Planning Commission - April 13, 2017 - 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, April 13, 2017
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT HILLIS AT 12:08 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Brittany Bendix, Lily Langlois, Aaron Starr, Sheila Nickolopoulos, Natalia Kwiatkowska, Laura Ajello, Esmeralda Jardines, Colin Clarke, Andrew Perry, Michael Christensen, and Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary
SPEAKER KEY:
+ indicates a speaker in support of an item;
- indicates a speaker in opposition to an item; and
= indicates a neutral speaker or a speaker who did not indicate support or opposition
A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE
The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.
1. 2015-009140DRP (L. AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)
3009 CALIFORNIA STREET - south side between Lyon and Baker Streets; Lot 037 in Assessor’s Block 1030 (District 2) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.07.06.0723 proposing a two-story vertical addition, a one-story horizontal addition with a deck above at the rear of the building and the alteration of the front façade of a two-story, single-family house within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2017)
NOTE: On March 23, 2017, after hearing and closing public comment, the item was continued to April 13, 2017 by a vote of +5 -0 (Melgar and Hillis absent).
(Proposed for Continuance to May 11, 2017)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to May 11, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
2. 2014-2110CWP (M. WENGER: (415) 575-9126)
WESTERN SHORELINE AREA PLAN - Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, the Planning Commission will consider adopting changes to the Western Shoreline Area Plan, the City’s Local Coastal Program, to incorporate sea level rise and coastal erosion policies in a new Coastal Hazards section.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Recommending Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2017)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to June 18, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
3. 2015-018150CUA (C. MAY: (415) 575-9087)
137 CLAYTON STREET - west side of Clayton Street, between Grove and Hayes Streets, Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 1194 (District 5) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317 to demolish an existing two-story, single-family dwelling and construct a new four-story, 3-unit residential building 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 San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 9, 2017)
NOTE: On November 3, 2016, after hearing and closing public comment, the Commission adopted a motion of intent to Disapprove and continued the item to December 1, 2016 by a vote of +7 -0.
On December 1, 2016 the item was continued to February 9, 2017 by a vote of +5 -0 (Richards, Johnson absent).
(Proposed for Continuance to June 8, 2017)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to June 8, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
4. 2013.1330DRP (D. VU: (415) 575-9120)
1900 MISSION STREET - southwest corner of 15th and Mission Streets, Lot 01 in Assessor’s
Block 3554 (District 9) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.0708.0963, proposing to demolish the existing 1,690 sq. ft. automotive repair shop (dba Discount Auto Performance) and construct a 16,022 gross sq. ft., seven-story over basement, 75-feet tall mixed-use building that includes 805 sq. ft. of ground-floor commercial space, twelve dwelling units at all floors of the building, 1,370 sq. ft. of combined common and private open space and eighteen Class 1 bicycle parking spaces at the basement level within the Mission Street NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District and 80-B 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: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
NOTE: On February 23, 2017, after hearing and closing public comment, the item was continued to April 13, 2017 by a vote of +7 -0.
(Proposed for Continuance to June 15, 2017)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to June 15, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
5. 2016-007062DRP-02 (J. HORN: (415) 575-6925)
752 ELIZABETH STREET - north side between Douglas and Diamond Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 2805, (District 8) - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2015.07.17.1767 proposing a two-story vertical addition and one-story horizontal rear addition to an existing one-story-over-garage single-family home within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2017)
(Proposed for Continuance to July 6, 2017)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to July 6, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
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
6. 2014.0086DRP-02 (B.BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
2855 FILBERT STREET - south side of Filbert Street between Lyon and Baker Streets; Lot 029 in Assessor’s Block 0948 (District 2) - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2013.10.04.8576, proposing the new construction of a four-story single-family dwelling. The project also includes the demolition of the existing three-story single-family house (Building Permit Application 2013.10.04.8579). The subject property is within a 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 as Modified
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 6, 2017)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Took DR and Approved as modified
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
DRA No: 0518
7. 2014.0556GPA (L. LANGLOIS: (415) 575-9083)
VISION ZERO – Intention to Initiate General Plan Amendments, Pursuant to Planning Code Section 340, the Planning Commission will consider a Resolution of Intention to initiate Department sponsored changes to the Transportation Element and Urban Design Element of the General Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution of Intent to Initiate and schedule a public hearing on or after May 18, 2017.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted a Resolution of Intent to initiate and Scheduled a public hearing on or after May 18, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
E-mail response from Lily Langlois to Commissioner Moore, dated 4/11/2017:
Hello Commissioner Moore,
I wanted to follow up with you about your comments about rideshare companies and the City’s efforts around Vision Zero.
