Planning Commission - October 20, 2016 - Minutes
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, October 20, 2016
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:13 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Jeff Joslin - Acting Planning Director , Maia Small, Veronica Flores, Mary Woods, Sharon Young, Christopher May, Brittany Bendix, Laura Ajello, Ella Samonsky, Alexandra Kirby, 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. 2014.1063DNX (C. ASBAGH: (415) 575-9165)
633 FOLSOM STREET - south side of Folsom Street, at the intersection of Folsom and Hawthorne Streets; lot 079 of Assessor’s Block 3750 (District 6) - Request for a Downtown Project Authorization per Planning Code Section 309, including requests for exceptions to the bulk requirements in the 200-S Height and Bulk District (Section 270), ground-Level wind current requirements in C-3 Districts (Section 148), and off-street loading space requirements (Section 152.1). The proposal would construct a four-story, 92,244 square foot addition to the existing, seven-story 174,693 square foot office building. In addition the proposal would re-clad the existing façade with a new metal and glass curtain wall system, reconfigure the ground floor to move and expand the retail space and construct a new corner lobby. The result will be an 11-story, 160-foot tall building with 264,672 square feet of office space and 5,000 square feet of ground floor retail space. The project site is located in the Downtown Commercial, Support (C-3-S) Zoning District and 200-S 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
(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2017)
SPEAKERS: John Kevlin – Mid Dec.
ACTION: Continued to December 8, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
1b. 2014.1063OFA (C. ASBAGH: (415) 575-9165)
633 FOLSOM STREET - south side of Folsom Street, at the intersection of Folsom and Hawthorne Streets; lot 079 of Assessor’s Block 3750 (District 6) - Request for an Office Development Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 321 and 322 to construct a four-story addition and to authorize up to 89,979 square feet from the Office Development Annual Limit. The proposal would construct a four-story, 92,244 square foot addition to the existing, seven-story 174,693 square foot office building. In addition the proposal would re-clad the existing façade with a new metal and glass curtain wall system, reconfigure the ground floor to move and expand the retail space and construct a new corner lobby. The result will be an 11-story, 160-foot tall building with 264,672 square feet of office space and 5,000 square feet of ground floor retail space. The project is located within the Downtown Commercial, Support (C-3-S) Zoning District and 200-S Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2017)
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 1a.
ACTION: Continued to December 8, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
2. 2013.1037C (C. MAY: (415) 575-9087)
650 DIVISADERO STREET - southeast corner of Divisadero and Grove Streets; Lot 002B in Assessor’s Block 1202 (District 5) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.1, 303 and 746.11 to permit the development of a 6-story mixed-use building containing 60 residential dwelling units above ground floor parking and commercial uses within the Divisadero Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT) District, the Fringe Financial Services Restricted Use District and 65-A 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: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to January 12, 2017)
SPEAKERS: John Kevlin – January 26th
ACTION: Continued to January 26, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
3. 2015-003686CUA (N. TRAN: (415) 575-9174)
437 HOFFMAN AVENUE - east side of Hoffman Avenue, between 24th and 25th Streets, Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 6503 (District 8) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317 (tantamount to demolition), for a project proposing to demolish an existing three-story over basement, single-family residence and construct additions to create a three-story over basement building with two dwelling units. Exterior changes such as raising the structure ~6 feet for a new garage door, front porch, entry stairs, rear terrace/deck as well as extensive interior remodeling are also proposed. The subject property 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: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 2, 2016)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: Janet Fowler – Advantageous code amendments
Georgia Schuttish – Should be heard today
Anastasia Yoganapolous – Consider it today
ACTION: Continued to January 19, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
B. COMMISSION MATTERS
4. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for October 6, 2016
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
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 Richards:
I was waiting today to actually put this image up on the screen for everybody to see, I
was reading Dwell magazine, I don’t remember what month it is, the other morning I almost choked on my coffee when I saw this image. You can see this very large house with a 52 foot wall next to this small bungalow and there was letter to the editor, so this was in Dwell magazine, give me a couple minutes here – the story describing architect William Carpenter’s light room [inaudible] auto is being built to “sit unobtrusively among his 1920 neighbors” cause me to guffaw impulsively when I saw the photograph of the building’s placement in the neighborhood. While I might appreciate the design in Venice, California where the original bungalows have been replaced to the degree the character of the community is now determined by multi-millionaires, I find that the zero lot line variance Mr. Carpenter in loss of what were once expansive views in the neighboring homes worthy of serious criticism that was the letter of the editor. The architect responds, and I'm only bringing this up today because we have the Residential Design Guidelines on the agenda, and that's why I wanted to do this. William Carpenter, FAIA PH.D., says the zero lot line is not a variance, it is a city zoning code, it also allows for eight stories of height and we choose only to build 3 stories and a roof deck. Venice, California has similar scale and site issues with residential buildings near larger boxy commercial buildings. It also depends if you like boxy buildings, and we do. While this is now a fore ground building, it will someday be a background building, as the land value will exceed the value of bungalows in this city. Just down the street a large mixed use development removed many of the existing buildings. One day this building will be a background building with structure on either side, which become much part of an energized multi-variance streetscape leading to the town square. I look at that image I just want to choke because we're talking about, what we consider being sensitive neighbors when you’re right on top of each other and if you're in that little bungalow and you have that big 52 inch blank wall next to you, what is that going to do to your quality of life and the streetscape and the character? So anyway, as we think about the Urban Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Guidelines put that into context and what happens everywhere else, we are actually, further ahead than Savannah, Georgia is.
