Untitled 1
SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, October 10, 2013
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12: 06 PM.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Sharon Lai, Kanishka Burns, Corey Teague, Danielle Harris, Diego Sanchez, Rich Sucre, Erika Jackson and Jonas P. Ionin - Acting 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.
None
B. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will 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.
1. 2012.1225C (S. LAI: 415.575.9087)
4555 CALIFORNIA STREET - southeast corner of California Street and 8th Avenue, Lot 041A in Assessor’s Block 1426 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 182, 186, 303, 716.44 and 790.91 to legalize the addition of a restaurant use component to an existing retail grocery use (DBA “Village Market”) that is a LCU (Limited Commercial Use), within the RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) 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: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18993
2. 2013.1105Q (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
4752 – 4760 17th STREET – northeast corner at Cole Street; lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 1286 – Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story, five-unit building into residential condominiums within a RH-2 (Residential-House, Two Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18994
3. 2013.1273Q (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
747 Lyon Street – southwest corner at Golden Gate Avenue; lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1159 – Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story, six-unit building into residential condominiums within a RH-3 (Residential-House, Two-family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18995
4. 2013.1174Q (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
1747 – 1757 Larkin Street – southwest corner at Jackson Street; lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 0597 – Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story, mixed used building with five dwelling units and one commercial space at the ground floor into five residential condominiums and one commercial condominium within a RM-2 (Residential-Mixed, Moderate Density) Zoning District and 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18996
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
5. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for September 26, 2013
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
Adoption of Commission Minutes – Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.
6. 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:
Couple of items, one, I think, a very good one, not so good, but at least an acknowledgment of a problem. Heard on the news today, the bond rating for San Francisco has been upgrade from double A to double A+, I think, I do not know that much about bond rating categories, but that is good sign, they felt – the traders and bonds felt the City was very well run and pretty fiscally sound with the exception of the concerns of pension and health funding, which we have known about, but that is good sign, a lot of it is owing to the fact we have such robust economy and tax base has been increasing so quickly. On the other item, I noticed that the Mayor has acknowledge that more needs to be done on the issue of homelessness and general street people, and graded himself with a C and promised to do more, and was happy to hear, this is being looked at more closely, because -- especially in regard to aggressive panhandling and other items, there are a lot of – with the kind of review we have now online, it’s not uncommon that people will immediately go online on one of the social networks, and they will report negatively about their experiences, and many of them say, we will never come back to San Francisco, because of the experience we have with the former. I think we can’t get over confident with our tourist industry, which seems to be healthy right now, but you get enough bad reviews and it can go the other way, so, I think we have to look up closely at this things, I am glad to hear that it’s being looked at more realistically and hopefully we can come up with some solutions.
Commissioner Borden:
Yes, last night I spent some time at the – the Planning Department held a hearing, a public hearing about the African American Context Statement, and I would like to say, it was not a smooth meeting. There is a lot of concern in the community around who does the work? And how the community can adequately be involved, and I personally let the community know, that we are very much going to be responsive to their concerns and are looking at other ways to be more inclusive in the process. At some point, I would like to have the Director do an informational item here at the Commission, there is just – you know, a concern that – make sure the entire community and the different parts of the community are represented and heard, and that the documentation of people’s stories and their histories are adequately covered. So, we made an agreement to make sure that it is adequately done. There were members of the Japantown Task Force present, they didn’t share their positive experience, but are willing to share their positive experience and so, we look forward to being able to move this forward. As was announced last night, this is going to be a yearlong process, there’s Planning staff working on it, and there is also a team of consultants with expertise in African American History here in San Francisco and beyond, who are working more specifically on the project, but there was concerns about who in the Department was actually handling the project. So, we are going to be working with the Director on how we can work through some of the community concerns and move this project forward successfully.
Commissioner Moore:
I would like to support Commissioner Borden’s request for that, we need support from all other Commissioners, in order for that to happen, and you have mine. On another matter, a procedural question, probably for the Zoning Administrator. Can a project, which has been, for example, operating without a permit or is in violation of any other issues, come on the Consent calendar without it being presented?
Scott Sanchez, Zoning Administrator:
Thank you. That is entirely up to the Commission, how that item would be scheduled, there is certainly nothing in the Planning Code that would prohibit legalization for appearing as a Consent item, I am not aware of any Code requirements that will prohibit that. I think we have done that in the past and the Commission, at times, has expressed their concerns about that. But I don’t think there is anything in the Code that will prohibit a consent item, but I can do more research on that.
