Planning Commission - May 21, 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, May 21, 2015
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:07 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Chris Townes, Paul Maltzer, Rich Sucre, Brittany Bendix, Jonathan DiSalvo, Tina Chang, 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. 2013.0485X (D. VU: (415) 575-9120)
750 HARRISON STREET- north side between 3rd and 4th Streets – Lot 029 in Assessor’s Block 3751 – Request for Large Project Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 329 including rear yard and permitted obstructions exceptions for the proposed construction of a new eight-story, 85-foot tall building consisting of approximately 2,537 square feet of commercial space at the ground floor and up to 77 single room occupancy (SRO) dwelling units totaling 40,640 square feet on the second through eighth floors. The subject property is located within the MUO (Mixed Use Office) District with an 85-X Height and Bulk Designation.
(Proposed for Continuance to May 28, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to June 4, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
2a. 2013.1179CV (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
1700 MARKET STREET - north side of Market Street at the intersection of Haight Street and Gough Street, Lots 016 in Assessor’s Block 0855 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 207.6 and 303 to modify the required unit mix, as less than 40% of the total number of proposed dwelling units on site contains at least two bedrooms. The proposal is to demolish the existing two-story commercial building and construct an eight-story 31,673 square foot mixed-use building with 48 dwelling units, 1,549 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 50 bicycle parking spaces, within a Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT-3) District and 85-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 April 23, 2015)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 18, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to June 18, 2015
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
2b. 2013.1179CV (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
1700 MARKET STREET - north side of Market Street at the intersection of Haight Street and Gough Street, Lots 016 in Assessor’s Block 0855 - Request for a Variance from Planning Code Section 136 (permitted obstructions) and a modification of the rear yard requirements (Planning Code Section 134), which the Zoning Administrator will consider following the Planning Commission’s consideration of the request for Conditional Use Authorization. This project is located within a Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT-3) District and 85-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 23, 2015)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 18, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Acting ZA Continued to June 18, 2015
3. 2014.1137D (C. TOWNES: (415) 575-9174)
865 RHODE ISLAND STREET– east side of Rhode Island Street between Southern Heights Avenue and 20th Street, Lot 056 in Assessor’s Block 4095 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2013.1231.5423 (Remodel/Addition) proposing a remodel and 1,271 gross square foot addition to an existing single family residence involving a horizontal rear addition at the first, second and third floor levels, along with new rear decks at the second and third levels within the Potrero Hill Neighborhood, 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 purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
WITHDRAWN
B. COMMISSION MATTERS
4. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for May 7, 2015
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted as Mended
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
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 Moore:
I want to congratulate the Department on the Parklet manual. It’s still an item on our check list of things to hear, perhaps, we can get a copy of the manual. I, a long time ago, had put it on our action list and now it has won an award and it is a booklet and perhaps the commissioners could get one that would be great. Thank you! Congratulations to whomever participated in it.
Commissioner Antonini:
Thank you, a few items briefly. First of all, I like Jimmy Fallon a lot, but there will never be another David Letterman, but anyway, more importantly, I read a very good article by C.W. Nevius in the Chronicle a couple of days ago, who analyzed the failures of attempts that desegregation in San Francisco public schools in response to a court order of about 35 years ago. Actually, the situation has gotten worse and it is well worth reading. When the solutions began to be enacted involving busing students or assigning them to other sites of the City, immediately a huge segment of the population of public school children were moved into private or parochial schools, worse still, the families left San Francisco. If you look at the breakdown of, you know, the groups they are trying to balance ethnically, it is clearly out of balance with the population of San Francisco. So, it’s a difficult task and hopefully, they will eventually find a way to comply and track more students to the public schools. The second item is, the SF Business Times had a list of all the projects under construction in San Francisco and the vast majority of these housing projects are projects for rental housing not for ownership. I think that is very good. We can't build enough housing and certainly we welcome as much rental housing as we can; however, I think there is a great shortage of ownership units, not just condominiums, but single-family homes, and it is driving the prices of the homes that are there, very high. Finally, there is a message, an article in a local blog, I guess it is, from the Mission District called Mission Local, and a panel of leaders from businesses awarded the students from John O’Connell High School, their awarded at a meeting at the Women's Building over 17 other schools from San Francisco and the East Bay, and it was a competition on economic effects they had to, this high school students had to analyzed the economic effects and the subjects that the students at John O’Connell had taken on was the negative effects of a moratorium in the Mission District and apparently they made some very good arguments to that and they were awarded the award over the1 7 other schools. Obviously, kids in high schools know what’s going on, particularly at John O’Connell High School.