Commissioner Koppel:
I want to send a personal thank to Commissioner Richards for hosting and organizing a very useful land use discussion this past week at the Swedish-American Hall at 2170 Market Street. There were both sides of each table up on the stage addressing what is kind of out of our hands, what would be on the ballot this November and the crowd was very civil. There were some hot topics that came up and some special people up there defending their sides of the story, and I saw Commissioner Moore there also, and wanted to say that it was a great evening.
C. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
None
7. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
• 160965 Planning, Green Building Codes - Better Roof Requirements, Including Living Roofs. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Brask/Joslin.
At Monday’s Land Use Committee hearing, the committee heard Supervisor Wiener’s Better Roofs Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance amends the Planning and Green Building Codes to establish standards for new building construction facilitating the development of renewable energy facilities and living roofs. The Planning Commission heard this item on September 15th and recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors.
At the hearing, the sponsor made small editorial changes that did not affect the substance of the legislation. There were two public commenters in support of the ordinance, including SPUR and a living roof designer. There were no opposing comments. The committee then voted to recommend the item to the the full board.
• 160989 Interim Zoning Controls - Large Residential Projects in RH-1, RH-2, and RH-3 Zoning Districts. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Starr. Item 3
Also at Land Use was the extension to the Interim Controls for the Corona Heights neighborhood. These Interim Controls have been in effect for 18 months and this resolution would extend them by another 6 months. The interim controls require Conditional Use authorization for residential buildings over 3,000 sq. ft. or that have total lot coverage of 55% or more. This item was recommended to the Full Board.
• 160999 Hearing - Update on the Subway Master Plan. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Harris. And finally Supervisor Wiener called a hearing for an update on the Subway Master Plan. MTA has been seeking feedback from the public on where new subway lines should go. The results of the survey can be viewed on MTA’s web site and various new outlets. The presentation on the Subway Master Plan was done primarily by MTA’s new Planning Director, Sarah Jones. Planning Staff was in attendance, but did not present.