Commissioner Moore:
I would be interested, and encourage the Commission to support, that no item, which is in any violation or is in short cut of having the proper permit at the time that it comes in front us, would be put on the Consent calendar. Sometimes Consent calendar reading, is one supporting in the Department and its work, but it is also being informed of the subject matter. I would feel greatly at ease, continuing support of consent calendar, because mostly it is very well done, however, I would ask that any item, which indeed hasn’t followed procedures in another area, would not be put on Consent.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Yes, just to follow up Commissioner Borden, I was not at the meeting, but I think sometimes, there is a – a Context Statement has a specific purpose and has a specific kind of format and way it is put together. It isn’t a general community history, so to speak, so there might be some misunderstandings in the community as to exactly what this creature is. I understand about telling stories and all of that. And some of that is helpful, but telling the story of the African American experience in San Francisco, is not the direction or the purpose of the Context Statement, it is a little bit, but it really is much more limited, in what it is supposed to do. And perhaps, some additional meetings, to define what that is, a little bit more closely and that kind of thing might be in order. I have seen some emails about some other issues surrounding this, that I won’t go into here.
Commissioner Borden:
Back to what you are saying, I think that it is exactly correct, there is a somewhat misunderstanding about what the purpose of the document is, but there is also a desire, for something more robust to be done as well. And one of the things I did suggest, is that if the Department finds it possible we could extend, you know, maybe apply for a grant to do additional work, if there is such need.
Commissioner Antonini:
In regards to the item raised by Commissioner Moore, I would be supportive of her position, I think it would have to be a situation, where something has been built in-lieu of a permit, rather than something that just lacks permitting, because sometimes we have to pass a conditional use before they can even begin the permitting process, but I think the intention is something that was in violation already. So, it seems to make sense to me, if it is in violation we should probably have a look at it, even though, it may not be our jurisdiction to do the permitting.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
7. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Good afternoon Commissioners. A couple of announcements, last night – I want to thank Commissioner Borden for coming to the meeting last night, I think it was helpful. We will continue to work on that – on the African American Context Statement and on the staffing and consultant pool for that, which did generate some discussion, although I don’t think -- I think that the points may be reasonable. To be perfectly honest, I have been to far worse public meetings, more formal challenging public meetings. The second thing I wanted to mention, I just wanted to give a call out to the Code Enforcement staff. The staff has done a kind of Yeoman’s job this year of clearing out a number of cases, in fact over 700 cases this year, which is a 70 percent increase over their normal rate of clearance and they really gone through and really taken care to kind of look at these cases, to make sure that the ones that need to be closed out are closed out, sending out notices. They are really doing a great job and because of the budget situation we have been able to add another Code Enforcement staff, very recently, so we think, we are going to do an even better job in the coming year on the Code Enforcement issues. Thirdly, I just wanted to mention that we had, I think, I’m not sure if I mentioned this last week, we had two workshops on the Eastern Neighborhood on Potrero Hill sponsored by Supervisor Cohen, we had a great turnout from the neighborhood, kind of reminding everyone about the Easter Neighborhoods Plan and the history of that plan. There is some concerns in the Potrero Hill neighborhood, about the amount and size of development that is going on right now, and those projects are coming up pretty quickly, and so, we wanted to kind of remind everybody about the parameters of that Plan. Why we did it, the overall controls of that plan and we'll continue to do that. This is part of, kind of, our attempt to being more robust in our public outreach around development in the City right now. This is kind of the first in a series of seminars on similar types of topics that we'll be doing in the coming year. And with that, that closes my presentation, Thank you. Oh oh, no, no! I am sorry. One more item, we are very pleased to announce, and I think this was in the paper that the American Planning Association and their Annual Great Places Program has chosen Chinatown as one of the ten great neighborhoods in the Country. This announcement was made last week. There's a press release. This is a program that the APA does every year. It selects several great places and great neighborhoods and Chinatown was selected this year on the basis of its integrity, about its history and the great work that has been happening in the neighborhood over the last decade. So, our congratulations to the neighborhood and particularly to Commissioner Wu and all her great work there. And thanks to the APA for designating one of our great neighborhoods.
8. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
· At this week’s Land Use Committee meeting, the Committee again heard Supervisor Cohen’s 3rd Street Formula Retail RUD. If you recall, it was continued in early September because substantial amendments were made immediately prior to the hearing and was subsequently continued so that Supervisor Cohen could discuss the fate of the Fresh and Easy location on 3rd Street with the company Yucaipa, who will be purchasing the Fresh and Easy chain of stores. Supervisor Cohen incorporated all of the Commission’s 3 recommended changes in the proposed Ordinance:
o Revise the proposed District boundaries so that the proposed RUD includes all properties from Williams Avenue to Paul Avenue that face Third Street.
o Revise the Ordnance so that the proposed RUD is subject to the same controls as all other Formula Retail establishments in the City.
o Revise Planning Code Section 303(i) so that change in ownership would not trigger a CU unless significant features are changed such as the signage, name, branding or a change in merchandise.
The Committee voted unanimously to send the Ordinance to the Full Board with a positive recommendation.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
· Appeal of 480 Potrero. The appellants filed an appeal of the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. The primary issues raised by the appellants include concerns about hazardous materials, public notification, parking, noise, and potential construction impacts on the adjacent Verdi Club building. The Department contended that the appellants did not provide any evidence of a significant environmental impact; that the project is consistent with the Eastern Neighborhoods Final EIR; that it qualifies for a Community Plan Exemption; and that the mitigation measures in the Neg Dec cover any potential hazardous materials issue. Supervisors Cohen and Campos asked several questions primarily related to parking. The Department contended that the project would not result in a substantial parking deficit and would not create hazardous conditions or significant delays affecting traffic, transit, bicycles or pedestrians. With that, Supervisor Cohen requested more time to review parking and the item was continued until October 22nd.
INTRODUCTIONS:
· BF 130969 Hearing on how the Federal government shutdown in Washington, D.C., will effect the City and County of San Francisco and the City's services capabilities. Farrell.
· BF 131008 Hearing on the City's strategy for funding and implementing the estimated $250,000,000-$390,000,000 of infrastructure improvements that have been identified to support new development in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan. Cohen.
· BF 131001 Resolution adopting the Health Care Services Master Plan and commending the Department of Public Health and Planning Department for running a robust data driven process infused with widespread community input to create the plan. Campos.
· BF 130999 Ordinance amending the Planning Code, Zoning Use District Map ZN01, to provide for eligibility to sell transferable development rights for property at 133-135 Golden Gate Avenue (St. Boniface Church and Rectory); and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1. Kim
· BF 130998 Ordinance amending the Planning Code, by adding Section 102.37 and amending Section 204.1, to allow Cottage Food Operation as an accessory use for dwelling units and increase the allowable area for accessory uses in dwelling units; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1. Chiu.
· BF 130938 Ordinance amending the Planning Code to revise deadlines for certain Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) exemptions; eliminate project-specific references in exemptions applicable to redevelopment areas, and make such exemptions dependent on the terms of the controlling development agreement, redevelopment plan, interagency agreement or other contract entered into by the City; require that the TIDF be calculated based on the rate in effect and the time of issuance of the first construction document; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1. Wiener.
· BF 130084 Ordinance amending the Planning Code to establish the Excelsior Outer Mission Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) along Mission Street between Alemany Boulevard and the San Francisco-San Mateo County line; repealing the Excelsior Alcohol Restricted Use District and adding controls on liquor establishments to the new NCD; amending various sections to make conforming and other technical changes; amending the Zoning Map to rezone specified properties to the new NCD; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1. Avalos.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
The Board of Appeals did meet last night. Had a lengthy hearing. Two items that maybe of interest to the Commission. The first been 3166 16th Street, this is the Jack Spade location. At the previous hearing on August 21st, the Board had voted 3-2 to deny the permit. Four votes are needed to overturn Departmental actions, so the permit was upheld. There was a rehearing request, which was heard last night. It takes four votes to grant a rehearing request and the Board voted to grant the rehearing request. There were four votes to grant the rehearing request, and it’s been scheduled for December 11th. Some of the comments from the Commissioners, in terms of granting the rehearing request, were that there was new information from previous members of the Board of Supervisors about their intent in passing the Formula Retail Use Controls and also Commissioner Fung had some – wants some additional information about rents that were being – market rate rents in area, that came up in the hearing last night. The other item is 68 Presidio; this was a Discretionary Review that was scheduled for hearing here on June 20th. At the hearing the item was withdrawn. We got an e-mail probably about noon that day saying the DR had been withdrawn, I think they had reached an agreement. Apparently there was no agreement. The permits were issued and there were appeals filed on these permits as well as a permit for sprinklers. That was heard last night. There were three appeals that were heard last night by the Board. Each side gets 21 minutes to speak. So, it was quite lengthy last night. The Board ultimately denied the appeals on the sprinklers permit and one of the permits was to consolidate all permit activity, and this is something the Board had actually required earlier this year, of them. One item issue was a roof deck permit and there were issues raised about exiting in terms of whether or not they satisfied Building Code requirements for means of egress. So, that was continued until additional time for the Department of Building Inspection to review those plans. The Board will meet next on October 23rd where they will consider an appeal of 480 Potrero, which was a large project authorization that this Commission heard several months ago. That's all. I'm available for any questions.