Commissioner Richards:
Interestingly enough, in this morning’s paper, there was an article on the Bay Area Section, a new app called Countable, allows the public to weigh in on legislation. I think initially and I’m connecting some data points along with the ballot initiative, on streaming videos of meetings and having set time and all of that. Initially, it sounds like a great idea. I am a tech guy. I support something like this, having the public get more voice in things, but with the slip of a finger, yay or nay, you can have the public weigh in on whether or not a project is good or bad in their opinion and I think it’s an interesting idea, but I want to make sure that if any of the my fellow commissioners want to adopt that or join, we need to make sure that the public knows that there a lot more to approving a project or making a decision than a popularity contest. There’s a lot of factors we hear when we sit up here and we weigh the pros and the cons of a project when we make our vote, so I think it is a great idea, but I think the public needs to realize that there is more to it than quick click of a finger, there are some deeper thoughts.
C. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
Director Rahaim:
Good Afternoon Commissioners, two announcements today, one is that the Mayor announced today with the Superintendent Carranza of the School District, the creation of the council called Our Children, Our Families. This was the result of the ballot measure in the fall that was passed by San Francisco voters, Proposition C, required the creation of this council. It was heavily supported by Supervisor Yee. The reason I bring up today is that he's asked me to sit on that council as one of several members and there are also a number of open seats that are open to the community and the Mayor did announce today that those seats would be -- interested members of the community should apply to sit on the council as well. The second thing I wanted to mention is and I attended with several staff the meeting of the Market-Octavia CAC this past Monday and we had a preliminary conversation about something that the Department is considering that I wanted to make the Commission aware of. We are looking at a number of ways, as you, to increase the production of affordable housing in the City and one of the things that we're looking at, one the possibilities we're looking at is, is doing an update to a portion of Market-Octavia Plan, specifically the portion of the plan along the Van Ness corridor, Market to Mission, that is zoned for high-rises, and we are looking at the possibility of changing some of the zoning and the land use controls to encourage the production of additional affordable housing in that area given the huge number of projects that are proposed on that corridor and the needs to take, perhaps a fresh look. It will likely require a new environmental review or an updated environmental review. We don't know whether we are actually going to do this yet, what the implications of it yet are, but I wanted to have an initial conversation with the CAC to get their feedback about whether they'll support that direction. We will be going back to them in each of the next two months at least with more information or ideas about what the implications would be. So I would encourage you to attend, but also we will come here to this Commission meeting probably in July with an update on what we are considering and just have a conversation in the possible approaches we might take, so I'll certainly update you as we make progress on that. Thank you.
7. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
• 150295 Administrative Code - Short-Term Residential Rentals. Sponsors: Campos; Mar and Avalos. Staff: Starr, Rodgers, S. Sanchez, Rahaim
• 150363 Administrative Code - Short-Term Residential Rentals. Sponsors: Mayor; Farrell. Staff: Starr, Rodgers, S. Sanchez, Rahaim
• 141036 Administrative Code – Amending Regulation of Short-Term Residential Sponsors: Kim; Breed. Staff: Starr, Rodgers, S. Sanchez, Rahaim.
