Planning Commission - July 9, 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 9, 2015
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Hillis
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:09 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Kevin Guy, Claudia Flores, Mathew Snyder, Kansai Uchida, Steve Wertheim, Kate Conner, Tina Chang, Rich Sucre, Andrew Perry, 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. 2015-006759PCA (D. SANCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
ACCESSORY USE ENTERTAINMENT IN SPECIFIED WSOMA DISTRICTS [BOARD FILE NO. 150465] - Planning Code Amendment introduced by Supervisor Kim to allow accessory use entertainment (with Limited Live Performance permits) in the Western South of Market Mixed Use General and Regional Commercial Districts; 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.
(Proposed for Continuance to July 16, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to July 16, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
2. 2013.0792E (C.THOMAS: (415) 575-9036)
400 BAY STREET – northwest corner of Bay and Mason Street; Lot 030 of Assessor’s Block 0030 – Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the demolition of an existing, vacant building (formerly a bar) and construction of a four-story, approximately 15,000-square-foot, 40-foot-tall hotel occupying the approximately 3,300-square-foot project site. The proposed project would include 13 rooms, meeting facilities and outdoor decks on the second floor and roof. The project site is in the C-2 (Community Business) Use District.
(Proposed for Continuance to August 6, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to August 6, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
3. 2015-000060CUA (A. PERRY: (415) 575-9017)
327 CAPITOL AVENUE - west side of Capitol Ave. between Broad and Farallones Streets; Lot 052 in Assessor’s Block 7106 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 209.3(f), 710.81, and 790.50 to establish a Large Institution Child Care Facility (d.b.a. Little Bear School) for a maximum of 90 pre-school age children at the first and second floors of a former religious facility that will be vacating the building. The project is located within a Neighborhood Commercial Cluster Zoning District (NC-1), a Residential House, One-Family District (RH-1), 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.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 11, 2015)
(Proposed for Continuance to August 13, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to August 13, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
B. COMMISSION MATTERS
4. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for June 25, 2015
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
5. 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:
I have a couple of things. First of all, there is a very interesting article in the online part of
the San Francisco Business Times by Cory Weinberg. It came out last night and he did an analysis of the cost to build affordable housing new or to acquire existing housing and turn it into affordability and found out the latter was quite a bit cheaper than having to build it new, at least according to his research, but worth taking a look at, for what it’s worth. The other thing I wanted to bring up, it is kind of, we discussed a lot of times what has driven up the costs in South of Market area to include the Mission District and all of the Eastern Neighborhoods and I remember as a child coming into San Francisco from the East Bay where I grew up smelling the smell of coffee brewing, going to the Seals or Giants games and seeing the brewery there and even as late as the time I was in practice having patients who had steel mills that were located in the Mission District, Best Foods had a big factory there and Bausch & Lomb had a factory to build lenses, there was a lot heavy industry in the area South of Market and including the Mission District and I think almost all of that is gone now. We do fortunately have a real resurgence in SF made products, but they are boutique type PDR firms that require people with discretionary income who will pay more for something made locally that they may perceive to be a higher quality, but it’s not the kind of thing that makes a neighborhood undesirable anymore. In the past the neighborhood was one where your entry level neighborhood was not as desirable to live in, but all the things that made that undesirable have gone away. One of them is the lack of heavy industry. Now you have, probably the only place, in one neighborhood you have two BART stations and thirdly, the business district has moved from downtown towards the South of Market and is approaching areas like the Mission District, so it is not going to change. I mean it’s a desirable area and I think we have to assess our policies based on what the reality is and not pretend that the demand is going to go away if we do things to try to stop that demand. I think my opinion is, you build as much affordable housing as you possible can or acquire as I brought up earlier, but also build as much market rate as you can, because the demand is going to be there and people will want to live there are going to find a place one way or another. I'm happy to hear that the Mayor has likely acquired a site that we had approved, for market rate housing, as to be affordable and also, I understand he has three other sites either he has acquired or he has his eyes on, within the Mission so that’s a good step towards meeting the affordable requirements needs of the Mission District and I will have a question for staff on that site that’s being acquired, I would assume that they do have to abide by the changes we made architecturally. We worked hard on 490 South Van Ness to scale it down to preserve the alley and I would assume any changes in the structure the way it is built and also in the quality would have to come back before us.
