Planning Commission - November 12, 2015 - Minutes

Meeting Date: 
November 12, 2015 (All day)
Untitled 1

CORRECTED

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

 

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers, Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

 

 

Thursday, November 12, 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 12:14 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  John Rahaim – Planning Director, Wayne Farrens, Chelsea Fordham, Chris Townes, Mathew Snyder, Rich Sucre, Alexandra Kirby, Brittany Bendix and Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary

 

SPEAKER KEY:

                                + indicates a speaker in support of an item;

-   indicates a speaker in opposition to an item; and

                                = indicates a neutral speaker or a speaker who did not indicate support or opposition

 

A.            CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date.  The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

 

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.                   2015-010567CND                                                                                     (W. FARRENS: (415) 575-9172)

2466 FRANCISCO STREET - north side between Baker and Broderick Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 0926 - Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story, six-unit building into residential condominiums within a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three 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, Johnson, Moore, Richards

                ABSENT:                Hillis

                MOTION:               19503

 

2.                   2015-009340CND                                                                                     (W. FARRENS: (415) 575-9172)

359 WALLER STREET - south side between Fillmore and Webster Streets, Lot 028 in Assessor’s Block 0868 - Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a two-story, six-unit building into residential condominiums within a RTO (Residential, Transit Oriented) 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, Johnson, Moore, Richards

                ABSENT:                Hillis

MOTION:               19504

 

C.         COMMISSION MATTERS  

 

3.             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 Moore:

I wanted to bring to the Commission and particularly to the Department, Director to his attention, to the fact that a pro-housing counsel was voted in Mountain View, which changed its position on building only office park and office park expansions, but set aside a 5,000 acre site in Mountain View, called the North Bayshore site for 9,100 housing units. That is a major shift in the previous attitude which we discussed in the context, talking about ABAG and the support and leadership this Department can give to this regional agency. I hope the Department with its extensive experience in high density housing, place-making; including governance and program implementation will lend its advice and helping hand to Mountain View, the South Bay and ABAG in doing it the right way. This is not just building high density in suburbia, but this is really bringing an element of urbanity, including shared regional responsibilities to this particular site and I ask the Director, to please to please take this on. I have a copy of the article and I think it is a great opportunity for us to shine as leaders.

 

Commissioner Antonini:

Twenty five to thirty years ago the area immediately north of the Bay Bridge and for about a mile or two to the south was composed to a few remaining industrial uses, a lot of warehousing, parking lots and in the case of Mission Bay, railroad tracks where no longer being used, and there weren’t a lot of residents in the area, and there were very few businesses with a lot of employees. When you drove into San Francisco from the East Bay in the 50’s, probably most people would either take the skyway to other parts of the City or they would cross into – cross Market Street to the area to the north of Market, because that area didn’t have very many residents and no entertainment uses. It changed drastically, as we all know. Now there is probably upwards of 10,000 new residents, a lot of more on the way and lots of business uses and lots of entertainment. Unfortunately, our transportation plans, particularly those in terms of parking are kind of mired in the 1950’s. The nearest parking garage to the bridge is 5th and Mission, public city parking garage, and a lot of people coming from the East Bay today, and while we encouraged them to take public transportation, realistically many people are going to drive, and many of them are coming to do business or find entertainment or visit friends in the area described, which is fairly close to the Bay Bridge. So, what I am proposing, and I’ve mentioned this to a number of transportation leaders, if we can get the rendering up there Jonas, is trying to work with Caltrans to put together a parking garage on the slope of the Bay Bridge, between Beale and Bryant, on the southern slope there, there already is an off-ramp, thanks to the firm of Jeff Heller, they put together this mock-up of that garage, there is already an off-ramp for Harrison Street, and it winds underneath the bridge and proceeds to Fremont, but it would be relatively easy to put another lane there that would go into this garage, and then it would descend all the way people to Bryant Street, people would exit on the bottom, some could go into Beale and go to other parts of the City, but the vast majority of the visitors, would take the turn into Bryant and go right on to the bridge on an on-ramp that it already exists. And for some friends of mine, who come into the City frequently, particularly to go the AT&T Park, always park in that lot that is very close to there because they like that quick return into the bridge. It would help us a lot in San Francisco, because most of our congestion is people trying to make their way from the Bay Bridge to wherever they are going in the City, and with so many of them going into areas that are within walkable distance or certainly public transit from where they are, it would make sense to try to work with the State of California and others to build some sort of intercepting parking facility to minimize the traffic impact on our city streets.