These three ordinances make various amendments to the City’s Short-Term Rental Program, which is located in Chapter 41A of the Admin Code. At the Land Use hearing these three items were all called together as a single item, and public testimony was also taken together. For the hearing, Supervisor Campos was sitting in place of Supervisor Kim. The Planning Department was represented by me, Scott Sanchez, AnMarie Rodgers and Director Rahim. Staff gave a brief overview of the Commission’s action, which consisted of 15 separate motions and votes. After that presentation Supervisor Campos questioned staff, particularly Director Rahaim and AnMarie Rodgers, about why the Department no longer feels that STR Platforms should provide the City data on how often units were rented. Supervisor Wiener asked questions to staff about enforcement, and commented that he did not believe that the existing program had not been in place long enough to warrant changes. After the Planning Department’s presentation, Fred Brousseau from Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office present that Department’s report on STR, which was followed by a presentation on the Controller’s Office of Economic Analysis’s report on STR present by Ted Egan. As with the Planning Commission hearing, there was quite a lot of public comment on these items, including comments from Commissioner Richard and David Own from Airbnb. The comments from the public were very similar to the public comment this Commission received when it herd this item in April. At the end of the Public Comment period, the Committee voted to amend the Campos ordinance to reduce the number of days that an Interested Party Summary of Board Activities Week May 18- May 22, 2015 Planning Commission Report: May 21, 2015 would have to wait to seek civil action from 60 to 30 days. The Committee then voted to move the amended Campos ordinance to the Full Board without Recommendation, this motion was passed by a 2-1 vote, with Supervisor Wiener dissenting. The Committee then voted to amend the Mayoral ordinance to include some minor technical amendments and to include language in the Kim ordinance that restricts Ellis Acted units from being used as STR for 5 years. The committee then voted unanimously to move the Mayoral ordinance forward without recommended. The Committee then voted to table Supervisor Kim’s ordinance, which was a duplicated file from the original STR ordinance. This was at the request of Supervisor Kim. At the conclusion of this 6.5 hour hearing, the committee then adjourned.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
• 141303 Planning Code - Massage Establishments. Sponsor: Tang. Staff: D. Sanchez. Passed its second read.
• 150017 Require CU For Certain Uses In Castro, 24 St/Noe, and Upper Market NCDs. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: D. Sanchez. Passed its First Read.
• 150148 Designation of 149-155 9th Street (Western Manufacturing). Sponsor: Planning. Staff: Lammers. Passed its First Read
• 140767 Public Hearing - Appeal of Categorical Exemption from Environmental Review - 2251 Greenwich Street - Fire Station No. 16. Staff: Jones, Range. Items 18-21, Special Order 3:00 PM. This was an appeal of a Class 2 categorical exemption for the replacement of the existing Fire Station 16, located in District 2. The appellant’s main CEQA concern was the use of a categorical exemption for a site listed on the State’s hazardous materials list, also known as the “Cortese (cor-TAY-zee) List.” The site had been listed in the 1980s, but subsequently the site was cleaned up and a closure letter was issued. Any remaining issues with hazardous
Summary of Board Activities Week May 18- May 22, 2015 Planning Commission Report: May 21, 2015 materials in the soil are addressed through compliance with the Maher ordinance. The Department, with the support of the City Attorney’s Office, defended the issuance of the exemption. Other issues raised by the appellant were related to the public outreach and hearing process for the project itself, as conducted by the Fire Department and the Department of Public Works. The Board of Supervisors voted 10-0 with Supervisor Kim absent to uphold the Planning Department’s determination.