Director Rahaim:
Commissioner, it is an entitled project, so no matter who owns it, they have to comply with whatever the Planning Commission approved.
Commissioner Antonini:
And architecturally?
Director Rahaim:
That’s right.
Commissioner Richards:
A couple of things in yesterday's – Tuesday’s Chronicle they talk about the Divisadero Corridor now coming up, for those of us who’ve lived close to the Divisadero Corridor for the last couple of decades, obviously we've been seeing these changes, I think, we’ll probably hear the Board report from Mr. Starr that the final NCT legislation will pass, if it hasn’t passed already on second read, and it’s a really interesting thing because the article talks about all the improvements that are made, but also has a flip side as we always keep talking about some of these things have in terms of displacement. They actually had a boot camp for folks who are undergoing, I forget what the word is – low fault evictions, not no fault evictions, evictions for kind of small items and thought they were going to have about 25 people show up from the Divisadero area and actually they had 75 people, so that kind of gives you an indication that the Divisadero Corridor might be experiencing the same type of things maybe that the Mission Corridor is already. Second thing is, we have an item on our agenda today to talk about the Mission. I'm sure everybody heard that the Mission Housing Pause signatures were turned in. I think there were about 15,000, which gives me probably the indication there is about 9,700 that are good, so all the context of the discussion we have around the Mission, at least in my head, is going to be with this Mission housing initiative on the ballot in November. Thank you.
Commissioner Moore:
The Arts Commission is sponsoring a artist displacement study and I hope to see that Ms. Flores gets in touch with the Arts Commission to be updated on it. I think that information will be an interesting overlay or add on to what we are trying to do, so I can forward the e-mail to you, unless you are already in the loop, but that would be something we should be cross-communicating.
C. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
6. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Commissioners good afternoon, two announcements today, I think that would be of interest, one is, I'm sure you’ve seen this in the media, the Department issued the first Housing Balance Report yesterday per legislation that was introduced by Supervisor Kim last year and was part of the calculation that we were required to do a part, that really we grew out of Proposition K, that report is – the ordinance requires that report to cover kind of the housing balance between affordable housing and market-rate housing and also taking into account housing that is removed – the protected status housing or rent controlled housing that is removed from the market. I guess the three major takeaways from that report that I would just call to your attention and the report is certainly – I think you all have it, I think now is posted on our website is that number one, 30 – this report looked at the last ten years from 2004 to last year one is that 30 percent of the new housing was affordable, second is that if you take into account the housing that was removed the affordable housing from protected status the total balance as defined in the legislation is 21 percent, and third is that the there's a great variety within the city between different neighborhoods, some neighborhoods like District 10 have over 50 percent housing balance and others actually are in the negative, because more housing was removed from rent control than actually was produced. So, some of the west side neighborhood where very little housing was produced are actually in the negative balance, which was an interesting fact that came out of this report that I was surprised myself to see. This report is required by the legislation, this particular version of the report, the timing was simply to look back ten years, but in the future the report is required to be done twice a year, I think is September 1st and May 1st, that we will be doing this report in the future, I might have those dates wrong. Secondly, I just wanted to make a comment and talk about the office allocation in Prop M for a moment. We've been working on looking at the issue of the office allocation and whether or not we should be bringing a different approach to you for how you do the office allocation and it seems to us that as we've been thinking about this at the staff, that what is most important about the office allocation and the intent of the original Prop M was and I think you have all talked about this as the three-legged stool. The idea was jobs, transportation, and housing, that was kind of a three prong approach that Prop M was designed to address, so what we are thinking at this point is that rather than taking a new approach to you now, we might need to do that in the coming months, number one we feel like that there is, that the current projects that you normally see are projects we would likely support within the next few months anyway, that meet many the goals of the plans that we've put forward, but most importantly, we think we would like to recommend do a larger analysis of Prop M and the related goals of housing production and transportation that the original Prop M was designed to address. In other words, are some of those goals that it was designed to address being met in other ways? How has the context changed in the last 30 years? We believe it certainly has. How have the economics of the city changed in the last 30 years? And how is Prop M and the office development, the office market changing? So, our recommendation at this point and we can certainly have further discussion about this, is to actually do this larger analysis so that you can have a better background as to the office market and how it relates to the other goals of housing and transportation demand and the process and certainly happy to have further discussion about that in the coming weeks. Thank you.
7. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
• Canceled due to 4th of July Holiday
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
• 150221 Planning, Public Works Codes - Street Trees and Adoption of Associated Fees. Sponsors: Wiener; Christensen. Staff: Sanchez. Passed its Second Read.
• 150081 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishing the Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Breed. Staff: Starr. Passed its First Read
• 150082 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishing the Divisadero Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Breed. Staff: Starr. Passed its First Read
• 150357 Planning Code - Rincon Hill Streetscape Master Plan. Sponsor: Kim. Staff: Chasan. Passed its First Read
• 150401 General Plan Amendments - Rincon Hill Streetscape Master Plan. Sponsor: Kim. Staff: Chasan. Passed its First Read.
INTRODUCTIONS:
• 150737 Interim Zoning Controls - Signs in Transit Center District Plan Area and between Folsom, Harrison, Essex and Second Streets. Sponsor: Kim. Resolution imposing interim zoning controls in the Transit Center District Plan Area (“Plan Area”), to restrict the size and height of new signs within 200 feet of and visible from an existing or planned public park or open space, and to restrict illumination of certain new signs in those areas.
• 150745 Resolution requesting the Planning Department to develop a white paper and set of design guidelines for family-friendly housing in the City. Sponsor: Yee. Staff: Connor
Summary of Board Activities Week July 6-10, 2015 Planning Commission Report: July 9, 2015
• 150748 Hearing to present findings from the inaugural Housing Balance Report. Sponsor: Kim
• 150731 Planning Code - Define Formula Retail to Include Subsidiaries. Sponsor: Mar, Breed, and Avalos. Staff: Rodgers(?) Ordinance amending the Planning Code to revise the definition of formula retail to include subsidiaries or affiliates of formula retail meeting certain criteria.
• 150729 Administrative Code - Neighborhood Noticing Ordinance. Sponsor: Farrell. Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to direct the San Francisco 311 Customer Service Center to develop a pilot program for expanding public notice of significant projects and permitting decisions in the City, in the areas of construction and infrastructure repair work, public health and safety services and facilities, environment, and transportation.
• 150707 Planning Code - Conversion from Retail to Limited Restaurant Use in the Castro and Upper Market. Sponsor: Wiener. Ordinance amending the Planning Code to require a Conditional Use authorization in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial Transit District before a ground floor Retail space is converted to a Limited Restaurant use.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
No Report
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
No Report
8. 2006.1524EBXV; 2013.0276BX (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
350 MISSION STREET - Informational Presentation - of the 1% Public Art Requirement for a newly constructed 30-story building located at 350 Mission Street, containing office uses with ground-floor retail uses and publicly-accessible open space. The project was approved on February 10, 2011 by Motion Nos. 18267 and 18268 (Case No. 2006.1524EBXV), and revised on August 15, 2013 by Motion Nos. 18956 and 18957 (Case No. 2013.0276BX).