FULL BOARD:
• 160509 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Rezoning 2070 Folsom Street. Sponsor: Campos. Staff: Salcedo. PASSED Second Read
• 160960 Planning Code - Temporary Homeless Shelters in Certain Industrial and Mixed-Use Districts. Sponsor: Mayor. Staff: Starr. Passed First Read
• 160961 Summary Street Vacation - 25th Street - Temporary Navigation Center for Homeless Residents. Sponsor: Mayor. Staff: Samonsky. Passed First Read
• 160996 Urging the Establishment of the LGBTQ Nightlife and Culture Working Group. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Frye. Adopted
INTRODUCTIONS:
• 161093 Administrative Code - Short-Term Residential Rental Limit of 60 Days per Year and Private Right of Action. Sponsor: Breed, Peskin, Campos, and Kim.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Board of Appeals did meet last night, two items that might be of interest first, the appeal of a variance, a rear yard variance, that I heard from 1948 Pacific. The appellant had concerns regarding privacy and encroachment into their rear yard from their adjacent neighbor. The Board first heard this last month and continued the item to give time to the parties to try resolve some of these matters, noting that the Section 311 Notification has not yet been performed, so there’s still the ability to have a DR and other appeals on the building permit. There were some level of compromise at the hearing last night. The Board granted the appeal and make revisions to include some privacy screening, which was a little bit unclear from the appellant perspective, whether or not that will addresses their concerns, but certainly there will be a Section 311 Notification, and may be a DR before you and at some point in the future. The other item is 473 Haight Street, you had heard this as a discretionary review from a building permit to expand an existing MCD at the subject property. The appeal last night was actually of the Department of Public Health issue of the operator permit for the MCD. We have approved this referral some time ago, because they have modified their plan to occupy it as the previous tenants had occupied it. So, there's a Public Health process where they have a hearing on this. The decision is ultimately appealed to the Board last night. The Board was very concerned because at the Public Health hearing, there was one hearing held, they noted -- stated, that they would have a subsequent hearing and even calendared date, but after that hearing they issued the decision without having any future hearing on it. So, the Board was very concerned about this, and the due process concerns that were raised. Ultimately, this is a de novo hearing last night at the Board of Appeals so they have the full matter before them and don't have to rely on the previous hearings and can correct those due process procedural errors. The Board voted +3 -2 to deny thee appeal, but they were some general consensus on the Board that they concerned about the process that had not been properly followed, that's all the building permit for that, we approved it after the discretionary review hearing, and it’s working its way to the process and will also go to the Board of Appeals at some point in the future.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
Good afternoon Commissioners, Tim Frye, Department staff, here to share with you a couple of items from yesterday’s Historic Preservation Commission hearing. The Historic Preservation Commission heard a progress report and informational presentation on the Filipino Cultural Heritage District Strategy. This is a strategy that was mandated through resolution by the Board of Supervisors introduced by Supervisor Kim in April of this year. Since then, the Department has been working directly with the Filipino Community in the South of Market area. To an several goals that they’ve outlined, in order to provide the cultural visibility, economic opportunity and sustainability efforts within the South of Market area for Filipinos and Filipino-Americans. At this time Department staff shared the progress report on the strategy with the Historic Preservation Commission and members of the community were there to outline the numerous community events they've developing the strategy. The item will come before the Planning Commission next week, so you'll have an opportunity to review that strategy as well and then in December the Planning Department along with the Filipino community will be providing an implementation strategy, as they're a number of city agencies that need to be involved in making some of these goals a reality, so we'll be more for this Commission to weigh in come next week. Also, wanted to give you an update on the Legacy Businesses Program, the Historic Preservation Commission has been reviewing at least 10 to 15 applications for the program at each of their hearings, public comment has substantially increased at these hearings, showing there's a great deal of public support, and for not only small businesses but for neighborhoods that contain those small businesses, and finding mechanisms to preserve this businesses for enjoyment for all. As you may know the Historic Preservation Commission provides its recommendation to the Small Business Commission and they are the final decision makers on whether or not a business is included in the registry, and then later on whether or not those businesses are eligible for funds to support either rent or offset the costs of employee retention. As of yesterday, there were nine applications all unanimously supported by the Historic Preservation Commission and we expect to be 15 at the hearing next week or in two weeks. That concludes my comments, unless you have any questions.
D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
SPEAKERS: Rose Hillson – Design Guidelines
Article 7 NCD “reorganization” doesn’t port existing code 100%.
Definitions are changed or undefined. Unintended consequences addressed by: “Any other discrepancy between an Article 1, or 2 or 7 references in this Section of the Code and the actual or intended reference shall be arbitrated by the Zoning Administrator on a case-by-case basis.”
Request deletion here & in Article 2 Residential legislation.
In Article 7 tables: “Design Guidelines” reference the “General Plan Commerce and Industry Element” [CIE] and states “Subject to the Urban Design Guidelines.” Please clarify this reference as being only UDGs in the CIE or if referring to upcoming draft UDG. Does it also include Maps 4/5 of Urban Design Element, or the UDGs in Balboa Park or Chinatown Area Plans?
Article 7 and upcoming legislation pertaining to building design, size or lots need to be looked at altogether in 2017.
Paul Webber – Formula Retail
We have submitted three letters opposing the project. The Staff says there are no substantive changes, which is not true. Four neighborhood groups have found numerous substantive changes, together with a “safety valve provision” that says, “if we haven’t gotten it right the Zoning Administrator will arbitrate what it should be.” Now we find that the proposed “nonsubstantive” changes will also reduce the Formula Retail protections of Article 3.