 

Commissioner Richards:

A couple things, first, somebody had the foresight to ask me this week, some advice on public comment, I was thinking, we have a range of issues, at least since I have been in the Commission. We have people get up here and be incredibly combative with us, lectured us, actually called us racists, and everything else under the sun. My advice back to that person was, stick to the facts, give us your the opinion on why the threshold of facts meets the threshold for approval, please don’t be political, didactic or lecturing and when you’re like that, the message that you are trying to convey doesn’t get in the way of the tone of how you are saying it. We’re human as well and I just want to kind of remind the public that we’d like to stick to facts and try to keep everything else out of it. The second thing is, in terms of communicating with the Commission, I personally try to read everything that comes my way, including on social media, but the deluge of communications that we get Thursday morning is almost impossible to get through, I got 28 e-mails this morning alone and I think about 40 notifications on Twitter. So, if you have anything you’d like for us to hear, your opinion, your position on a project, please try to get it in earlier in the week and give us some time to digest it. Some of the e-mails we had, had several attachments to them, and they are quite long. So, I just want to remind the staff that we are human again too, and we only have so much time in the morning to be able to process what are you are to give us feedbacks on. Thank you.

 

Commissioner Johnson:

No to start a discussion, but is on Commissioner’s Antonini concept, very interesting, particularly since the MTA has already begun looking at how to do satellite parking for some of the developments in Mission Bay, including the Warriors Arena, but I just wonder, how that concept would be used in practice giving that the parking structure that is on Howard and Stuart that we recently approved the development for, that would knock that down, is lightly used right now? So, I just sort of wonder if moving it over a few blocks would really up that usage, but certainly an interesting idea.

 

Commissioner Moore:

Follow up comment to Commissioner Richards’ thing, anybody who wants to communicate with the Planning Commission as a body, please remember to CC the Commission Secretary, that is the pipeline to getting emails and ideas to staff, without CC-ing them, are basically comments which disappear in a pile of non-received emails. I make the effort, as often as I can, to forward him emails, but it is quite a chore for any Commissioner to do that. So, please CC the Commission Secretary on your communication.

 

Commissioner Fong:

Just that you know if they have been just sent to the President, I forward them to Jonas.

 

Commissioner Moore:

If I don’t see him on it, I’ll do that, but we are not responsible.

 

D.         DEPARTMENT MATTERS

 

4.             Director’s Announcements

 

Director Rahaim:

Good Afternoon Commissioners, just on that point about regional discussions and regional planning and cooperation that Commissioner Moore raised today, I do think it’s interesting and informative, that some of the smaller communities in the region are changing their positions a bit on housing. I’ve said for a long time and I will repeat it, that I think some of the smaller communities have not done their fair share of providing housing in their region and that is actually one of the solutions to our regional transportation problems, to provide housing. So, I am happy to hear that Mountain View may be moving in that direction.  And, that just you know, not only was this part of kind – if you recall, Gil Kelley, presented the five year work plan for the citywide staff, regional planning, and regional discussion were part, one of the five key elements that we talked about and both, Gil and myself and AnMarie Rodgers, have been heavily involved in further establishing our relationship with our counterparts in other parts of the region, really for the first time, in a very long, long time. So, I am hopeful and I also will say that we are getting the same from them, other regional agencies are reaching out to us, other agencies, other cities and their regions are reaching out to us as well. So, there is a spirit of cooperation that I haven’t seen in the region in a very long time and I hope that continues and growths in the coming years. Thank you. That concludes my report.