Preliminary Recommendation: None – Informational
SPEAKERS: + Chris Heinberger – Public Art Component @ 350 Mission
+ (M) Speaker – Artist – Digital imagery
ACTION: None – Informational
D. 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. 2015-000988CWP (C. FLORES: (415) 558-6473)
INTENT TO INITIATE COMMISSION-SPONSORED INTERIM CONTROLS RELATED TO THE MISSION ACTION PLAN (MAP) 2020 - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 306.7(e), the Planning Commission will consider a Resolution of Intent to Initiate Interim Controls in the Mission District. The interim controls are intended to allow time for analysis of affordable housing needs, assess sites for affordable housing production, and stem the loss of existing income protected units while maintaining production, distribution, and repair (PDR) capacity in PDR zoned lands and preserving vital community resources. The proposed controls would require a Conditional Use authorization for certain projects which result in any of the following: 1) the loss of more than one rent-controlled dwelling unit; or 2) the production of five or more dwelling units; or 3) demolition or conversion of certain assembly, recreation, arts and entertainment or institutional uses. The area proposed for interim controls is generally defined by the following boundaries: 13th and Division Streets to Mission Street, to Cesar Chavez Street, to Potrero Avenue, and back to 13th and Division Streets —except that the Mission Street boundary would include any parcel with a property line on either side of Mission Street. The interim controls would be proposed for a period of six months.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of Intent to establish interim controls and schedule a public hearing for adoption
SPEAKERS: = Tim Collen – Production of affordable housing in the Mission
+ Eric Reid – 2050 Bryant Street support
= Rob Poole – Affordability and evictions in the Mission
= (M) Speaker – Blocked projects
+ Michelle Jones-Siegel – Auto repair
- (M) Speaker – Reject the controls, build more housing
- David Golden – Supply problem in the Mission
+ Hiroshi Fukuda – Housing is being built, not for the people living here today
- Tom Swerk – Make more housing
- Mathew Sin-Young – Vote against
- Edmund Larry-Juing – Housing for humanity build
= Andrew Gregg – Property owner concerns
= Mary Eliza – Campos’ legislation study
- Sonja Transs – Many can afford housing, don’t interrupt market rate housing
- (M) Speaker – Vote against the controls
- Tommy Abacoli-Mecca – No luxury housing in the Mission, no interim controls
- Shigna Baktah – Real crisis in the Mission. Controls do not correspont to the real
- Diana Martinez – Temporary halt on luxury housing in the Mission
- Jackie Barshack – Masquerade for real controls needed
- Scott Weaver – Increasing rent, increasing evictions
- Adrian Simi – This moratorium will keep poor people poor
- Carry White – Sanity is needed, not unwarranted interruptions, controls would impact the whole City
- (F) Speaker – Interim controls do not serve housing crisis in the Mission
- Aaron Goodman – Opposed
- John Elberling – Make real controls or none at all
= Eidelle Wilson – Good pot of gumbo – diversity of the City is leaving
- Robert Hernandez – Evictions, moratorium, housing pressure
= Sue Hestor – Some good language, but misses the point
= Christina Olague – Concerned about my community
- Rick Hall – This isn’t just the Mission
- Debra – Tradition of the Mission District full moratorium
= Frank Nodo – Do not delay new housing
- Steve Vettel – Don’t need interim controls
- Peter Papadapoulas – True moratorium
= Sharon- AirBnB, short-term rentals, TIC, Ellis Act evictions, Emergency Task force
= Sean Kiegran – Complex issue, PDR enforcement, taskforce
= John O’Conner – Respect the pipeline projects, emergency taskforce
- Patricia Kerman – It’s about people, not buildings
= Brett Gladstone – Grandfather date?
- Dido Romero – Mission not affordable
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution of Intent to initiate; scheduling an Informational Hearing for July 23, 2015 and potential Adoption Hearing for August 6, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: Antonini
ABSENT: Hillis
RESOLUTION: 19408
10a. 2010.0305MT (M. SNYDER (415) 575-6891)
SUNNYDALE-VELASCO HOPE SF MASTER PLAN PROJECT – The 48.8-acre project site is located in Visitacion Valley and bounded by Hahn Street to the east, Velasco Avenue to the south, and McLaren Park to the north and west; Assessor’s Blocks/Lots: 6310/001, 6311/001, 6312/001, 6313/001, 6314/001, and 6315/001. – Informational Presentation. The proposed project includes demolition of all 775 existing family and senior public housing units at the Sunnydale and Velasco public housing complexes, and construction of: up to 1,700 housing units, including one-for-one public housing replacement units, affordable rental units, and market rate and affordable for-sale units; up to 72,500 square feet of community service, recreational, and educational facilities; 11.5 acres of new parks and open spaces; a new and reconfigured street network; and up to 16,200 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail. The project site is located in a Residential-Mixed Low Density (RM-1) Use District. The proposed project would require rezoning the project site to (1) create a Special Use District to allow certain non-residential uses, such as community services, retail, and recreational and educational facilities, and (2) allow additional height at some locations. The project entitlements will also include a Development Agreement between the City and the Project Sponsor. This Informational Presentation is to provide background of the Hope SF Program, the overall project, and expected entitlements.