Please suspend this process indefinitely and have Staff hold comprehensive sessions with NCDs in each Supervisor District to ensure that all comprehend what is being done and can meaningfully respond. While Article 7 & 8 should proceed concurrently, we are concerned about unintended consequence which can follow from the number of other pending land use changes such as changes to “demolition” rules, and various design guidelines.
Patricia Vaughey – Future meetings and agendas
Georgia Schuttish – Section 317
E. REGULAR CALENDAR
The Commission Hearing Procedures provide for presentations by staff; followed by the project sponsor team; followed by public comment for and against the proposal. Please be advised that the project sponsor team includes: the sponsor(s) or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors.
8. 2014.0556GPA (L. LANGLOIS: (415) 575-9083)
VISION ZERO - General Plan Amendment - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, the Planning Commission will consider adopting amendments to the Transportation Element and Urban Design Element of the General Plan, making Planning Code Section 101.1 findings, and recommending that the Board of Supervisors adopt an Ordinance approving the amendments. 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: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: = Lily Langlois – Staff report
= Rose Hillson – Vision Zero
“Vision Zero” legislation DELETES 2 MAPS in TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT and revises URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT of GENERAL PLAN:
à Map 11 (“Citywide Pedestrian Network”)
à Map 12 (“Neighborhood Pedestrian Streets” – mostly NCD streets)
“San Francisco Pedestrian Strategy” publication illustrates streets not on Maps 11 nor 12. They’re called “High-Injury” & “High-Priority” Streets.
1. With many streets already calmed, any re-examination of future “Key Walking Streets” since publication?
2. Since the General Plan doesn’t include “Vision Zero,” these Elements are being amended. The maps bifurcated pedestrian streets from mostly neighborhood commercial streets and “Vision Zero” covers both, will there be a combined map for “Vision Zero”?
3. Is there a particular set of “Vision Zero” street design features for “High-Priority Segments” (e.g. Geary)? for “High-Risk Corridors”? for “Key Walking Streets”?
4. What’s the fatality rate for each year since inception?
= George Wooding – Paratransit
= Patricia Vaughey – Conflict, site specific
= Maria Eliza – SFMTA controversy
+ Mari Hunter – Institutionalizing Vision Zero
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 19758
9. 2016-000162CWP (M. SMALL: (415) 575-9160)
URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES – Informational Presentation, overview and update of the Department’s proposed Urban Design Guidelines, community engagement process, and revised adoption schedule.
Preliminary Recommendation: None – Informational
SPEAKERS: = Maia Small – Staff Report
+ Ron Miguel – Opposed to coalition position
- George Wooding – Opposed, waivers
- Rose Hillson – UDG’s, future legislation
Per the Jan. 21, 2016 Executive Summary, reasons for the citywide UDG included: for the many guidelines today, the “authority may be unclear;” or they’re “vague” with “no clear means of applying guidelines” in a formal system.
The Jan. 15, 2016 ahbp Public Q&A-011516.pdf states, “The AHBP Design guidelines…will be incorporated into citywide design guidelines…” so November 2015 “AHBP Draft Design Guidelines” are essentially cloned in the draft “Urban Design Guidelines.” Many neighborhoods rejected the AHBP.
The UDG says it is the “primary design guideline…to guide all buildings in all districts.” Staff says it’s only for large projects but the UDG doesn’t state that.
The UDG, the Residential Design Guidelines, the Ground Floor Design Guidelines, Article 7 and even the Residential Expansion Threshold legislation which will inform building design should not be taken up piecemeal. UDGs as a “form-specific guidance” will violate existing Planning Code sections.
- Paul Webber –
I opposed the Urban Design Guidelines referred to in the Staff Executive Summary for the January 21, 2016 Meeting of the Commission for a number of reasons:
1. Ambiguous as to what they are intended to replace or supplement, such as Urban Design Element of General Plan, Urban Design Guidelines of Commerce and Industry Element, or Design Guidelines referred to in AHBP proposal (from which they appear to have been cloned). Also please clarify their role and hierarchy among other design guidelines within the General Plan.
2. While there has been some neighborhood outreach, am in the dark about any responsive changes.
3. Need neighborhood supplements to avoid hard edged “one size fits all.”
4. The waiver provision needs to be eliminated in its entirety. One already exists for the Commission, NOT the Zoning Administrator
- Georgia Schuttish – Fenestration
1. Fenestration needs more detail windows & style of windows need to be reconsidered.
2. Please present the matrix that staff showed on Jan 21st on the overhead that shows overlap of all guidelines.
3. “May apply” on Page 2 of draft is the same as waiver. There should be no waiver.
