004447DRP (J. HORN: (415) 575-6925)
3880-3882 19TH STREET - north side of 19th Street at Sanchez Street; Lot 027A in Assessor’s Block 3585 (District 8) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.01.20.6104 a fourth story vertical addition and a two-story horizontal addition (Per Planning Code Section 136(c)(25)) to an existing two-story-over-garage two-family residence, consisting of two flats (approximately 1400 sq. ft. each). The project also includes façade renovations, interior remodel and conditioning of the basement to be incorporated into the expansion of unit 1. The proposed Unit 1 would be increased in size to 2406 square feet and proposed Unit 2 would be increased to 2366 square feet. The addition will add approximately 1,659 square feet of floor area to the existing 2,802 square feet, for a total of approximately 4,461 square feet. The property is located within the RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 30, 2016)
SPEAKERS: = Jeff Horn – Staff Report
- Julia Brown – DR presentation
- __ Orsi – DR presentation
- (F) Speaker – Negative impact
- (M) Speaker – Public stairs
ACTION: After hearing and closing public comment; Continued to August 4, 2016
AYES: Richards, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Fong, Hillis, Johnson
20. 2015-005962DRP (J. HORN: (415) 575-6925)
2430 CASTRO STREET - west side of Castro Street at 30th Street; Lot 015 in Assessor’s Block 7537 (District 8) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.05.27.7248 a one-story vertical addition to an existing two-story single-family residence. The project also includes façade renovations, interior remodel and a roof deck and stair penthouse. This addition will add approximately 1,440 square feet of floor area to the existing 2,880 square feet, for a total of approximately 4,320 square feet. The property is located within the 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.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve
SPEAKERS: = Delvin Washington – Staff report
- (F) Speaker – Negative impacts
+ (M) Speaker -
ACTION: Took DR and approved with modifications:
1. Eliminate the roof deck and stair penthouse
AYES: Richards, Antonini, Moore, Wu
ABSENT: Fong, Hillis, Johnson
DRA No: 0473
H. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
Adjournment - 9:08 p.M.
ADOPTED: AUGUST 11, 2016