Preliminary Recommendation: None – Informational
SPEAKERS: + Raime Dher, Mercy Housing representative – Response to questions
ACTION: None – Informational
10b. 2010.0305E (K. UCHIDA: (415) 575-9048)
SUNNYDALE-VELASCO HOPE SF MASTER PLAN PROJECT – The 48.8-acre project site is located in Visitacion Valley and bounded by Hahn Street to the east, Velasco Avenue to the south, and McLaren Park to the north and west; Assessor’s Blocks/Lots: 6310/001, 6311/001, 6312/001, 6313/001, 6314/001, and 6315/001. – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project includes demolition of all 775 existing family and senior public housing units at the Sunnydale and Velasco public housing complexes, and construction of: up to 1,700 housing units, including one-for-one public housing replacement units, affordable rental units, and market rate and affordable for-sale units; up to 72,500 square feet of community service, recreational, and educational facilities; 11.5 acres of new parks and open spaces; a new and reconfigured street network; and up to 16,200 square feet of neighborhood-serving retail. The project site is located in a Residential-Mixed Low Density (RM-1) Use District. The proposed project would require rezoning the project site to (1) create a Special Use District to allow certain non-residential uses, such as community services, retail, and recreational and educational facilities, and (2) allow additional height at some locations. The environmental document for this project is a joint document (Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement), which satisfies both the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on February 17, 2015.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 10a.
ACTION: Certified the FEIR
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19409
11. 2003.0527U (S. WERTHEIM: (415) 558-6612)
1000 16TH STREET (DAGGETT PARK) IN-KIND AGREEMENT – The City and Project Sponsor are proposing to enter into an Updated and Amended In-Kind Agreement for the project at 1000 16th Street. The original In-Kind Agreement was approved by the Planning Commission in Motion 18752 on November 29, 2012, including a waiver for $1,880,000 million of their Eastern Neighborhoods Infrastructure Impact Fees for the in-kind provision of a 0.9 acre public park along the Daggett Street right-of-way. The Updated and Amended In-Kind Agreement seeks to increase the waiver by $489,144, to a total of $2,369,144.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval of Updated and Amended In-Kind Agreement
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted an amended In-Kind Agreement
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
RESOLUTION: 19410
12a. 2012.1531CX (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)
361 TURK STREET - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 034 - The overall project includes the construction of two eight-story group housing buildings with a total of 238 group housing rooms on two properties (361 Turk Street and 145 Leavenworth Street) previously developed with surface parking lots. Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 253 to allow construction of a building over 40 feet in height on a property previously used as a surface parking lot. The proposed project is to construct an eight-story group housing building, containing 140 group housing rooms, and approximately 3,854 gross square feet of ground floor retail space. The project site is located within the RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High Density) Zoning District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District 1, Fringe Financial Services Restricted Use District and 80-T Height and Bulk District. A companion project at 145 Leavenworth Street is seeking a Downtown Project Authorization with an exception to the requirements for Reduction of Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 Districts. 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 4, 2015)
NOTE: After Hearing and closing Public Comment, the Commission Continued this matter to July 9, 2015 by a vote of +7 -0.
