Planning Commission - February 12, 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, February 12, 2015
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT WU AT 12:10 p.m.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Keith DeMartini, Scott Sanchez, Laura Ajello, Kimia Haddadan, Robin Abad, Jeffrey Speirs, and Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary
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. 2012.0877E (B. BOLLINGER: (415) 575-9024)
1546-1564 MARKET STREET - north side of Market Street between Van Ness Avenue and Franklin Street; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 0836-006 and 0836-007 – Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - The project site is located on two parcels at 1546-1550 Market Street, 1554 Market Street, and 55 Oak Street. The proposed project would involve merging the two lots into a single lot, demolition of the existing three buildings on the site, and construction of a new 12-story, 120-foot-tall, 138,002-square-foot residential building with 109 dwelling units, approximately 4,810 gross square feet of ground-floor commercial space, and a 12,512 gross square foot ground floor garage with 28 car parking spaces and 110 bicycle parking spaces. Two of the three existing buildings that would be demolished have been determined to be historic resources under CEQA.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment
(Proposed for Continuance to February 26, 2015)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to February 26, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
2. 2014.1267T (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING CODE AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SUPPORT SPECIAL USE DISTRICT; FEES IN LIEU OF ON-SITE OPEN SPACE [BOARD FILE NO. 140877] - Planning Code Amendment amending the Downtown Support Special Use District to allow the Planning Commission to authorize a monetary contribution to satisfy on-site open space requirements, exclude certain features from floor area ratio and gross floor area calculations, establish a fund to accept the monetary contributions and provide that the monies deposited shall be used for recreation and open space in the South of Market (SOMA) area, provide that the SOMA Community Stabilization Fund Community Advisory Committee shall advise on the administration of the fund, affirming the Planning Department’s California Environmental Quality Act determination; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Pending
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
3. 2014.1341X (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
888 HOWARD STREET - Northeast corner of the intersection of Howard Street and Fifth Street, Lot 072 in Assessor’s Block 3724 - Request for Downtown Project Authorization to amend the conditions of approval for a previously approved project to construct a 31-story hotel building, approximately 320 feet tall with approximately 430,000 gross square feet on a parking lot (Case No. 2000.70CEKXTMZ). Pursuant to the requirements of Section 138 and Condition of Approval 5B, the Project was required to provide 12,600 square feet of publically accessible on-site open space on two terraces, as well as 4,000 square feet of publically accessible open space off-site. The Sponsor proposes to amend the conditions of approval for the previous Downtown Project Authorization to contribute to off-site publically accessible open space in lieu of providing on-site open space (pending the adoption of Board File No. 140877). Pursuant to the Condition of Approval number 5A, only clear glass is permitted at the pedestrian level. The Commission will consider modifying this condition of approval based on existing conditions. 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: Pending
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
4. 2011.0919C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
1010 BUSH STREET - at the northwest corner of Bush and Jones Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 0276 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303 to allow a wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would feature nine (9) panel antennas on the roof of the existing four-story tall, mixed-use building. Three (3) of the antennas would be mounted behind two (2) new screening enclosures attached to the east facing wall of an existing rooftop penthouse. The remaining six (6) antennas would be mounted on the roof of the existing rooftop penthouse. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in a basement room. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 5 Site (Preferred Location; Mixed-Use Buildings in High Density Districts) within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High Density) Zoning District, and 65-A 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: Pending
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 12, 2015)
(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued Indefinitely
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
B. COMMISSION MATTERS
5. Commission Comments/Questions
· Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
· Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Antonini:
They must be extremely important for superseding our hearing. A few items, number one I was really embarrassed by what we learned in the news. Paul McGinley, who was the Captain the European Ryder Cup Team is here in the Bay Area to take part in the AT&T Tournament, decided to stop at beautiful Ocean Beach, on a beautiful day, park his car for probably no more than an hour or two, walk up Ocean Beach to the Cliff House or somewhere to have lunch. Came back to his car broken into and all his clubs were stolen, so, instead of practicing, he’s spending all day yesterday getting new clubs. He was gracious enough to say, it could have happened anywhere, but I mean, I think this is a major problem in San Francisco, and the Land Use part of it is reasons why families move to other areas and a lot of it has to do with crime and perception of crime and, you know, it’s one thing, but the penalties, from what I understand, are very lenient on people. Car thieves get ten days, if they’re convicted, and that’s what one of the Captains at one of the stations told me, which is just totally ridiculous. Boosters even probably get less, so there’s no reason not to break into cars in daylight, even if you’re caught they’re not going to do anything. So, that’s a big problem and if we’re wondering why we’re losing middle class families, that’s a big reason. Another issue, Prop M, thank you very much to Corey Teague for the memo we got, it’s not a calendared item, but I did want to ask some questions to be responded to by staff or by Corey in the future. The first is, I wanted to find out if there was any idea if we’re going to get any kind of an opinion from the City Attorney’s office among some parts of the Office Annual Limit that are under discussion, particularly the subtracting of the amounts that have been converted to non-office use. Can we add those back? Because they are not an office use anymore. The other has to do with demolitions, where a building is demolished, and the new building you have to take out the whole amount of the new building and not subtracting the amount of the demolished commercial office space, anyway, I just need to get an opinion on those two things. Thirdly, a little trouble parking again today, I was lucky I got a space. The Garage has been terrible ever since PUC, because many of the spaces there are now allocated for PUC. It’s the fiction that we deal with all the time in San Francisco, if you don’t build parking people won’t have cars. People from PUC have plenty of cars, they park in the Garage, because they don’t have any parking in their building. They should have put parking in there, now the impact is on all of us in City Hall, all of us in the Court House, which are, you know, not being able to park or having a difficult time parking there because of our lack of planning. Finally, I visited Summit 800 I think it’s called or Summit 80, it’s the development on Brother and I went in and toured some of their units, and I was very impressed at what they did. But, just to give you an idea of the costs that are involved the units there are from just under a million dollars up to around two million or more and there are a variety, but all of them are very nicely designed probably around, with a minimum of 1300 or 1400 square feet and up, all of them have a master bedroom at least on a different level. They are all two level units, even the condo units and they have two car parking for each one, and most of them have two and a half baths with all the sleeping units on the upper floor, you have choices of condos where you share the garage with somebody or you have townhouses, which are just row houses stacked on top of each other and then single-family homes, which I assume are somewhat detached, but the reason I bring this out, is you have to be kind of realistic when you look at projects and people keep saying you got to build it for less, you’ve got to price it lower, with the economy of scale you’ve got on a project that big, they’re probably selling these things as low as you possibly can because they are able to build many numbers of these and you can do it for less when you’re doing a lot of them. If you’re doing a project with one or two units you can understand how much more expensive this is, if you can’t spread the cost over a number of units. But, I was happy to see that it does again to address some of our shortages for homes acceptable for families that have enough space with adequate parking hopefully, I think they have a big demand and continue to build all the rest of them.
Commissioner Johnson:
Thank you very much, so, just for the, I was reviewing the EIR for 1546 Market Street and 1564 Market Street and just really quickly, one of the things that I thought was really awesome, is that there is a map that showed the project area, as well as, all MUNI or other public transit stops within a half a mile radius. And I know that this is, we did something similar where we requested a map for a large project authorizations within a half mile of a large project authorization that we were looking at for a decision and I’d like to request that staff, or through the Chair, request that staff provide a similar map of public transit access for all large project authorizations and sort of add it to that map we are currently getting.
Commissioner Moore:
I would just like to report to the Commission that the subcommittee for the Rules met today for the first time. It was a lively meeting, time was much too short and we will be meeting again on March 2nd, and report with more detail then.
Commissioner Johnson:
March 5th.
Commissioner Moore:
March 5th? I’m sorry what did I say, March 5th yes, thank you.
C. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
6. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Good Afternoon Commissioners, I was just going to mention the memo that Corey Teague put in your packet last week regarding the Prop M allocation numbers. We’re happy to discuss that further, we wanted you to have the latest numbers on that to look at with an updated list of projects that are currently in queue. To Commissioner Antonini, I don’t really have a timeline for you at this point. We are working on a lot of those issues you raised. Hopefully, we’ll be able to come back to you this summer with something more definitive.
7. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
Board of Supervisors Report:
BOARD HEARINGS THIS COMING WEEK:
Land Use Committee
Canceled
Full Board
· 110548 Signs, Awnings, Canopies & Marquees. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Starr. Item 2, Second Read
· 141237 Reasonable Accommodations. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Mohan/Dischinger. Item 3, Second First Read
· 141264 GP Urban Forest Plan Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Swae/Varat. Item 4, Second Read
· 150003 Zoning Map 1600 Cortland. Sponsor: Campos. Staff: D. Sanchez. Item 5, Second Read
· 150037 Interim Zoning Controls - Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT-3) District - Parcels along Market Street West of Octavia Boulevard. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Starr. Item 6, Adoption
· 141253 Article Two. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Starr. Item 8, Second Read
· 140876 Planning Code - Office Conversion Controls In Landmark Buildings. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Wertheim. Item 14, First Read
· 150128 Approval of a 90-Day Extension for Planning Commission Review of an Ordinance (File No. 140877) Amending the Downtown Support Special Use District; Fees in Lieu of On-Site Open Space. Sponsor: Kim. Staff: Burns. Item 17, Adoption
RESULTS OF HEARINGS LAST WEEK:
Land Use Committee
· 150037 Interim Zoning Controls - Moderate Scale Neighborhood Commercial Transit (NCT-3) District - Parcels along Market Street West of Octavia Boulevard. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Not Staffed. Recommended
· 140876 Planning Code - Office Conversion Controls In Landmark Buildings. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Wertheim. Recommended
· 150042 Hearing - Pavement to Parks Program. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Abad. No Action
Full Board
· 140982 Planning Code - Arcades in the Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: D. Sanchez. Item 4, Passed Second Read
· 141265 Police Code-Property Services Contractors at Formula Retail. Sponsor: Breed. Staff: NOT STAFFED. Item 5, Passed Second Read
· 141297 Public Works Code - Personal Wireless Service Facility Site Permits, and Amending Fees. Sponsor: Avalos. Staff: Masry. Item 8, Passed Second Read
· 141210 Emergency Shelters. Sponsor: Mayor. Staff: Haddadan. Item 9, Passed Second Read
· 110548 Signs, Awnings, Canopies & Marquees. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Starr. Item 20, Passed First Read
· 141237 Reasonable Accommodations. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Mohan/Dischinger. Item 21, Passed First Read
· 141253 Article Two. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Starr. Item 22, Passed First Read
· 141264 GP Urban Forest Plan Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Swae/Varat. Item 23, Passed First Read
· 150003 Zoning Map 1600 Cortland. Sponsor: Campos. Staff: D. Sanchez. Item 24, Passed First Read
LEGISLATION INTRODUCED:
· 150098 Hearing and presentation from the Planning Department and the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development on the disbursement of $1,200,000 to Urban West for Rincon Developers, LLC, for the improvements of the Rincon Hill Community and the South of Market (SoMa) Stabilization Fund. Sponsor: Kim.
· 150087 Interim Zoning Controls - Building Permits for Commercial Uses in an Area Bounded by Market, 2nd, Brannan, and Division Streets, and South Van Ness Avenue. Sponsor: Kim
· 150082 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishing the Divisadero Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Breed
· 150081 Planning Code, Zoning Map - Establishing the Fillmore Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Breed
LEGISLATION NEARING EFFECTIVE DATE / NEWLY EFFECTIVE
· 150037 Interim Zoning Controls Six-Month Extension - Upper Market Street Neighborhood Commercial Transit District. Sponsor: Wiener. Staff: Not Staffed. Code Summary Needs Update
· 141231 Interim Zoning Controls - New Massage Establishments. Sponsor: Tang. Staff: Not Staffed. Code Summary SENT
· 140844 Department Initiated Formula Retail Ordinance. Rodgers/Burns. Effective 12/26/14. Code Summary SENT
· 120881. (110548 &/or 110547) Uses, Conformity of Uses, Parking Requirements for Uses, and Special Use Districts. Starr. Effective 12/26/14. Code Summary Sent
· 140381 Administrative, Planning Codes - Amending Regulation of Short-Term Residential Rentals and Establishing Fee. (Starr) Effective 2/1/15. Code Summary SENT
· 141006 Interim Zoning Controls 2nd Street Ground Floor. Effective 11/7/14 Expires 5/7/2016. Code Summary SENT
· 140951 Moratorium on Production, Distribution, and Repair Conversion in the Proposed Central South of Market Plan Area. Kim, Avalos, Campos, Chiu, and Mar. Interim (Wertheim) Effective: 10/9/14 Expiration: 10/9/16. Code Summary SENT
140821 Interim Controls; Business Sign. (Purvis, S. Sanchez) Sponsors: Wiener, Chiu. Effective 9/7/14 Expiration 2/7/2016. Code Summary SENT
Board of Appeals:
The Board of Appeals did meet last night. I think three items to brief the Commission on. The first would be an appeal on a Variance decision letter for 312 Green Street. This was heard by the Commission as a DR back in October. The Commission unanimously decided Not to Take Discretionary Review, the Board heard the Variance appeal last night, and with a two to one vote, voted to uphold the Variance decision. They were absent one Commissioner last night, they need three votes to take any action, so, just by default the Variance was upheld, I think it was a well reasoned decision letter that Mr. Teague issued on that project. The second item is 125 Crown Terrace, which was an appeal of a building permit application last night at the Board of Appeals. The permit sought to change the method of construction. When this was before this Commission several years ago it was an alteration permit and an alteration under the Planning Code. It did not meet the thresholds of Section 317 to be considered a demolition or tantamount to demolition. As you probably are well aware, in December of 2013 there was a catastrophe at the site where the building, did fall. Shoring, that was underneath the building, was not built as per plan and the building collapsed. They subsequently revised the application. The project stayed the same, the end result was the same building envelope, that was approved by this Commisison and the Board of Appeals, but they had to remove more of the building, they could salvage and would be a demolition under Section 317 and Section 317 deemed that it qualified, it was demonstrably not affordable housing, the assessed value, it was unique case, because the building did collapse, we based the assessment on the appraised value of the land plus the site works that had been done to date, as the date of the collapse of the building and that exceeded $1.506 million. We did, even though it was administratively reviewed, it still was subject to Section 311, there were no Discretionary Reviews filed, but there was an appeal of the building permit last night. The Board unanimously upheld that permit, so it may move forward. Lastly, over the past few weeks and months have seen, I think it’s safe enough to characterize it as an uptick, but a number of dwelling unit removals that, removal of illegal dwelling units. Often times at the Board of Appeals hearings people will argue that they should be subject to Section 317 or subject to the Mayor’s Executive Directive. A lot of these are single-family dwellings that have illegal second units and they are not subject to Section 317 nor are they subject to the Mayor’s Executive Directive. So, just wanted to make you aware that we have had a couple of these recently at the Board of Appeals, just to keep you advised of the goings on at the Board of Appeals. I’m available for any questions.
Historic Preservation Commission:
Commissioners, Director Rahaim good afternoon, Karl Hasz President of the Historic Preservation Commission. Thank you for accommodating me today on this sort of, an unusual appearance. But basically, we only communicate through letters, normally. And, I don’t think the letters always fully describe our backgrounds of discussions and our sort of direction we are taking. And so I want to come to you on one specific one today, we have a policy paper that we are going to be voting on, that we have not voted on yet, but we have consensus at the Commission that I want to talk about, very briefly. It’s on the Draft Environmental Reports coming out on the Draft Environmental Reports and the Preservation Alternatives. And what we’re seeing more and more of, is a very frustrating situation where Preservation is being blamed for completely messing with the sponsor’s goals if any part of a building is saved that is significant. And what we see is that, let’s say they’ll have a 150 units or 100 units that they want to do and if there’s a significant building on the property and they want to save any of it all of a sudden they have to chop the project in half. And, that is from lack of creativity, not from Preservation, not from the Historic Preservation Commission. We see the one on Pine Street recently, where they took out the building, they didn’t have to, they could have easily put it right into the design of the façade. It would have been considered demo by definition, but at least they could have saved the façade, they could have saved some semblance of what was there, what that block looked like back in the day, and you’ve got another project coming before you shortly, where it’s the same thing. Where all of a sudden it is two towers, if they save any part of the building one tower goes away. And, the Historic Preservation Commission, our goal is to meet sponsor’s goals. We want them to build as much as they can. But we also would like to preserve significant buildings, at least parts of them. And, so it’s been a very frustrating thing and so, our letters, sometimes like I said, it’s very tough to go into a full explanation of where we’re coming from. We may just disagree with the environmental report and then preservation alternatives in that report, so that’s why I’m here today is to say that there is a lot more behind that. And then President Fong and I were speaking, and Vice President Wu and I were speaking earlier, and it might be smart of us to occasionally do a check in with each other. A combination meeting, no voting or anything like that, but just a here’s where we’re coming from, here’s what we are feeling these days and here’s what we’re seeing. Just with so much development happening, you know from our side with Preservation we want to try to keep some consistency in this City and what this places have looked like for so long.