• 150395 Public Hearing - Appeal of Categorical Exemption from Environmental Review - 26 Hodges Alley. Staff: Navarrete, Espiritu. Items 22-25, Special Order 3:00 PM. 26 Hodges Alley was an appeal of a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for the interior remodel of the existing two-story, single-family residence, and the vertical addition for a new third floor. The proposed project would also include the expansion of an existing roof deck by adding about 130 square feet of new roof deck space. On March 12, 2015, the project underwent a Discretionary Review hearing before the Planning Commission. The proposed project was modified so that the proposed third floor addition was set back farther from the front, in order to increase the amount of light cast on Hodges Alley. Also, the roof deck was reduced to align with the adjacent building depths and improve the northern neighbor’s privacy at the rear. With those modifications, the Planning Commission approved the project by a vote of 7-0. The appeal was brought by the neighbor downslope of the project site, who had concerns about the unstable slope and wanted the project sponsor to participate in resolving the problems. However, since the project included slope stabilization, this effort could not proceed while the catex was under appeal. No substantive CEQA issues were raised. The Board of Supervisors voted 10-0 with Supervisor Kim absent to uphold the Planning Department’s determination, on a motion by Supervisor Christensen and a second by Supervisor Farrell.
• 150503 Committee of the Whole - Urgency Ordinance - Zoning - Interim Moratorium on New Residential Uses and Elimination of Production, Distribution, and Repair Uses in a Portion of the Mission Area Plan of the
Summary of Board Activities Week May 18- May 22, 2015 Planning Commission Report: May 21, 2015 General Plan - June 2, 2015. Sponsor: Campos. Staff: Not Staffed. This item was adopted; the Mission Housing moratorium will be held on June 2.
INTRODUCTIONS:
• 150532 Interim Zoning Controls - Conditional Use Requirement for Residential Mergers. Resolution imposing interim zoning controls to require conditional use authorization for any residential merger, including mergers of both legal and illegal existing units. Sponsor: Avalos
• 150461 REINTRODUCTION Zoning - Interim Moratorium on Certain New Residential Uses and Elimination of Production, Distribution, and Repair Uses in a Portion of the Mission Area Plan of the General Plan. Sponsor: Campos, Mar, Kim, Avalos, and Yee.
BOARD OR APPEALS:
No Report
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISION:
Good Afternoon Commissioners, Tim Frye, Department staff, here to share a couple items from yesterday’s Historic Preservation Commission hearing. The Commission heard a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 601 Steiner Street. This is a property that occupies three lots. It's one of the oldest properties in Alamo Square Landmark District. It includes the carriage house and another residential structure. It is currently used as a nursing home and a rehabilitation center. The CofA is for a small 200 square foot conference room and office located at the rear of the property. The Commission unanimously supported the CofA; however, there is a number of surrounding neighbors that are in opposition of a required rear yard variance to construct the structure. The Commission reminded the community that their purview is purely for compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards and staff has made the Zoning Administrator aware of the community’s concerns when that item is taken up at a future variance hearing. The Commission also heard two items related to its Landmark Designation Work Program, the first is 35-45 Onondaga Avenue. This was formally known as the Alemany Health Center. It’s a surplus property owned by the City and there is currently a Board of Supervisors action to formally declare it surplus property and to sell it to a private developer. The property is not only notable for its architecture, but also some WPA era murals that are on the interior of the building. The local community organization as well as one member the community that is interested in the murals petitioned the commission to include the property on its Landmark Designation Work Program. The commission agreed to include it in the program; however, they directed staff to work with the community to develop the designation report given our already current large list of properties for proposed for designation on the HPC’s work program. The community agreed that they would work diligently to get a designation report to the Commission in timely manner and we are currently working with the Department of Real Estate to make them aware of the community’s desired for protecting the building after its sale from the City. The last item the Commission heard was the initiation of landmark designation at 350 University Street. This is a building -- is historically known as the University Mound Old Ladies Home out on the Portola neighborhood. It’s a colonial revival structure built in the 1920s and is notable for its work as a -- work of master architects Rist and Coffey. The property ended up on the Landmark Designation Work Program based on a 200 signature petition prepared by the community expressing its desire to designate the structure. We also have written support from Supervisor Campos and verbal support from the current owners Agesong and we’ve toured the property and shared with them the benefits and responsibilities of local landmark designation. Considering all of that, the Commission felt that the building is worthy of designation at the local level and has initiated the landmark designation process. The property and the final designation and ordinancewill go before the Commission one last time and then will move on to the Board of Supervisors for final consideration. So, that concludes my presentation and I'll be happy to answer any questions, thank you.