4. Let the UDGs percolate. Put them on hold. Need to go on and deal with RDGs because architectural trends in the Rs are speeding ahead while revisions are not happening and are needed.
= Lisa Fromer – Transit
- Edward Mason – Urban Design Guidelines
The UDG is filled with generalities, subjective value judgements, vague notions and contradictory positions. It’s unclear how planners would use them to assess the merits of a proposed project.
An example of a baseless value judgment that should not have a place in the UDGs follows: ”The inclusion of sustainable design principles and practices result in dense urban development that is inherently environmentally-friendly.”
Omit the waiver concept. If a project doesn’t conform to planning guidelines, but is so special it requires a waiver, planning staff can file a DR on behalf of the project for a public hearing for approval at the Planning Commission, so the transparency integrity of the process is preserved.
Scarp the UDGs, and develop specific guidelines for high-density districts and large scale developments. Develop neighborhood specific Residential Design Guidelines to maintain architectural integrity of different San Francisco neighborhoods and remove the Waiver concept.
- Anastasia Yovanopoulos – Role in reviewing projects
The UDG is the work-product of a select advisory group of architects, developers and special interest, not all relevant stakeholders.
Your role in the process is reduced to reviewing administratively pre-approved projects, to provide findings. The public’s role in reviewing projects is effectively curtailed.
Questions and legitimate concerns we’ve raised with planning staff have not been addressed. Meetings are perfunctory. Meaningful engagement and consultation needs to transpire.
Where is the matrix of all guidelines that’s been called for? How can we decide whether the UDGs are essentially better guidelines that what already exist in some areas if we don’t know what we are comparing it to?
· Large projects require added scrutiny.
· Permitting the waiver of guidelines provision to remain an integral UDG component is preposterous.
· Guidelines for projects need to separate from procedures.
Reject the UDG until all stakeholders have sufficient opportunity to participate in formulating it.
= Mary Gallagher – UDG’s, implementation, procedures, waivers
- Patricia Vaughey – Community outreach
- Mari Eliza – Needs to be part on hold
ACTION: None – Informational
10a. 2015-007338CUA (V. FLORES: (415) 575-9173)
3431 TARAVAL STREET - between 44th and 45th Avenues, Lot 045A in Assessor’s Block 2381 (District 4) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 209.2 establish a community facility institutional use (d.b.a North East Medical Services (NEMS)) in an existing one-story structure within a RM-1 (Residential - Mixed, Low-Density) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal also includes alterations of the existing building, a one-story vertical addition, and façade alterations. NEMS offers primary medical care - adult medicine, pediatrics, OB/GYN and specialty services such as cardiology, allergy, ENT, radiology, surgery and ophthalmology. NEMS also provides dental and optometry care. Ancillary services include: laboratory, x-ray and pharmacy. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:30am – 5:00pm Mondays through Fridays, and also open on Saturdays after one year of operation. 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: = Veronica Flores – Staff Report
+ Nelson Wong – Project presentation
- David Walsh – Institutional use in residential area
- Mary Stapp – Not compliant
- Elise Sorante – Parking
- Speaker – Duplicate, traffic, parking
+ Katherine Wolfe – Good quality medical care
+ Frank Fung – Response to questions
ACTION: After a motion to continue failed +3 -4 (Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Fong against); Approved with Conditions as amended to mitigate the roof deck terrace with planters, trellis or other means.
AYES: Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
NAYES: Richards
MOTION: 19759
10b. 2015-007338VAR (V. FLORES: (415) 575-9173)
3431 TARAVAL STREET - between 44th and 45th Avenues, Lot 045A in Assessor’s Block 2381 (District 4) – Request for Variance from the Zoning Administrator to address the rear yard requirements (Planning Code Section 134) which requires a rear yard 45% of the total lot depth, whereas the project provides a rear yard 25% of the total lot depth for the new vertical addition. The proposal also includes alterations of the existing building, a one-story vertical addition, and façade alterations. NEMS offers primary medical care - adult medicine, pediatrics, OB/GYN and specialty services such as cardiology, allergy, ENT, radiology, surgery and ophthalmology. NEMS also provides dental and optometry care. Ancillary services include: laboratory, x-ray and pharmacy. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:30am – 5:00pm Mondays through Fridays, and also open on Saturdays after one year of operation. The site is located within a RM-1 (Residential - Mixed, Low-Density) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 10a.