 

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

               

LAND USE COMMITTEE:

·                     Also at committee this week was 150622 Administrative, Planning Codes - Preferences in Affordable Housing Programs. Sponsor: Mayor, Christensen, Cohen, Breed, and Wiener.  On October 22 the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with modifications.  The substantive modifications included[1]:

 

o        Remove the proposal to expand the existing Displaced Tenant preference beyond the existing preference.  (Currently this preference is for tenants evicted under the Ellis Act.) The Commission requested that a trailing ordinance address this issue & be sent back to this Commission for review.

o        Approve the Neighborhood Preference at the Supervisorial District and add a half mile buffer from a selected project. The Commission also asked the Board to consider geographic boundaries smaller than the Supervisor District.

 

Last week, the Land Use Committee members discussed reducing the size of the neighborhood preference boundaries, but did not vote to amend the boundaries.  They did vote to amend the ordinance in order to remove the Displaced Tenant preference from the ordinance, acknowledging that it will be heard as a separate piece of legislation.  The committee also passed an amendment to increase the neighborhood reference to 40 percent. Because this was a substantive amendment the Committee continued the item to November 9th.

 

Supervisor Wiener then moved to duplicate the file and added an amendment that codifies a preference for people who live and work in San Francisco.  The duplicated file was then re-referred back to the Planning Commission for your review.

 

This week Clarifying Housing Preference legislation was heard again this week at Land Use due to the substantive nature of the amendment to increase the preference from 25% to 40 %. There was an hour of public testimony. Some community groups were very supportive of the 40% preference while other groups asked for a continuance so that the percentage could be increased to 100%.  The Land Use Committee unanimously approved the percentage of 40%, the neighborhood to be defined as Supervisor District plus the half mile buffer, and striking the expansion of the Displaced Tenant preference from the ordinance with the understanding that piece of the legislation would be heard at a later date. It is expected to be heard at the Full Board on November 17th.

FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NONE.

BOARD OF APPEALS:

No Report

 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISISON:

No Report

 

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:           Nina Saltman – Noe Valley changes, DR reform

                                                Mila Werner – 2720 Lyon Street Action Memo

 

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.

 

6.          2012.1398E                                                                                              (C. FORDHAM: (415) 575-9071)

1601 MARIPOSA STREET - 3.6-acre project site on portions of two blocks (Assessor’s Block 4005 and 4006) located in the Showplace Square/Potrero Sub-area of the Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plan bounded by Mariposa Street to the north, Arkansas Street to the east, 18th Street to the south, and Carolina Street to the westCertification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project would demolish three existing one- and two-story commercial, office, and warehouse buildings and associated surface parking lots and construct two four-story mixed-use buildings. Approximately 299 residential units and 9,555 square feet of ground floor commercial space would be distributed throughout both buildings. A two-level below-grade parking garage would contain approximately 249 parking spaces and be accessible from Arkansas Street and 18th Street. The proposed buildings would have heights ranging from 31 feet to 40 feet. A total of approximately 42,777 gsf of publicly accessible and private open space would be developed throughout the project site. The project site is located in an Urban Mixed-Use (UMU) Use District. 

NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on February 17, 2015. Public comment will be received when the item is called during the hearing. However, comments submitted may not be included in the Final EIR.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR

 

SPEAKERS:           + Bill Whitty – Project presentation

+ E.S. Duffy – Design presentation

+ Tony Rodriguez – Local electricians support

+ Ron Miguel – CEQA, exactly what was envisioned in EN

= Scott McBean – Live Oak School concerns during construction

= Kendra Masten – Health, safety and well-being during construction

= Amy Zamphonia – Effect on the school and the neighborhood

+ Donald Dousseff – Housing crisis

= Sara Dimes – EIR concerns, keep kids safe

+ Thomas Rogers – Affordable on-site housing, location

= Stephanie Cort – Hazardous materials mitigation

+ Sylvia Houssman – Support

= (M) Speaker – Design Interim Controls

= (F) Speaker – Issues and concerns

= Rob Minette – Design concerns

-   Tony Kelly – Design

= Yaro Merose – Deserves careful attention

= Jude Deckenbach – Open space concerns

= Wendy Smith – Issues

= Marianna Schiter – Live Oak School traffic

= Laura Bremmer – Scale of the project, open space, traffic

= Chris James – Live Oak School/students safety

= Elana Weinberg – Students concerns

= (F) Speaker – Traffic, noise, hazardous materials

= Stephanie Philbrand – Contruction site toxicity

= Jackie Boss – Jackson Park renovation

= Jeff Swarner – Details matter, setbacks

= Aisha Motsemn – Concerns

= Kathleen Dougherty – Impact fees, internal donation

= Debra Grashgreen – In kind agreement for an on-site community space

= Hash  Muravian – 35’ setback

= Kasha Mozniel – Traffic, infrastructure first

+ Gary Munoz – Sheet metal worker support

+ Martin Hwang – Sheet metal worker support

+ Danny Campbell – Sheet metal worker support

= Judith – Shadow impact to Jackson Park

-   Rick Hall – Displacement, inequity

-   Peter Papoudopolous – Urban mixed-use

-   Joel Koppel – Local union contractors

+ Drew Hess – Good place to add housing

= Virginia Hackman – Community facility

= Sarah Glicken – Neighborhood character

= Deborah Holley – On behalf of Live Oak School, pedestrian safety

= Scott Emblidge – Notion amendments

= Nate Lundy – Who will be living there?

-   Andy Blue – Not enough affordable housing, loss of PDR

                ACTION:                                Certified as Corrected

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

                MOTION:               19505

 

7a.          2012.1398E                                                                                                   (C. TOWNES: (415) 575-9195)

1601 MARIPOSA STREET- bounded by Mariposa Street, 18th Street, Carolina Street, and Arkansas Street; Lots 001B and 004 in Assessor’s Block 4005 and Lots 006, 010, 019 and 020 in Assessor’s Block 4006 - Adoption of CEQA Findings for the proposed project, including the demolition of three existing one-to-two-story office and warehouse buildings and a surface parking lot, and the construction of a new approximately 331,534 square foot, mixed-use residential development, including two four-story buildings up to 40 feet tall composed around a publically-accessible north-south mid-block alley, a publically-accessible east-west pedestrian passageway and two private interior residential courtyards. The proposed project includes 299 dwelling units, 5,593 square feet of retail, 3,962 square feet of PDR (Production, Distribution and Repair), 243 off-street parking spaces, six car-share parking spaces and a total of 369 bicycle parking spaces. The subject property is located within the UMU (Urban Mixed-Use) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Adopt Findings

 

SPEAKERS:           Same as Item 6.

                ACTION:                                Adopted CEQA Findings

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

                MOTION:               19506

 

7b.          2012.1398X                                                                                                   (C. TOWNES: (415) 575-9195)

                1601 MARIPOSA STREET - bounded by Mariposa Street, 18th Street, Carolina Street, and Arkansas Street; Lots 001B and 004 in Assessor’s Block 4005 and Lots 006, 010, 019 and 020 in Assessor’s Block 4006 - Request for a Large Project Authorization (LPA), pursuant to Planning Code Section 329, to demolish three existing one-to-two-story office and warehouse buildings and a surface parking lot, and construct a new approximately 331,534 square foot, mixed-use residential development, including two four-story buildings up to 40 feet tall composed around a publically-accessible north-south mid-block alley, a publically-accessible east-west pedestrian passageway and two private interior residential courtyards. The proposed project includes 299 dwelling units, 5,593 square feet of retail, 3,962 square feet of PDR (Production, Distribution and Repair), 243 off-street parking spaces, six car-share parking spaces and a total of 369 bicycle parking spaces. Under the LPA, the project is seeking modification to certain Planning Code requirements, including: 1) rear yard (Planning Code Section 134); 2) ground floor ceiling height (Planning Code Section 145); 3) off-street loading (Planning Code Section 152); and, 4) horizontal mass reduction (Planning Code Section 270). The subject property is located within the UMU (Urban Mixed-Use) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