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: Francisco DaCosta – CPC formed to represent the people.
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. 2014.0653E (P. MALTZER: (415) 575-9038)
AGREEMENT FOR DISPOSAL OF SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL WASTE AT RECOLOGY HAY ROAD LANDFILL IN SOLANO COUNTY - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed Agreement between the City of San Francisco and Recology to change the disposal site for San Francisco’s municipal solid waste (MSW). Currently, San Francisco’s MSW is transported to the Altamont Landfill, located in eastern Alameda County, for disposal. The proposed project consists of an Agreement to authorize the transportation of MSW from San Francisco to the existing Recology Hay Road Landfill located in unincorporated Solano County, at 6426 Hay Road, near State Route 113, southeast of Vacaville, where it would be disposed. San Francisco and Recology would enter into an Agreement for the transportation and disposal of five million tons of San Francisco’s MSW at the Recology Hay Road Landfill, beginning in 2016. At current rates of disposal, it is estimated that the Agreement would have a term of approximately 13 – 15 years. No new construction or changes in current Recology operations within San Francisco are proposed. No new construction or change in existing permits would be required at the Recology Hay Road Landfill in Solano County. The Agreement between San Francisco and Recology to authorize the proposed change in disposal sites would need to be approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 23, 2015)
SPEAKERS: - Dwight Crom – Appellant presentation
- Josh Levine – Request for full EIR
+ Jack Macy – Sponsor presentation
+ Francisco DaCosta – Pollution, waste
- David Tam – Staff report, initial study additional miles through several u urbanized areas, does rise to a potential significant impact
+ Eric Potasher – Recology comments
+ Gary Banks – Workforce etiquette and retention
- David Tucker – WM decline of waste disposal at Altamont
+ David Pilpel – Potential impacts
- Jonathan Smith, WM, legal counsel - significant environmental impact. Miles traveled
ACTION: Upheld the PND
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
MOTION: 19376
9. 2015-001201CUA (J. DISALVO: (415) 575-9182)
899 VALENCIA STREET - east side of the street between 19th and 20th Streets; Lot 113 in Assessor’s Block 3596 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 121.2, 145.4, 726.21, and 303, to establish a new approximately 7,100 square foot medical services use (dba Sutter Pacific Medical Foundation) within the existing vacant ground floor commercial space located in the Valencia Street NCT and a 55-X Height and Bulk District. The project exceeds the non-residential use size limitation of 2,999 square feet in the Valencia Street NCT Zoning District. Additionally, the project exceeds more than 75 contiguous linear feet of ground floor commercial frontage along Valencia Street. No building expansion is proposed. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: After Hearing and Closing Public Comment; directed the Sponsor to consider independently accessible retail spaces and Continued to July 2, 2015.
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
10. 2013.0321AX (R. SUCRE: (415) 575-9108)
901 TENNESSEE Street - southeast corner of 20th and Tennessee Streets; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 4108 - Request for a Large Project Authorization (LPA), pursuant to Planning Code Sections 329, to demolish the existing building and construct a four-story residential building with up to 44 dwelling units, 33 off-street parking spaces, 88 Class 1 bicycle parking spaces, 2 Class 2 bicycle parking spaces, and private and common open space. The subject property is located within the Dogpatch Landmark District, UMU Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Under the LPA, the project is seeking a modification to certain Planning Code requirements, including: 1) rear yard (Planning Code Section 134); 2) permitted obstructions over the street, setback, yard or useable open space (Planning Code Section 136); 3) dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Section 140); and, 4) accessory use provisions for dwelling units (Planning Code Sections 329(d)(10) and 803.3(b)(1)(c)). On April 15, 2015, the project was reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness (See Case No. 2013.0321A). 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 May 7, 2015)
SPEAKERS: Sponsor presentation
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended by staff
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
MOTION: 19377
11. 2013.0614X (B. BENDIX: (415) 558-6362)
600 SOUTH VAN NESS AVENUE - southwest corner of the intersection of 17th Street and South Van Ness Avenue, Lot 070 in Assessor’s Block 3575 - Request for a Large Project Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 329 to construct a five-story, mixed-use building of approximately 34,715 gross square feet that contains 27 residential units, three ground floor commercial retail spaces totaling approximately 3,060 gross square feet, 17 off-street parking spaces, 27 bicycle parking spaces, and common open space, within the Urban Mixed Use (UMU) Zoning District and 58-X Height and Bulk District. The project is seeking a modification of the requirements for: 1) rear yard (Planning Code Section 134); 2) open space (Planning Code Section 135); 3) permitted obstructions over the street (Planning Code Section 136); 4) dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Section 140); and, 5) street frontage (Planning Code Section 145.1). 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 April 30, 2015)
SPEAKERS: + Joe Tabone – Project presentation
+ Michael Leavitt – Design presentation
+ Steve Vettel – Project presentation continued
+ Rob Poole – Compliant with EN plan
- Diane Martnez – More affordable housing on-site.