ACTION: ZA closed the public hearing and indicated an intent to Grant
11. 2015-014461CUA (V. FLORES: (415) 575-9173)
1441 OCEAN AVENUE - at Miramar Avenue, Lot 059 in Assessor’s Block 6941 (District 7) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 737.81 establish a medical service (d.b.a North East Medical Services (NEMS)) in an existing one-story structure within the Ocean Avenue NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) District, Balboa Park Area Plan, and 45-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal also includes alterations of the existing building, a one-story vertical addition, and façade alterations. Additionally, the proposed use size requires CUA pursuant to Planning Code Section 737.21 since it is greater than 4,000 square feet. NEMS offers primary medical care - adult medicine, pediatrics, OB/GYN and specialty services such as cardiology, allergy, ENT, radiology, surgery and ophthalmology. NEMS also provides dental and optometry care. Ancillary services include: laboratory, x-ray and pharmacy. The proposed hours of operation are from 8:30am – 5:00pm Mondays through Fridays, and also open on Saturdays after one year of operation. 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: = Veronica Flores – Staff Report
+ Nelson Wong – Project presentation
+ Don Weaver – Activate the ground floor
- Annie - Opposition
+ Siu Jung – Senior NEMS members access to service
+ Kathy Wolfe – Choices for medical services
= Louise – Go back to the neighborhood for open dialogue retail stores
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to provide a pharmacy component on the ground floor
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar
NAYES: Moore
MOTION: 19760
12. 2014.1305CUA (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
1001 VAN NESS AVENUE - northwest corner at O’Farrell Street; Lot 016 in Assessor’s Block 0714 (District 5) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134, 151.1, 152, 243, 253, 253.2, 271, 303 and 304 to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to demolish an existing four-story TV studio/office building and construct a 14-story mixed-use building containing 239 dwelling units, approximately 5,100 square feet of retail/restaurant space on the ground floor, approximately 195 parking spaces (including 2 car share spaces), and 259 bicycle spaces. The proposal includes PUD modifications to provisions related to off-street loading spaces, floor area premium for corner lots, rear yard, and CU for height above 50 feet, street frontage greater than 50 feet, bulk exception, off-street parking, and wind current exception. The project site is located in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District, the Van Ness Automotive Special Use District, the Van Ness Avenue Area Plan, and 130-V 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: = Mary Woods – Staff Report
+ Juan Carlos Wallace – Project presentation
+ Glenn Rescaldo – Design presentation
- Sophie Hellenger – Van Ness improvement project poor timing of construction
+ Marlaine Morgan – Activate the corner
+ Moe Jamil – Community engagement
+ Jim Dykas – Support
+ Corey Smith – Support
+ Danny Campbell – Support
+ Grant Easy – Support
- Justine – Traffic, too tall
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to comply with the TDM requirement
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
MOTION: 19761
13. 2016-005768CUA (S. YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)
2060 CHESTNUT STREET - north side between Pierce Street and Mallorca Way, Lot 009 in Assessor’s Block 0486A (District 2); Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 303.1, 703.3, and 703.4 to establish a Formula Retail Use within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, Chestnut Street Financial Service Subdistrict, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is to convert a vacant ground floor commercial space with approximately 2,000 square feet of floor area (previously occupied by “G-Star Raw”, a retail store use) into a Formula Retail Use (d.b.a. Bluemercury) and continuing as a retail store use, specializing in beauty and wellness products. 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: = Sharon Young – Staff report
+ Dan Borshere – Project presentation
+ Taylor Jordan – Community outreach
= Patricia Vaughey – Clarification
= Silvia Johnson – Inaudible
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
ABSENT: Richards
MOTION: 19762
14. 2015-008674CUA (C. MAY: (415) 575-9087)
325 29th AVENUE - west side, between Clement Street and California Street, Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 1404 (District 1) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317 to demolish an existing one-story, single-family dwelling and construct a new four-story, 2-unit building within an RH-2 (Residential – House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: = Chris May – Staff Report
+ Kate McGee – Project presentation
= Jamie Dayos – Keep within the residential design guidelines
= Katie Dayos – Shadow, precedent
- Susanne Kelly – Existing conditions
- Jeff Kelly – Neighborhood character
- Mark Challert – Neighborhood character
- Jeff Bostener – Neighborhood character
- Mary Gallagher – Neighborhood character
- Raymond Lee – Negative impacts
= Amy Lee – Family sized housing
= Silvia Johnson – Inaudible
- Steve Williams – Community outreach