 (Continued from Regular Hearing of October 22, 2015)

 

SPEAKERS:           Same as Item 6.

                ACTION:                                Approved with Conditions as Amended, including:

1.       Sponsor is strongly encouraged to perform demolition and hazard remediation during off-school hours, if unable, to return to the Commission with a status update;

2.       Provide weekly updates regarding remediation activities to anyone who requests such information;

3.       Consult with Live Oak School for the Construction & Transportation Mitigation Plan;

4.       Pursue an in-kind agreement with Rec&Park and DPW on Jackson Park and pedestrian safety mitigation measures and/or improvements;

5.       Continue to work with staff on design, specifically, to differentiate between the east and west buildings, and provide a better balance of soft vs. hard scape;

6.       Recognize that the project will be reviewed against the interim design controls.

Adding a finding acknowledging an increase from 10 to 20 three bedroom units in the final unit mix

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

                MOTION:               19507

 

8.                                                                                                                                        (G. KELLEY: (415) 575-9115)

CIVIC CENTER PUBLIC REALM PLAN - Informational presentation - The San Francisco Civic Center is the city’s preeminent public place – the civic and cultural heart of the city. The Civic Center’s public realm – that is, its streets, plazas, and other public spaces – is the fabric that holds the area together. A well-designed public realm is an important component of any neighborhood, but in the Civic Center these spaces take on even greater importance due to the area’s unique status as the public commons of San Francisco. The public realm plan is a central element to the City’s efforts to invigorate the Civic Center district, and will be complemented by an economic feasibility study for the reuse of Brooks Hall so that its future design and program complement and reinforce a redesigned Civic Center Plaza. Also, the public realm can only be successful if it includes the needs of all users in the area; therefore, the Planning Department will partner with other City agencies, community organizations and service providers to ensure the needs of the full range of residents and users are included in the designs.

Preliminary Recommendation:  None – Informational

 

SPEAKERS:           None

                ACTION:                                Continued to January 28, 2016

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

                ABSENT:                Hillis

 

9.             2015-013111CWP                                                                                        (M. SNYDER (415) 575-6891)

CANDLESTICK POINT - Informational presentation - Zone 1 of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project Area, the area generally bounded by Jamestown Avenue to the west, Giants Drive to Gilman Avenue to Hawes Street on the northwest, and the San Francisco Bay to the northeast, and southwest.    Candlestick Point, along with Hunters Point Shipyard received its master approvals in 2011 from the Board of Supervisors; they included, but were not limited to Certification of the EIR, adoption of CEQA findings, amendments to the Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Plan and adoption of Design for Development document (“D4D”),   In total, Candlestick Point would include 6,225 units, up to 785,000 gsf of retail (both regional and neighborhood serving), 150,000 gsf of office, 150,000 gsf of hotel use, an approximately 99,000 gsf performance venue, 50,000 gsf of community use and about 106 acres of open space.    The project sponsor has submitted applications for the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure (OCII) for initial construction of the proposed retail center, initial phase for Hope SF Alice Griffith, and surrounding blocks; they are also seeking amendments to the projects D4D, which will require approval by the Planning Commission.   This informational presentation is to provide the Planning Commission with an update of the overall project prior to an approval hearing for D4D amendments. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  None – Informational

 