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: Alyce Derosiers – 160 Folsom impacts;
Steve Cookston – 160 Folsom impacts;
Elyse Jeante – Block One height;
Sue Hestor – notification procedures.
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. (K. DEMARTINI: (415) 575-9118)
FINALIZE FY 2015-2017 DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM - Review and adopt a recommendation for approval of a balanced Fiscal Year 2015-2017 Department Budget and Work Program for submission to the Mayor’s Office.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for approval
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19321
9. (S. SANCHEZ: (415) 558-6350)
Academy of Art University UPDATE – Informational Update and Progress Report on the Academy of Art University (AAU) Enforcement Program.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: + Danny Gracia – Fire Fighters Toys for Tots program;
- Sue Hestor – Nine year process; impacts to entire neighborhoods.
ACTION: None – Informational
10. (R. ABAD: (415) 575-9123)
PAVEMENT TO PARKS PROGRAM UPDATE - Informational Presentation - Pavement to Parks is coordinated by the Planning Department in collaboration with other City Agencies and nonprofits. The Program works with communities to create and test new public spaces in neighborhoods. These include parklets, pedestrian plazas, mobile prototypes, and more. Initiated in 2009 with a few pilot projects, the Program has grown in scale and impact to neighborhoods. Over the last year, Pavement to Parks has re-launched is pedestrian plaza program, created signature prototypes, and provided guidance to startup programs around the country. The program has also created a two-year strategic plan which creates greater efficacy and sustainability for the future. The Annual Report will provide an overview of past successes and outline the agenda for the future.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: + Steve Friar – pavement to parks, parklet parking day;
+ Sahiti Karaputi – support;
+ Natalie Burdock – support.
ACTION: None – Informational
11. 2014.1501PCA (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING CODE TO CREATE EXCEPTIONS FROM DWELLING UNIT DENSITY LIMITS AND FROM OTHER SPECIFIED CODE REQUIREMENTS [BOARD FILE NO. 140954] - Planning Code Amendment to permit exceptions from dwelling unit density limits and other requirements of the Code when adding Dwelling Units to existing buildings undergoing seismic retrofitting; deleting the requirement that a new In-Law Unit constructed in and near the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District be limited to 750 square feet; correcting outdated cross-references and Code language; affirming the Planning Department’s California Environmental Quality Act determination; and making findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: + Supervisor Wiener – Sponsor presentation;
+ John Kevlin – great opportunity for naturally affordable units;
= Sue Hestor – ban these units from short term rentals.
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19322
12. 2015-000909CRV (D. SIDER: (4215) 558-6697)
AMENDMENTS TO THE SMALL BUSINESS PRIORITY PROCESSING PILOT PROGRAM (“SB4P”) – Consideration of, and possible action on, amendments to the SB4P, as adopted in April 2013 under Commission Resolution Number 18842. The SB4P is a Planning Commission Policy intended to streamline the review process for certain applications made by small businesses. The proposed amendments would generally renew and expand the program.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted the Policy amendments, with exception to Subcategories 2 & 3 of Item 1; and Eliminating amendments to Item 4.
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson
NAYES: Wu, Moore, Richards
RESOLUTION: 19323
13. 2014.1047C (L. AJELLO: (415) 575-9142)
919 CLEMENT STREET - south side between 10th and 11th Avenues; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1442 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c), 303.1, and 703.4 to legalize the establishment of a Formula Retail financial service (d.b.a Cathay Bank) within the Inner Clement NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District) and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The space was previously occupied by Gateway Bank. 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 22, 2015)
SPEAKERS: + John Kevlin – Project presentation
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
ABSENT: Fong
MOTION: 19324
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.