- Carol Ng Fang – Not an appropriate project at this time
+ Mike Eddy – Added cost to housing, more supply
+ (M) Speaker – Compliant housing
- Gino Cotta – Housing affordability
+ Joe Tabone – Support
+ (F) Speaker – Read letter from Annie Fryman
+ Kyle – Displacement, evictions that will not happen
+ Sean Kiegran – Displacement
- Charlie Shamas – Housing affordability policies in place do not respond to the crisis at hand
+ Kevin Shephard – More housing units
+ Henry Malstead – Project presentation
+ Dr. Breir – Project presentation continued
= Charles Mozer – Request for continuance
= Brenda Story – Request for continuance
= Amelia Martinez – Job creation
= Dina Long – Request for continuance
= Elizabeth Zitrin – Transit plan
= Charley Shamos – Community fit
+ Dr. Lee – Community benefits
- Stephen Shula – Opposition
+ Meg Walker – Read letter into the record
+ Johnson Wong – Support
+ David Serrano Sewel – Support
= Sherny Steiner – Project improvements, continuance
- David Oerback – Opposed, not in character with neighborhood
= Eileen Renalde – Not a clear cut decision
= Marlene Morgan – Medical redefining, continuance
= Lisa Prommer – Traffic, parking, continuance
= Diana Martinez – Delay approval
- (M) Speaker - Continuance
ACTION: Approved with Conditions; as amended to include:
1. On-site ownership BMR units; and
2. Continue working with staff on the South Van Ness façade
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
MOTION: 19378
12a. 2011.1323EMTZ (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
302 SILVER AVENUE - South side of Silver Avenue, bounded by Mission Street, Avalon Avenue and Lisbon Street, Assessors Block 5952, Lot 002 - Consideration of a Resolution of Intent to Initiate amendment to the General Plan pursuant to Planning Code Sections 304 and to amend Map 5 (Height and Bulk Map) of the Urban Design Element to reflect the proposed height on the proposed Jewish Home of San Francisco Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate the Proposed GP Amendment
SPEAKERS: + Project presentation
+ Jeol roos – Project presentation continued
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution Initiating GP Amendments
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19379
12b. 2011.1323EMTZ (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
302 SILVER AVENUE - South side of Silver Avenue, bounded by Mission Street, Avalon Avenue and Lisbon Street, Assessors Block 5952, Lot 002 - Consideration of a Resolution of Intent to Initiate amendments to the Planning Code and Zoning Map pursuant to Planning Code Section 302 to (a) amend the Planning Code text, adding Planning Code Section 249.72 to establish the Jewish Home of San Francisco Special Use District (SUD); (b) amend Special Use District (“SU”) Map SU11 to include the boundaries of the proposed SUD; and (c) amend Height (“HT”) Map HT11 to reflect the proposed height, up to 80-feet, of the proposed SUD.