SPEAKERS:           + Terrice Ferky – Information presentation

                                + Rve Aurelin Walker – Employment opportunities

                                + Linda Richardson – Opportunities for the Bayview/Hunters Point

                                = Patricia Vaughey – Poorly managed

                                + Dr. Veronica Honeycutt - Support

                ACTION:                                None – Informational

 

10.          2011.0671X                                                                                                       (R. SUCRE: (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 - Request for a Large Project Authorization (LPA), pursuant to Planning Code Section 329, for the new construction of a three-story industrial building (measuring approximately 47,575 gross square feet) on Pennsylvania Avenue, and a four-to-eight-story (respectively measuring 40-ft from existing grade on Pennsylvania Avenue, and 33-ft above curb height along Missouri Street) residential building (approximately 297,159 gross square feet) on 22nd Street with 250 dwelling units, 213 off-street parking spaces, four car-share parking spaces, 138 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces, and 15 Class 2 bicycle parking spaces. The project includes private and common open space, as well as a publically-accessible open space via a new stairway and landscaping along 22nd Street between Missouri and Texas Streets. Under the Large Project Authorization, the project is seeking exceptions to the requirements for: rear yard (Planning Code Section 134), dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Section 140), and off-street parking (Planning Code Section 151.1). The subject property is located within the UMU (Urban Mixed-Use) Zoning District, PDR-1-G (Production, Distribution and Repair-General) Zoning Districts, and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

 (Continued from Regular Hearing of October 15, 2015)

 

SPEAKERS:           + Tony Kelly – Continue out further

                                + Steve Vettel – One week continuance

                                = (F) Speaker – PG&E gas line

                ACTION:                                Continued to December 3, 2015

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

                ABSENT:                Hillis

 

11.          2015-001547CUA                                                                                    (W. FARRENS: (415) 575- 9172)

355 LAGUNA STREET - southwest corner of Oak and Laguna Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0840 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.4 and 303, to allow the addition of two dwelling units within the existing nine-unit residential building. The subject property is within a RTO (Residential, Transit Oriented) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:           + Serena Calhoun – Project presentation

                ACTION:                                Approved with Conditions

                AYES:                     Fong, Wu, Antonini, Moore

ABSENT:                Hillis, Johnson, Richards

                MOTION:               19508

 

12a.      2015-007328CUA                                                                                             (A. KIRBY: (415) 575-9133)

1805 BUCHANAN STREET - west side between Sutter and Bush Streets; Lot 073 in Assessor’s Block 0676 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 249.31 and 303 to construct a 4-story, 6-unit residential building over an existing underground garage structure serving the adjacent hotel, within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.  This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:           + Melinda Sarjapor – Project presentation

                                + Federiko Ingall – Design presentation

                ACTION:                                Approved with Conditions

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

                ABSENT:                Hillis

                MOTION:               19509

 

            12b.      2015-007328VAR                                                                                             (A. KIRBY: (415) 575-9133)

1805 BUCHANAN STREET - west side between Sutter and Bush Streets; Lot 073 in Assessor’s Block 0676 - Request for Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134 and 136(c)(2)(F), to allow the proposed structure to encroach into the required rear yard and to allow proposed bay windows on the east façade to exceed the minimum width limitation. The project is to construct a 4-story, 6-unit residential building over an existing underground garage structure serving the adjacent hotel, within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

SPEAKERS:           Same as Item 12a.

ACTION:                After hearing and closing public comment; the ZA indicated an intent to Grant

               

                13.          2012.0951C                                                                                                (W. FARRENS: (415) 575-9172)

2444 LOMBARD STREET - north side between Divisadero and Scott Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 0936 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 712.56, to allow the temporary conversion of an existing parking lot (currently accessory to a retail use dba “Wolf & Lion Pet Supplies”) into a commercial parking lot open to the general public. The property is within a NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate Scale) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

 

SPEAKERS:           + Patricia Rodriguez – Project presentation

                                + Patricia Vaughey - Support

                ACTION:                                Approved with Conditions

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

                ABSENT:                Hillis

                MOTION:               19510

 

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.