SPEAKERS: + Dave Cincottaa – Project update
+ (M) Speaker – Support
+ Rob Poole – Support
- Cat Callaway – Agreement is not in best interest for residents
+ Adrian Simi – Support
= Jesse Johnson – Concessions
+ (M) Speaker – Support
= Sue HEstor – Pressure on the Tenderloin
= Wendy – Thank you from the Tenderloin BMR units
= Larry Edmund-Jnicy – Justice, love and peaced
= Wendy – Support the concept of group housing, unit have an affordable housing component
ACTION: Approved with Conditions, as amended acknowledging the Development
Agreement and 12% affordability component
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19411
12b. 2012.1531CX (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)
145 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side of Leavenworth between Turk and Golden Gate Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0345 – The overall project includes the construction of two eight-story group housing buildings with a total of 238 group housing rooms on two properties (361 Turk Street and 145 Leavenworth Street) previously developed with surface parking lots, Request for Downtown Project Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 309 with exceptions to the requirements for Reduction of Ground-Level Wind Currents in C-3 Districts pursuant to Planning Code Section 148. The proposed project is to construct an eight-story group housing building, containing of 98 group housing rooms and approximately 2,725 gross square feet of ground floor retail space on a property previously used as a surface parking lot. The project site is located within a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) Zoning District and 80-X Height and Bulk District. A companion Project at 361 Turk Street is seeking a Conditional Use Authorization to allow construction of a building over 40 feet in height. 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 4, 2015)
NOTE: After Hearing and closing Public Comment, the Commission Continued this matter to July 9, 2015 by a vote of +7 -0.
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 12a.
ACTION: Approved with Conditions, as amended acknowledging the Development Agreement and 12% affordability component
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19412
13. 2014-002085OFA (K. GUY: (415) 575-6163)
250 HOWARD STREET/195 BEALE STREET – northeast corner of Howard and Beale Streets; Lots 012, 025, and 027 in Assessor’s Block 3718 - Request for Office Allocation of Square Footage pursuant to Planning Code Sections 321 and 322 (the Annual Office Development Limitation Program) for a project to construct a 45-story tower reaching an occupied roof height of approximately 550 feet (with a mechanical roof height of approximately 586 feet, and a screen wall reaching a height of approximately 605 feet), containing approximately 766,745 square feet of office space, 8,642 square feet of ground-floor retail use, and 120 off-street parking spaces. The project site is located within the Transbay Downtown Residential (TB-DTR) Zoning District, the Public (P) Zoning District, the 50/85/550-TB Height and Bulk District, and the Transbay C3 Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Andrew Junius – Project presentation
+ Lee Gollup – Sponsor presentation
+ Scott Sire – Design presentation
= Larry Edmund-Jnicy – Transbay terminal recognition of women
= Wendy – Commercial rent control
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended by the City Attorney
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
MOTION: 19413
E. 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.
14. 2013.1207DRP (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
180 MANGELS AVENUE - North side of Mangels Avenue; Lot 015C in Assessor’s Block 6763 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2013.1224.5006 proposing a vertical addition to an existing one-story-over-garage single-family-home, replacing a pitched roof with a full 2nd floor that extends approximately 12’ beyond the existing first story. No expansion of the building is proposed at the garage or 1st story levels. The project is located within a RH-1 (Residential, Home, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary recommendation: Take DR and Approve with Modifications
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 4, 2015)
SPEAKERS: - Stuart Pilarz – DR presentation
- Larry Juicy Edmund – more space
- (F) Speaker – Read comments into the record
+ Josh Greenough – Sponsor presentation
- (F) Speaker - Rebuttal
ACTION: Took DR and Approved with Modifications
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Hillis
DRA No: 0424
15. 2014-003161DRP (R. SUCRE: (415) 558-6159)
2331 19TH STREET – south side of 19th Street at San Bruno Avenue, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 4076 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2014.05.22.6466 (Alteration) proposing construction of a one-story vertical addition and a first floor roof deck within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2015)
WITHDRAWN
16. 2008.0645D (A. PERRY: (415) 575-9017)
7 LAKE FOREST COURT – northwest side of Lake Forest Court at Oak Park Drive, Lot 028 in Assessor's Block 2675 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.11.05.7258 proposing construction of a new third-story vertical addition over an existing two-story single-family home, and a new roof deck over the second story at the rear of the house, within an RH-1(D) (Residential House, One-Family [Detached]) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: - Magdalene Lee – DR presentation
- (M) Speaker – Support for DR
- (F) Speaker – Support for DR
+ John Kevlin – Sponsor presentation
ACTION: Took DR and Approved with a conditins for the Sponsor to work with staff on shifting the mass of the addition 2’-9” to 3”-0”
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Johnson, Moore, Richards
NAYES: Wu
ABSENT: Hillis
DRA No: 0425
F. 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 – 7:13 P.M.
ADOPTED: July 23, 2015