Vision Zero is about taking a multidisciplinary approach to create a safe transportation network. The goal is to design our streets to be forgiving, regardless of the number of vehicles on the road, and couple engineering measures with targeted enforcement and education campaigns. We have heard (and experienced) the increased presence of rideshare vehicles on our streets. The City will soon be releasing the Vision Zero Action Strategy which outlines specific actions the City will take over the next two years to help achieve Vision Zero. The policies in the Action Strategy will help the City better meet the Transit Firs policy and move people from vehicles to more active modes of transportation.
Below are the two policies in the Action Strategy that address rideshare vehicles.
· Further integrate Vision Zero and Transit First policy goals into transportation and land use planning policy and code such as the transportation demand management ordinance to reduce need for driving and vehicle miles travelled to reduce opportunity of collisions involving vehicles
· Encourage fleet managers (e.g. company vehicles, commuter shuttles, car rental, carshare) and transportation services (e.g. transportation network companies) operating in San Francisco to prioritize safety through good vehicle design (i.e. safety features) and other technologies such as driver performance tools/processes to improve collision avoidance and driver accountability
In addition, the SFMTA is actively working with the rideshare companies on enforcement issues as well as driver training. Lastly, Supervisor Peskin has introduced a resolution urging the California State Legislature to amend the California Vehicle and Public Utilities Code to enable local California jurisdictions to access trip date for TNCs and to permit and conduct enforcement of TNCs as warranted to ensure safety and disability access, and manage congestion
Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to discuss further.
Thank you, Lily
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
8. 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'd like to ask why initiating Vision Zero is not part of our own regular calendar, so that public has the ability to hear us make comments, at least in the summary of what it is we are initiating. I know we've talked about Vision Zero, however, I communicated with planners, there are many, many pending questions that the public has particularly, the disruptive qualities of Uber and Lyft truly undermines the original intent when Vision Zero was started, and while I understand that policies, and forward guiding principles have been incorporated in what we're finally initiating, the public does not hear us spell out those things and I am interested that public has the ability, that we are asking critical questions and that the Department works with incorporation of critical questions and they are moving this particular piece forward.
Commissioner Hillis:
Was that a question?
Commissioner Moore:
No, it was a comment.
Commissioner Hillis:
Certainly, you could have pulled that matter off consent and ask those questions if you wanted to. I know that it is on content initially, and so could the public but, I just want to make that clear to folks that they could have pulled it off.
Commissioner Moore:
The planner wrote me a thoughtful e-mail in answer to my question and if nothing else perhaps that particular answer can be incorporated into the meeting minutes without reading it into the record. Sometimes they're missing pieces, what the public is really able to understand or listen to, when we don’t give it time to discuss here.
Commissioner Hillis:
If we can put it on the packet to, you know, someone goes to the calendar item, and requests that packet, perhaps that answer can be included in that packet.
Commissioner Moore:
That's a good idea, perhaps Secretary Ionin can follow-up in getting that e-mail and incorporating that.
