The Planning Commission took final or recommending votes on a number of items at its Feb. 8 meeting. Key outcomes:
- Tobacco paraphernalia (Item 7, Case 2023-011362 PCA): Commission approved staff‑recommended code amendments to apply a stricter definition in the North Of Market SUD, extend Polk‑style controls to Lower Polk with a quarter‑mile buffer, and shorten abandonment/grandfathering to 18 months; the commission also recommended the supervisor and staff study hours‑of‑operation limits and enforcement. Vote: 6–0 (unanimous recommendation).
- Parcel delivery services (Item 8, Case 2024-000027 PCA): Commission voted 6–0 to approve Supervisor Connie Chan’s proposed ordinance requiring conditional‑use authorization for parcel delivery facilities citywide, while forwarding negotiated recommendations to staff and the sponsor (create expedited/simplified CUA for sites ≤5,000 sq ft, exclude cannabis delivery from accessory‑use prohibition, consider electrification as a criteria for small sites, retain 60‑day temporary exemption, commission a citywide economic/cumulative impact study).
- Department budget (Item 9, Case 2023-0100074 CRV): Commission adopted the Planning Department’s proposed revenue and expenditure budget for FY2024–26, including the removal of 12 vacant positions and other base adjustments. Vote: 6–0.
- HOME SF project at 5425 Mission St (Item 10, Case 2020-000805 AHB): Commission approved a HOME SF 29‑unit mixed‑use project with 23% on‑site affordable units and related exceptions as amended by staff. Vote: 6–0.
- 1571 Schrader St (Item 11, Case 2023-006894 CUA): Commission approved a conditional‑use authorization to remove an unauthorized dwelling unit (UDU) after finding legalization economically infeasible (construction/legalization cost ~ $430,000 vs. appraised value increase). Vote: 6–0.
- 72 Harper St (Item 13, Case 2023-002706 DRP‑04): Following presentations, four doctor (DR) requesters sought discretionary review citing shading, privacy and design concerns. The commission declined to take discretionary review and approved the applicant’s proposed renovation and ADU as code‑compliant. Vote: 6–0.
All recorded votes were unanimous on Feb. 8. Where the commission issued supervisory recommendations (notably the two code amendments), staff and the sponsoring supervisors were directed to refine implementing language and return with follow‑up materials to inform subsequent Board of Supervisors action or administrative processes.