OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting Summary – September 26, 2024

Planning CommissionThursday, September 26, 2024
BodySan Francisco, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateThursday, September 26, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
0:08

Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, September 26, 2024.

0:15

When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right.

0:20

Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes.

0:23

And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up.

0:27

When your allotted time is reached, I will now announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak.

0:33

Please speak clearly and slowly.

0:35

And if you care to state your name for the record, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind.

0:43

Also, I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings.

0:47

And at this time, I would like to take roll.

0:49

Commission President So.

0:51

Aye.

0:52

Commission Vice President Moore.

0:55

Commissioner Braun.

0:56

Here.

0:57

Commissioner Campbell.

0:58

Here.

0:58

Commissioner Imperial.

1:00

Here.

1:00

Commissioner McGarry.

1:01

Here.

1:02

And Commissioner Williams.

1:03

Here.

1:04

Thank you, Commissioners.

1:05

First, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance.

1:08

At the time of issuance, there were no items proposed for continuance.

1:11

However, we did receive a late request from the supervisor's office for item 10.

1:16

Case number 2024, hyphen 005356 C Way for the property at 229 through 233 Whitney Street.

1:23

A conditional use authorization.

1:24

They're requesting a continuance to November 7th, 2024.

1:29

With that, Commissioners, we should open up public comment.

1:32

Umbers of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any or on the one item being proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance, not the project itself.

1:43

Great.

1:43

Uh good afternoon, Commissioners.

1:45

My name is Laura Strazzo.

1:46

I'm an attorney for the uh property owners.

1:48

Uh we respectfully oppose the request for a continuance to November 7th.

1:52

We wouldn't oppose a shorter continuance to October 10th.

1:56

Um, however, this project is code compliant and subject to the protections of state housing law, including the HAA and the Permit Streamlining Act.

2:04

Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the planning commission must render a decision within 60 days of the negative exemption determination under CEQA, which occurred on August 29th, 2024.

2:14

Um otherwise the project is deemed approved.

2:17

I also wanted to mention the request for the continuance, it's something that HCD pointed out in its policies and practice review of a problematic thing that happens in San Francisco so that neighbors um can have further opportunity to oppose the project.

2:30

So that's another reason why we don't think it's an appropriate to have a continuance uh all the way to November 7th.

2:35

Thank you.

2:39

Georgia Schudish, I don't know why it's continued, but I just think this the peculiarity of this project is the fact that this is an abatement of an enforcement.

2:49

Is that a difference?

2:50

I mean, there's questions I was gonna ask about if this is what's gonna happen in the future.

2:54

That projects that are supposedly to abate an enforcement can just go ahead blithely like they never did anything wrong.

3:02

So I don't know what the deal is with why the supervisor asked for the continuance.

3:07

It's news to me.

3:08

I commented on it.

3:09

I know there's neighbors who commented on it.

3:11

I don't know if it's because they can't come till till then, but I think that this is an extraordinary uh situation because it's not just a project, and a HCD should understand that this is the abatement of an enforcement, and that seems like a whole other kettle of fish.

3:29

Now maybe that's something they haven't figured out, maybe something the city has to figure out, but it's a different kettle of fish than just a project of three units being approved by the commission.

3:41

Thank you.

3:46

Last call for public comment.

3:49

Seeing none public comment is closed, and your continuance calendar is now before you, Commissioners.

4:01

Move to continue item number 10.

4:03

Second.

4:05

To the date specified.

4:07

To the date specified.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Land Use███████████████████████23%
Public Comment██████████████14%
Affordable Housing███████████11%
Procedural████████8%
Climate Adaptation████████8%
Housing Crisis Act████████8%
Building Inspection███████7%
Environmental Review██████6%
Public Engagement█████5%
Summary of Proceedings

San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting Summary – September 26, 2024

The San Francisco Planning Commission held a regular hearing on Thursday, September 26, 2024, to consider continuances, consent calendar items, an informational presentation on the Hazards and Climate Resilience Plan, a public hearing on a Draft Environmental Impact Report, a conditional use authorization for a residential development, and two discretionary review requests.

Consent Calendar

  • Item 1 (2024-007340PCA): Fee Waiver for Vicha Ratanapakdee Mosaic Stairway. The Commission unanimously approved the fee waiver for the Mosaic Stairway.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Continuance (Item 10 - Whitney Street): Laura Strazzo, attorney for the property owners, opposed a continuance to November 7th, citing the Permit Streamlining Act and Housing Accountability Act, suggesting a shorter continuance to October 10th. Georgia Schudish commented on the project's nature as an enforcement abatement.
  • Item 3 (Minutes Correction): Georgia Schudish requested a correction to the September 12th minutes, stating she advised the Commission to "look at the site" regarding the Staples project, not to "look at a memo."
  • General Public Comment: Georgia Schudish presented a historical timeline of Section 317 arguing demolition calculations were never adjusted. Ms. Hester requested the Commission schedule a meeting to adopt the 2025 calendar and hold a presentation on commission rules.
  • Item 9 (842 California Street): Multiple neighbors spoke in opposition. Catherine Anderson expressed concern over blocking views from the University Club and impacts on light and air. Erica Frick argued the building would block iconic views from the historic cable car crossing. Bob Cohn reported a 21% decrease in his property value and cited the oversupply of luxury housing. Regina Scalaro argued the developer was abusing the state density bonus program.
  • Item 11 (1657-1659 Mason Street): DR Requester Kelly Melendez argued the project was invalid due to inaccurate plans. The neighboring property owner stated she was misled and the project would box in her rear yard. An architect neighbor spoke in support, calling the site a "gaping hole" needing infill.
  • Item 12 (1229 45th Avenue): DR Requester Eileen Boken (SPEAK) argued the project was not a legitimate ADU as it was larger than the primary residence. DR Requester Margot Campbell Gross stated the rear structure was uninhabitable and the new building would block light to her dining room.