Commissioner Johnson:
Thank you. Following up on conversations we've had at the Commission over the past few
months, which is starting to reach a crescendo, there's an article in the New York Times a couple days ago entitled the Future of Retail, and won’t go into too many of the details, but a lot of the sort of movement in retail and sort of the technologies that are coming into play in summation really struck me as ground floor retail essentially being the front for warehousing activities, and essentially and then maybe also integration of various technologies within different storefronts for selling various things. All of it adds up to mean that in the future, retail is going to entail an additional level of infrastructure that is going to be really hard for sort of independent owner-operators to support. SO, if you think about a model where you have a clothing store and really a front for the website and all clothes in the warehouse, and this is just showroom, but everything is you know on apps and the iPad, you just go, you can see what you want and click. Those stores of technologies, I think it is important for the Planning Department and to all of us to start think about that is a level of infrastructure that is not the current business model for a lot of independent stores where they just keep their wears in the back and they have their own ordering system, so that is where we're going to the future. We really may be seeing some consolidation in the types of businesses that can support active ground floor retail, and if we see that sort of consolidation, we may see future vacancies and I think it is important for the Department to start thinking now about what else we can support on the ground floor and be considered an active use, moving forward dealing with multiple neighborhood NCD District that have lots of vacancies. I know we have a couple of corridors right now that are perennial issues, but I think, we may have more in the future if we don’t think proactively about it.
Commissioner Richards:
I actually read the same article and there was another article in the review section in the Times on Sunday talked about how we are not going to bring back Main Street. In there, talked about retail – evolution of retail from the 1860s to the 1890s, and 1920s when “chain stores” came out, how/what is done to the retail landscaping, especially in small towns, but it also comments about where in the U.S. small retailers are actually doing well, and it is where prices are not an issue for people more affluent places like Boulder, San Francisco and brought all these up and I think that is a really good discussion to understand and we got the thriving commercial corridors was really dead on, what the New York Times describes was the $4 piece of toast with the $5 cup of coffee, where you pay these rents and still have people congregate and not be sensitive to price, but we have the other problems, where people are not able to do that regularly, they don’t have as much of disposal income and we know what those commercial corridors are like. It is a good article to read to complement the article that Commissioner Johnson mentioned.
Commissioner Melgar:
I also read that same article, thank you for bringing it up, it sounds we need to have a thoughtful discussion here. I just wanted to remind us that there are neighborhoods like the Mission where you know 60% of low income families, do not have a computer or internet connection at home and they do shop along the Mission Street Corridor and the 24th Street Corridor, and in looking to the future, we must not remember -- forget the present, those storefronts tend to be entry-level for a lot of immigrant businesses and places where immigrants also shop, and you know, I don’t think the Mission Corridor is unique, there are plenty of other corridors like that in the Tenderloin, Chinatown, Bayview, and so I think a nuance understanding and planning for that, you know must take into reality or account our reality and our presence I think I look forward to that discussion here, I think it is important.
Commissioner Fong:
I want to be careful not to start a dialogue, but I totally agree with your comments on the article and folding in our conversation with Commissioner Moore, about department stores, and how to treat them in the future, there is obvious of needs – we look at the Van Ness Boulevard and dealerships, they really only one sample model of each car, you can place that order and have it custom, so maybe in a broader discussion along with some of the things that Commissioner Moore and I talked about, I'm not sure if there is an opportunity for the Department, to you know almost bring in a futurist, to have this kind of conversation locally, but I think it would be worthy of a conversation.
Commissioner Moore:
There is a national discussion on what sound pretty much like doomsday and then there is the encouraging comment from Commissioner Melgar makes, which I’d like to second. Walking down Polk Street yesterday, upper, middle, lower, it is amazing. There are frequent vacancies, all of a sudden at least 10 new stores popped up with different kinds, speaking of the entrepreneurial stores, and perhaps another population, perhaps a population that wants to get into small business, and it somewhat contradicts that all the things we only buy are those large ones, which we order over the web. There is a vital need for certain kinds of shopping that I don't think we’ll ever see. So, I really like to keep the positive thing that San Francisco is doing in the commercial corridors as a guiding light for myself where I want to put my energy. I don't see urban life happening when we order things on the web, I just don’t and I think we greatly contribute to enhancing it, curtailing when that indeed kind of retail can occur that Commissioner Melgar is describing and that I observed yesterday on Polk Street.
