Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Decisions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Votes at a glance: continuances, consent items and approvals from the Nov. 15 Planning Commission meeting
Summary
Summary of formal actions taken Nov. 15 by the San Francisco Planning Commission, including continuances, consent approvals, adoption of the 2019 calendar, approval of a cannabis code amendment (5–1) and conditional‑use authorization for 1043 Alabama Street (6–0).
Here are the formal motions and outcomes from the Nov. 15 San Francisco Planning Commission meeting:
• Continuances for items 1, 2, 3 and 14a — Motion to continue the listed items to specified dates (mover: Commissioner Koppel). Outcome: passed unanimously, 6–0. (See consent/continuance discussion.)
• Consent calendar approvals — Items 4–6 (conditional use authorizations at 162 West Portal Avenue, 1200 Irving Street, and 1 Jones Street) approved by roll call. Outcome: passed unanimously, 6–0.
• Adoption of 2019 hearing schedule — Commission modified and adopted the 2019 calendar (shifting cancellations and reinstating September dates). Outcome: passed unanimously, 6–0.
• Planning‑code amendment (section 190) — Motion to approve Office of Cannabis / Planning Department modifications to allow certain in‑process MCDs to pursue conversion and to remove a filing‑date cutoff; includes staff recommendations requiring conditional‑use review for pending sites and an active‑processing date. Outcome: passed, 5–1 (Commissioner Richards opposed). Vote record: Commissioners Fong, Johnson, Koppel, Melgar and President Hillis — yes; Richards — no; Commissioner Moore absent.
• Continuance: Hearse Building (5 Third Street) CEQA appeal — staff requested time to review a new SHPO letter; the commission continued the appeal to Dec. 13 to allow coordination with the Historic Preservation Commission and to accommodate appellants. Outcome: passed unanimously 6–0.
• 1043 Alabama Street (conditional use authorization to remove an unauthorized dwelling unit) — Staff found legalization financially infeasible (estimated legalization cost ≈ $562,500); applicant described hardship. Outcome: motion to approve passed unanimously 6–0.
• 1026 Clayton Street (discretionary review) — After testimony and staff report, the commission declined to take further doctor review and approved the project as proposed. Outcome: approved by roll call.
These outcomes reflect the full roll‑call votes recorded on the meeting record. For site‑level approvals or conversions tied to the cannabis amendments, affected applicants must still complete neighborhood notice, discretionary review and any required conditional‑use proceedings.