Discussion Items

  • Item 7 (2025 Draft Hazards and Climate Resilience Plan): The Commission received an informational presentation on the citywide action plan addressing 13 natural hazards. The plan update ensures FEMA grant eligibility and includes 74 actions across buildings, communities, and infrastructure. Commissioners discussed interagency coordination on shoreline resilience, community outreach to environmental justice communities, and the financial scope of projects like the Yosemite Slough Adaptation Plan.
  • Item 8 (3400 Laguna Street - Draft EIR): Staff presented the Draft EIR for expanding the Heritage on the Marina residential care facility. The draft concluded no significant unavoidable impacts. Commissioner Moore raised concerns about the legibility of plans, the historic value of mid-century buildings slated for demolition, and the safety of the proposed parking garage entrance on Bay Street.
  • Item 9 (842 California Street - Conditional Use Authorization): The Commission deliberated on replacing five dwelling units with a 33-unit project utilizing a state density bonus. Debate focused on the loss of rent-controlled units, the height and design impacting the historic Nob Hill neighborhood, the provision of five affordable ownership units, and the constraints of state housing law. The commission was split on balancing housing production versus neighborhood character.

Key Outcomes

  • Item 10 (229-233 Whitney Street): Continued. The Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to continue the item to October 17, 2024, adjusting the original November 7th request to meet Permit Streamlining Act deadlines.
  • Item 1 (Mosaic Stairway Fee Waiver): Approved unanimously (7-0).
  • Item 3 (September 12th Minutes): Adopted unanimously (7-0) with the requested correction.
  • Item 9 (842 California Street): Approved 4-3. Commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Braun, and President Seo voted in favor. Commissioners Moore, Williams, and Imperial voted against.
  • Item 11 (1657-1659 Mason Street): Discretionary Review Taken and Approved with Modifications (6-1). The project must shift massing west, reduce overall height by three feet, and reduce the stair/elevator tower.
  • Item 12 (1229 45th Avenue): Discretionary Review Not Taken; Project Approved (5-2). Commissioners Campbell, McGarry, Braun, Moore, and President Seo voted in favor. Commissioners Williams and Imperial voted against.

Meeting Transcript

Okay, good afternoon and welcome to the San Francisco Planning Commission hearing for Thursday, September 26, 2024. When we reach the item you're interested in speaking to, we ask that you line up on the screen side of the room or to your right. Each speaker will be allowed up to three minutes. And when you have 30 seconds remaining, you will hear a chime indicating your time is almost up. When your allotted time is reached, I will now announce that your time is up and take the next person cued to speak. Please speak clearly and slowly. And if you care to state your name for the record, I will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outbursts of any kind. Also, I ask that we silence any mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings. And at this time, I would like to take roll. Commission President So. Aye. Commission Vice President Moore. Commissioner Braun. Here. Commissioner Campbell. Here. Commissioner Imperial. Here. Commissioner McGarry. Here. And Commissioner Williams. Here. Thank you, Commissioners. First, on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. At the time of issuance, there were no items proposed for continuance. However, we did receive a late request from the supervisor's office for item 10. Case number 2024, hyphen 005356 C Way for the property at 229 through 233 Whitney Street. A conditional use authorization. They're requesting a continuance to November 7th, 2024. With that, Commissioners, we should open up public comment. Umbers of the public, this is your opportunity to address the commission on any or on the one item being proposed for continuance only on the matter of continuance, not the project itself. Great. Uh good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Laura Strazzo. I'm an attorney for the uh property owners. Uh we respectfully oppose the request for a continuance to November 7th. We wouldn't oppose a shorter continuance to October 10th. Um, however, this project is code compliant and subject to the protections of state housing law, including the HAA and the Permit Streamlining Act. Under the Permit Streamlining Act, the planning commission must render a decision within 60 days of the negative exemption determination under CEQA, which occurred on August 29th, 2024. Um otherwise the project is deemed approved. I also wanted to mention the request for the continuance, it's something that HCD pointed out in its policies and practice review of a problematic thing that happens in San Francisco so that neighbors um can have further opportunity to oppose the project. So that's another reason why we don't think it's an appropriate to have a continuance uh all the way to November 7th. Thank you. Georgia Schudish, I don't know why it's continued, but I just think this the peculiarity of this project is the fact that this is an abatement of an enforcement. Is that a difference? I mean, there's questions I was gonna ask about if this is what's gonna happen in the future. That projects that are supposedly to abate an enforcement can just go ahead blithely like they never did anything wrong. So I don't know what the deal is with why the supervisor asked for the continuance. It's news to me. I commented on it.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com