Commissioner Johnson:
Totally not a dialogue, I think my comments were also about maintaining that positivity and how can we support those models in the future. I just want to make one last note in terms of my thoughts I didn't say the first time around. The reason why I’m concerned about it, is not only the land use perspective but also economic development perspective in looking at how I guess more, other departments not Planning Department, but how can we have programs to support those local businesses because one of the big things is that model going towards having retail store, the model is you no longer have your wares in the back, whether a network of trucks that bring to you, and you have your inventory, but the model is your inventory is somewhere else, and then ships to people at home. It is going to be really hard to support a dual model, where most retail stores move to that model, where there’s infrastructure involved and the other places that don't and more “traditional” if things change in the future, we won’t be able to have those stores, where the truck brings in your inventory and it is sitting in the back. And so, how can we support those businesses to be able to keep up and have the infrastructure in the future, it may not be -- maybe the horse buggies.
Commissioner Hillis:
Thank you, Commissioners and certainly a topic we’re all interested in and can schedule a time to talk about it with the Planning staff so thank you.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
9. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Commissioners I don’t have any new announcements, except to say that I think it is time for us to look at this issue. As you may know one of the concerns I've had is that a lot of retail use that is being vacated by traditional retailing in light of online retailing has been taken up by restaurants and food vendors in the recent years, and I’m very concerned that is not -- many of those are not going to survive especially if the economy slows down. So, we've already seen closing of restaurants in neighborhood, like the Castro has a large number of vacancies right now. So, I think largely due to this issue, so I think is time for us to take a look at it as well, so we'll try to organize a discussion with OEWD and other folks about what is the best way to approach this.
10. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
Land Use Committee:
· 151258 Planning Code - Affordable Housing Requirement and Fee in Divisadero and Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial Transit Districts. Sponsor: Breed. Staff: Starr. Continued to May 1, 2017
Full Board:
· 140877 Planning Code - Downtown Support Special Use District; Fees in Lieu of On-Site Open Space; Gift Acceptance. Sponsor: Kim. Staff: Rodgers. PASSED Second Read
Introductions:
So far, no introductions have shown up in the system.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
No Report
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
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: Laura Clarke – Housing in the Region statistics
Georgia Schuttish – Section 317 (b) (7): Remove from the Planning Code.
Reduced “Second Unit” is a marginal unit behind garage or below ground which becomes part of a new large home.
Vicksburg
Fair Oaks
Duncan
25th
Elizabeth
Noe
Vicksburg
Jersey
East of Valencia, outside of the MAP 2020, on San Carlos.
Oakwood, example in Mission Dolores, sold for over $7 million dollars replacing two units. Same on Fulton.
Not only are these de facto unit mergers but some of these projects should also be considered demolitions.
All sold $3 - $7 million range and were priced below the current MOH number prior to permits. Marketed as single family homes.
It seems unreasonable to make policy to mine the RH-2 (see Sect. 209.1 definition) for densification of housing, while at the same time Section 317 (b) (7) allows a developer to legally reduce a two unit building to one very large, very expensive home.
Tony Robles – Senior eviction
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.
11. 2017-001170PCA (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
AMENDMENTS TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS PROGRAM - Planning Code Amendment to include recommendations delivered in addition to the Ordinance that would bring the requirements and procedures for authorizing the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in single-family homes into conformity with the new mandates of state law; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and findings of public convenience, necessity, and welfare under Planning Code, Section 302; and directing the Clerk to send a copy of this Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development after adoption pursuant to state law requirements.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Recommending Approval
SPEAKERS: = Kimia Haddadan – Staff Report
+ Supervisor Peskin – ADU legislation compliance
+ Kanishka Karunaratne, Aide to Supervisor Farrell – Amendments to ADU legislation
+ Tom Radoulovich – Seismic program unit __.