- Tom Bollock – Special block
ACTION: After hearing and closing public comment; Continued to January 19, 2017 with direction from the Commission
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
15. 2015-013617CUA (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
471 24TH AVENUE - located on the west side of 24th Avenue between Clement Street and Geary Boulevard, Lot 013 in Assessor’s Block 1456 (District 1) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317 to demolish a two-story single family dwelling through a major alteration within a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The project will construct horizontal additions at the front and rear of the existing structure, construct a two-story vertical addition, renovate the front façade and establish two addition dwelling units. The resulting 40-foot tall building will contain three dwelling units. 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 6, 2016)
SPEAKERS: = Brittany Bendix – Staff Report
+ Speaker – Project presentation
+ Speaker – Project presentation
= Silvia Johnson -
ACTION: After hearing and closing public comment; Continued to January 26, 2017 with direction from the Commission
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
16. 2014.1531C (L.AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)
144-152 CLEMENT STREET - northeast corner of Clement Street and 3rd Avenue; Lots 025 and 050 in Assessor’s Block 1431 (District 1) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 303.1 to legalize the establishment of a Formula Retail hardware store (d.b.a. Standard Plumbing ACE Hardware) on the ground floor of the two-story commercial building within the Inner Clement NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) 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: = Laura Ajello – Staff presentation
+ Johnny Chang – Project presentation
+ Richard Tepp – Design presentation, signage
+ Andrew Sunn - Support
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
MOTION: 19763
F. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW CALENDAR
The Commission Discretionary Review Hearing Procedures provide for presentations by staff; followed by the DR requestor team; followed by public comment opposed to the project; followed by the project sponsor team; followed by public comment in support of the project. Please be advised that the DR requestor and project sponsor teams include: the DR requestor and sponsor or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors.
17. 2015-001725DRP (E. SAMONSKY: (415) 575-9112)
2018 19TH STREET – north side of 19th Street between Kansas Street and Rhode Island Street; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 4030 (District 10)- Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.0204.7444 proposing construction of a three-story, single-family dwelling 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 as Amended
SPEAKERS: = Ella Samonsky – Staff Report
- Diane Merlino – DR presentation
- Speaker – Negative impacts
- Marilyn Merlino – Privacy
- Speaker – Opposition
+ Jonathan Pearlman – Project presentation
- Mary Gallagher – Rebuttal
ACTION: Took DR and Approved as request changes:
1. Provide a gable roof with a peak not higher than the adjacent buildings and the reduction in height of rear one-story room by two-feet;
2. Continue the three-foot setback on the west wall to the second floor;
3. Remove the solid parapet adjacent to the skylights; and
4. Remove the roof deck
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
NAYES: Johnson
DRA No: 0488
18. 2015-006815DRP (A. KIRBY: (415) 575-9133)
813 LYON STREET - west side of Lyon Street between Golden Gate Avenue and Turk Street; Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 1150 (District 2) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.05.07.5705, proposing the construction of a two-story vertical addition and horizontal expansion to accommodate two new dwelling units within the 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.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to January 19, 2016
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
19. 2015-007103DRP (A. KIRBY: (415) 575-9133)
567 47TH AVENUE - west side of 47th Avenue between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; Lot 016A in Assessor’s Block 1497 (District 1) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.05.12.6116, proposing the construction of a third floor vertical addition and horizontal infill additions at the rear 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: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve with Modifications
SPEAKERS: = Ally Kirby – Staff Report
- Ron Miguel – DR presentation
- Berit Pedersen – Opposition
- Jason Jungreis – Opposition
- Arthur Adams - Opposition
+ Tomas P. Tunny – Project presentation
+ Lewis Butler – Design presentation
+ Val Steele – Support
- John Anzur - Rebuttal
ACTION: Took DR and Approved with staff modifications
AYES: Fong, Richards, Hillis, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
DRA No: 0489
G. PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.
The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:
(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or
(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or
(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))
Adjournment – 9:13 P.M.
ADOPTED: November 3, 2016