Preliminary Recommendation: Initiate the Proposed Amendments
SPEAKERS: Same as Item 12a.
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution Initiating Planning Code and Zoning Map Amendments
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19380
13. 2013.1223CUA (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9177)
2139 TARAVAL STREET - south side of the street between 31st and 32nd Avenues; Lot 042 in Assessor’s Block 2394 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 741.13, 145.4, and 303, to establish a Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a “Bay Area Compassion Health Care Center”), considered a non-active use as defined by Planning Code Section 145.4 within the Taraval Street NCD and 50-X Height and Bulk District. The project includes tenant improvements proposed under Building Permit Number 2013.0723.2598. 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: Disapprove
SPEAKERS:
+ (M) Speaker - Support
= Paul Hansburry – Sponsor presentation continued
+ Mr. Shower - Support
+ (F) Speaker - Support
+ Susan Tibbon – Support
+ Theresa Johnson – Support
+ Jennifer Morris – Support
+ Brenda Harvey – Support
+ Joanna Quinn – Support
+ Kim Ferrari – Support
+ Jonathan Dyer – Support
+ (M) Speaker – Support
+ (F) Speaker – Support
+ (M) Speaker – Support
+ (F) Speaker – Support
+ (F) Speaker – Support
+ Danielle Hensbury
+ (M) Speaker – Support
+ Brian Webster - Support
- Captain Lum – Support the opposition
- Gregg Schepp– Sponsor presentation
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Christin Chi – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Peter Wong – Opposed
- Sydney Ma – Opposed
- Frank Lee – Opposed
- Jarred Mao – Opposed
- Vi – Yang – Opposed
- Jim Chan – Opposed
- Nina Quock – Opposed
- Lucy Wong – Opposed
- Lin Lee – Opposed
- Yui Yu – Opposed
- Florence Kong – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Grace – Opposed
- Howard Ng – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Vera Viol – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Hong Lee – Opposed
- Michelle – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Kevin Snyder – Opposed
- Frank Chen – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Kathy – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Wendy Phan - Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Kelly Chan – Opposed
- Terry Fong – Opposed
- Betsy – Opposed
- Julie Ma – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Benjamin Chung – Opposed
- Bernie Chung – Opposed
- Mei Le – Opposed (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Alan Young – Opposed
- Daniel Eng – Opposed
- Wendy Lie – Opposed
- Lisa – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Chin Wa Ho - Opposed
- Sam Mi – Opposed
- Yin Sham – Opposed
- Jennifer – Opposed
- Simon Eng – Opposed
- Heidi Eng – Opposed
- Derrick – Opposed
- Hana – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Lou Sing – Opposed
- Dan – Opposed
- Ho Mei Lin – Opposed
- JoAnn – Opposed
- William Conway – Opposed
- Kathy Yip – Opposed
- Vincent Chin – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Ellen Conway – Opposed
- Jo Sun – Opposed
- Leann - Opposed
- Lee Chiu – Opposed
- Jessica – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Jessie – Opposed
- Eve Fang – Opposed
- Rosanna Chan – Opposed
- Susan Quan – Opposed
- Mimi Young – Opposed
- Susan Jin – Opposed
- Dorothy – Opposed
- Chin Quan – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Eddy Yu – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Walon Fong – Opposed
- Alisha Lan – Opposed
- Lily Jang – Opposed
- Shu Jang – Opposed
- Connie – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Selena – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Jeanne Wong – Opposed
- Cindy Mae – Opposed
- Herman Sid – opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Melody – Opposed
- Sandy Tran – Opposed
- Sally Lee – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Judy Chan – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- Marlene Tran – Opposed
- (M) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Trish Yee – Opposed
- Grace Tran – Opposed
- Pammy Yee – Opposed
- Mimmie Yee – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Tracy Tan – Opposed
- Josephine Jan – Opposed
ACTION: Disapproved
AYES: Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Fong
MOTION: 19381
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 – 8:03 p.m.
ADOPTED: June 4, 2015