 

14.          2015-002683DRM                                                                                         (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)

2414 LOMBARD STREET - north side between Divisadero and Scott Streets; Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 0936 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of an application to establish a Medical Cannabis Dispensary d.b.a. Apothocarium. The project includes tenant improvements to a vacant ground-floor commercial space under Building Permit Application 2015.03.03.9784 within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) 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.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Hearing of October 22, 2015)

 

SPEAKERS:           + (M) Speaker – Project presentation

+ Brett Gladstone – Project presentation continue

-   (F) Speaker – Organized opposition

-   (M) Speaker Organized opposition

-   Catherine Stephanie, Aide to Supervisor Farrell – Request for continuance

+ Ron Miguel – Elitist NIMBY’s

-   Don Keasel-Horse – Impact to King Edward II

+ Peter Fortune – Reject the NIMBY argument

-   Sandy Dean – Surrounding uses and businesses

-   J.T. Cons – Martial arts business owner – opposition

-   Scott Hoops – Impact to the at risk kids

+ Paul Spicer – Support

                                                + Robert McLoud – Support

                                                + Mira Ingram – Support

-   Sarah Dean – Youth opposition

-   Michelle Manini – Opposition

-   (F) Speaker – Opposition

-   (M) Speaker – Opposition

+ David Goldman – Castro site

+ Michael Conley – Castro site

-   David Bancroft – Why this location?

-   Mark Brukleshell – Opposition

-   Eve Solomon – Opposition

+ (F) Speaker – Teach kids to not use it

+ Paul Oruz – Give us foot traffic on Lombard

+ Jason Buktner – North side of the City need a dispensary

+ David Troupe – Model operation

+ Marsha Ronsebaun – Allow the Apothecarium in my neighborhood

+ (M) Speaker – Castro model operation

+ Sarah Adler – Pain relief

+ Bo Apperly – Support

+ Donna Dorian – Support

+ Horry Caseras – Support

+ Kitsia Villas – Support

+ Kip Clifton – Support

+ Dana Lovette – Set up

+ Scott Bislowsky – Real reason for opposition

+ Michelle Aldridge – People shouldn’t be prevented from getting their medicine

+ Michael Aldridge – Marina patients need this

+ Steven – MCD’s do not harm kids or neighborhoods

+ Drew Goldberg – Support

+ Sarah Berhardt – Support

+ Daniel Bergerack – Support

+ Troy Renae – Support

+ 9M) Speaker – Support

+ Alan Beach Nelson – Outstanding for the neighborhood

+ William Firschland – Support

+ Michael Carruso – Support

+ (M) Speaker – Attributes of medical marijuana

-   Nancy McAteer – Children

+ Jerry Waldon – Support

+ Michael Smithwick – Very well run operation

-   Patricia Vaughey – Business opposition

ACTION:                  After hearing and closing public comment; a motion to continue to December 17, 2015 failed +3 -3 (Moore, Richards, Wu against); a motion to Take DR and Disapprove failed +3 -3 (Moore, Richards, Wu against); a motion to Take DR and Approve with Conditions as adopted, including:

1.       No sales to persons under 21;

2.       No delivery;

3.       Provide a dedicated contact person/liaison;

4.       Conduct monthly meeting with Larkin Street Youth, indefinitely; and

5.       Provide a six month and one year update presentation to CPC            

                AYES:                     Wu, Johnson, Moore, Richards

                NAYES:                  Fong, Antonini

                ABSENT:                Hillis

                DRA No:                                0440

 

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 - 8:44 P.M.

ADOPTED: December 3, 2015

 



[1] Another modification included: Recognize that while there is no change to the Certificate of Preference (COP) program, the ordinance would place Preference requirements in the Admin. Code & references within the Planning Code.