+ Laura Clarke – Ministerial approval
+ Corey Smith – Support
+ Janan New – ADU’s
+ Lawrence Paul – ADU’s
ACTION: After hearing and closing public hearing; Continued to May 4, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
12. 2016-011947CWP (S. NICKOLOPOULOS: (415 575-9089)
CHILD CARE FACILITIES - Planning Code Amendment to: 1) allow residential uses and Child Care Facility uses to share required open space; 2) remove a conditional use authorization requirement in certain residential zoning districts for Child Care Facilities for 15 or more children; 3) make Child Care Facilities principally permitted in the Downtown Commercial (Downtown Support) (C-3-S), Production, Distribution, and Repair (General) (PDR-1-G), and Public (P) Zoning Districts and conditionally permitted in the Production, Distribution, and Repair (Light Industrial Buffer) (PDR-1-B) Zoning District; 4) remove certain notice requirements for Child Care Facilities; and 5) make other conforming changes to the definition of Child Care Facility; affirming the Planning Department’s determination under the California Environmental Quality Act; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Recommending Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to May 4, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
13. 2016-001528CUA (N. KWIATKOWSKA: (415) 575-9185)
2645 OCEAN AVENUE - at 19th Avenue, Lot 023 in Assessor’s Block 7226 (District 7) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 710.21 to convert a portion the existing individual medical uses into a large medical service use of 11,484 gross square feet at the first and third floors in an existing three-story structure within the NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District, 26-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal includes interior alterations and new signage. The proposed use size requires CUA pursuant to Planning Code Section 710.21 since it is greater than 2,999 square feet. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2017)
NOTE: On November 10, 2016, after hearing and closing public comment, the Commission adopted a motion of intent to Disapprove and continued the item by a vote of +6-1 (Hillis against).
SPEAKERS: = Natalia Kwiatkowska – Staff Report
+ Jody Knight – Project presentation
ACTION: Rescinded their previous Motion of Intent to Disapprove by a vote of +7 -0; and Approved with Conditions
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
MOTION: 19899
14. 2016-005411CUA (E. JARDINES: (415) 575-9144)
400 BEALE STREET (UNITS #2301 AND 2303) - west side of Beale Street, between Harrison and Bryant Streets; Lots 238 and 240 of Assessor’s Block 3766 (District 6) - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 317, to merge two dwelling units within an existing 26-story, 245-unit residential building into one 2,297 square foot, three-bedroom, four-bathroom dwelling unit. The project would merge a 1,074 square foot, two-bedroom, two-bathroom dwelling unit (#2303) with a 1,223 square foot, two-bedroom, two-bathroom dwelling unit (#2301) within the RH-DTR (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use) Zoning District and 65-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: Disapproval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2017)
SPEAKERS: = Esmeralda Jardines – Staff Report
+ John Kevlin – Project presentation
+ Brandon Muller – Project presentation
ACTION: After a Motion to Disapprove failed by a vote of +3 -4 (Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Hillis against); Approved with Conditions as amended to include a fourth bedroom
AYES: Hillis, Fong, Johnson, Koppel
NAYES: Melgar, Moore, Richards
MOTION: 19896
15. 2015-014718CUA (A. PERRY: (415) 575-9017)
716 COLUMBUS AVENUE - northeast side of Columbus Avenue, with frontage along Columbus Avenue between Greenwich and Filbert Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor’s Block 0090 (District 3) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 722.43 to establish a Limited Restaurant in conjunction with the existing retail specialty grocery (d.b.a. The Italian Homemade Company), and to abate Planning Enforcement Case 2015-008088ENF by legalizing the operation of the Limited Restaurant in the existing one-story commercial building within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD), the North Beach Special Use 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: = Andrew Perry – Staff Report
+ Mattia Cosmi – Project presentation
- Mark Bruno – Positive business, not appropriate
+ Stephanie Castallano – Support
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar
ABSENT: Moore
MOTION: 19897
16. 2016-009071CUA (L. AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)