14. 2014-001042DRP (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)
26 HODGES ALLEY - east side, north of the intersection with Vallejo Street, Lot 012 in Assessor’s Block 0134 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2013.03.21.2735, proposing a side addition to the northern property line at the first and second floors which encroaches into the rear yard setback. The rear yard requirement is 28’-4” and the existing building is non-conforming as it maintains a 9” rear yard. The proposed third floor addition complies with the rear yard requirement. The proposed 3’-0” deep side addition encloses an existing stairway and extends approximately 5’-6” beyond the adjacent neighbor to the north and spans approximately 16’-0” but does not increase the overall building depth. A rear yard variance (2013.0783V) was granted by the Zoning Administrator on December 4, 2014 after a public hearing held on September 24, 2014. The Variance was appealed and will be heard at the Board of Appeals on February 18, 2015. The property is located within a RH‐3 (Residential House, Three Family) District, the Telegraph Hill North Beach Residential 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 Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 12, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
15. 2013.0772D (J. SPEIRS: (415) 575-9106)
3332 FOLSOM STREET –west side between Stoneman and Ripley Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 5544 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 201311010935 proposing a rear addition with roof deck, a side infill at the front, and a vertical addition which includes raising the existing building 42 inches to accommodate a new garage, and a new entry stair on an existing two-story single-family dwelling 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.
Staff Analysis: Abbreviated Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: - Darragh Howard – DR Requestor presentation - privacy;
+ Jaram Altman – Project presentation.
ACTION: Took DR and Approved the Project with the following conditions:
1. Require Code compliance at the ground level as it relates to the separation between garage and bedroom spaces; and
2. a 24” x 30” planter on the south side of the roofdeck that wraps four feet around the west side.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
DRA No: 0405
16a. 2013.1521DDV (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
22 ORD COURT - north side of Ord Court; Lot 067 in Assessor’s Block 2619 - Request for Discretionary Review of 1) Building Permit Application 2013.1021.9832 proposing the vertical addition of an existing 3-story single-family-home, adding a 4th story and, 2) of Building Permit Application 2013.1021.9817 proposing the new construction of a 4-story single-family home in the required rear yard. The project is located within a RH-2 (Residential, Home, two-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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve
Note: On December 4, 2014, after hearing and closing public comment, the Commission continued the matter to February 5, 2015 by a vote of +6 -0 (Hillis was absent).
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2015)
SPEAKERS: - Chris Parkes – DR Requestor’s presentation;
+ John Kevlin – Project presentation;
- Chris Wilson – 1985 Passmore decision;
- Andrew Goldman – two ways to reduce the size;
- Ari Marcus – setback State Street building;
- Mary Anne Dresden – 22 Ord Court Variance decision from 1984;
- Jenna Boule – opposition, trees;
- Judith Hoyem – tree removal;
- Kevin Grier – modifications to State Street buildings;
- Kirk Aguilar – variance request;
- David Cannon – opposition.
ACTION: After hearing and closing public comment; Continued to March 12, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
16b. 2013.1521DDV (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
22 ORD COURT - north side of Ord Court; Lot 067 in Assessor’s Block 2619 - Request for Variance from Planning Code Section 134 for the new construction of the single-family home in the required rear yard. The project is located within a RH-2 (Residential, Home, two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Note: On December 4, 2014, after hearing and closing public comment, the Zoning Administrator continued the matter to February 5, 2015.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2015)
SPEAKERS: Same as 16a
ACTION: ZA, after hearing and closing public comment; Continued to March 12, 2015
17a. 2013.1522DDV (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
24 ORD COURT - north side of Ord Court; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 2619 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2013.1021.9830 proposing the new construction of a 3-story single-family home in the required rear yard. The project is located within a RH-2 (Residential, Home, two-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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take DR and Approve
Note: On December 4, 2014, after hearing and closing public comment, the Commission continued the matter to February 5, 2015 by a vote of +6 -0 (Hillis was absent).
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2015)
SPEAKERS: Same as 16a
ACTION: After hearing and closing public comment; Continued to March 12, 2015
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Johnson, Moore, Richards
17b. 2013.1522DDV (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
24 ORD COURT - north side of Ord Court; Lot 066 in Assessor’s Block 2619 - Request for Variance from Planning Code Section 134 for the new construction of the single-family home in the required rear yard. The project is located within a RH-2 (Residential, Home, two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Note: On December 4, 2014, after hearing and closing public comment, the Zoning Administrator continued the matter to February 5, 2015.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 5, 2015)
SPEAKERS: Same as 16a
ACTION: ZA, after hearing and closing public comment; Continued to March 12, 2015
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 – 5:30 p.m.
ADOPTED: March 5, 2015