1019-1033 CLEMENT STREET - south side of Clement Street between 11th and 12th Avenues; Lot 040 in Assessor’s Block 1443 (District 1) – Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 716.21 to legalize a use size that exceeds 2,500 square feet of gross floor area with the merger of two separate commercial tenant spaces located at 1019 Clement Street and 1033 Clement Street (currently occupied by a Medical Service use d.b.a. North East Medical Services) within the Inner Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The merged tenant space totals 16,458 square feet of gross floor area. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for the purposes of CEQA, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 31.04(h).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2017)
SPEAKERS: = Laura Ajello – Staff Report
+ Amy Bragg – Project presentation
+ Michael Busk - Support
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Koppel, Melgar
ABSENT: Johnson, Moore
MOTION: 18998
17. 2016-005702CUA (L. AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)
524A CLEMENT STREET - north side of Clement Street between 6th and 7th Avenues; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 1427 (District 1) – Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303, 303.1, and 703.4 to legalize an 818 square-foot Formula Retail Sales and Service use (electronics store d.b.a. Cricket Wireless, a subsidiary of AT&T, that sells mobility products and services, including mobile telecommunication devices, plans, accessories, and technical services), established without Conditional Use Authorization in a space previously occupied by a Retail Sales and Service use (d.b.a. Pacific Books and Arts), on the ground floor of the four-story mixed-use building within an Inner Clement Street 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: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 6, 2017)
SPEAKERS: = Laura Ajello – Staff Report
- Supervisor Sandra Few_- Formula retail controls
+ Paul Lesser – Project presentation
+ Speaker – Project presentation
- Henry Karnikowcz – Organized opposition
- Peter Mollehill – Organized opposition
- Michael Bush – Organized opposition
- Alysa Anderson – Opposition
- Jesse Fink – Opposition
- Richard Webber – Opposition
- Karen Wong – Opposition
- Amanda Weld - Opposition
ACTION: Adopted a Motion of Intent to Disapprove
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Koppel, Melgar
ABSENT: Johnson, Moore
18. 2016-010632CUA (C. CLARKE: (415) 575-9184)
201 STEINER STREET - northwest corner of Waller Street, Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 0861 (District 5) - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 303.1 to establish a Formula Retail Limited-Restaurant use (d.b.a. Blue Bottle Coffee) in the existing 1,387 square-foot tenant space (previously occupied by a Limited-Restaurant d.b.a. Bean There Café) in the existing three-story mixed-use building within the RM-1 (Residential - Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District, and within one-quarter-mile of the Upper Market Neighborhood Commercial Transit 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: - Michael Haynes – Blue Bottle continuance
- Hal Fisher – No need for continuance
- Bruce Gladstone – No need for continuance
- Gabe Lynch – Community outreach
- Carrie Howerhaus – Opposed to the continuance
+ Jim Abrams – Conduct community outreach
ACTION: Continued to May 11, 2017
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar, Moore
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.
19. 2016-006303DRM (M. CHRISTENSEN: (415) 575-8742)
3326 MISSION STREET - west side of Mission Street, between 29th Street and 30th Street; Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 6635 (District 11) - Request is for Mandatory Discretionary Review of an application for a change of use from bar to a Medical Cannabis Dispensary (MCD) at the ground story, within a NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial – Moderate Scale) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The MCD is proposed for on-site sales with no on-site cultivation or production. The associated Building Permit Application 2016.05.23.8132 is for change of use and both interior and exterior alterations. 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 Analysis
Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 2, 2017)
SPEAKERS: = Michael Christensen – Staff Report
+ Jorge Parga – Project presentation
+ Speaker – Project presentation
+ Brendan Hallinan – Project presentation
+ Carlos Allexino – Support
+ Rudy Campos – Support
+ William Ortiz Catajena – Support
+ Speaker – Support]
+ Natalie Hyner – Support
+ David Page – Support
+ Jennifer Garcia – Support
ACTION: Took DR and Approved with Conditions
AYES: Hillis, Richards, Fong, Koppel
NAYES: Melgar
ABSENT: Johnson, Moore
DRA No: 0519
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 - 5:07 p.m.
ADOPTED: JUNE 1, 2017