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. However, for items where public comment is closed this is your opportunity to address the Commission. With respect to all other 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: John Elberling – Office development in Central Corridor
Linda Chapman – 1601 Larkin Street
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
9. 2013.0617MZ (C. TEAGUE: (415) 575-9081)
“ADJACENT PARCELS” AND WESTERN SOMA CLEANUP -- AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAPS - Staff will request the Planning Commission consider approving Resolutions to Adopt Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Maps to implement the rezoning of orphaned parcels adjacent to the Western SoMa Plan Area, correct the zoning and heights of several parcels within the Western SoMa Plan Area, and amend the boundaries of the East SoMa, Western SoMa, and Market and Octavia Plan Areas to include the “Adjacent Parcels.”
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 12, 2013)
SPEAKERS: = John Elberling – Community benefit fee for added parcels
ACTION: Adopted Recommendation for Approval with amendments by staff regarding CEQA review and the addendum to the FEIR
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 18997
10. 2013.0224C (D. HARRIS: (415) 575-9102)
3331 24th STREET - south side, between Mission and Bartlett Streets, Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 6516 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303, 736.24, and 790.70, to establish an outdoor activity area, for seating and bocce ball, located the rear of an existing restaurant (d.b.a. Rustic) in the Mission Street NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District and 55-X Height and Bulk designation. 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: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 19, 2013)
SPEAKERS: + Ted Hand, Owner Rustic Pizza – Project Description
+ Ahmad Mohazeb, Architect – Interaction with neighbors
+ Eric Yee, Sound Engineer – Acoustics, mitigative measures
+ Jenna Kitchell – Family oriented restaurant
+ Keith Dunn – Not a raucous crowd
+ Andy Shungreen – Reasonable request
+ Johnny Becklan – Helping neighborhood, outdoor dining area
+ Will McGuire – Not a party area
+ Christina Marshall – Friend and neighbor, generous donor
+ Rebecca Page – Friendly staff, family friendly
+ Tom Elliott – Owner
+ Danielle Kirshlanm – Expand opportunity for family friendly businesses
+ Carmen Elias – Bakery next door, improvement to the neighborhood
- Barbara Blong – Outdoor activity area
- (F) Speaker – Livability
- Jim Elliot – Noise, beer garden, noise mitigation, monitoring plan
- Bob Binkoff – No speakers in support live adjacent to the project
- James Howard – Beer drinkers are difficult to control, lives next door to a beer garden, a constant battle
- (F) Speaker – Inaudible
= Vicente Martinez – Business creating opportunities
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include:
1. That all required permits are obtained;
2. An acoustical report provided prior to BPA issuance;
3. There be a 9 month trial period;
a. 8 pm close for Bocce;
b. 9 pm close for the outdoor area;
4. Hours to be reviewed by the ZA and possibly extended after the trial period;
5. No outdoor music; and
6. An acoustical report provided post construction, during the trial period.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18998
11a. 2007.0385EBKX (D. Sanchez: (415) 575-9082)
345 Brannan Street - south side of Brannan Street, between Stanford and 3rd Streets; Lot 039 of Assessor's Block 3788 - Request for Adoption of Findings pursuant to Section 295 of the Planning Code regarding a Shadow Study that concluded that the shadow cast by the construction of a five-story, 65-foot tall building would not be adverse on South Park, land under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. The property is within a MUO (Mixed Use Office) District and 65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Findings
SPEAKERS: + Andrew Junius – Project description
+ Charles Blasez – Project design
= John Elberling – Office, open space, neighborhood amenities
= Ethan Levine – Small retail space < loop
ACTION: Adopted Findings
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 18999
11b. 2007.0385EBKX (D. Sanchez: (415) 575-9082)
345 Brannan Street - south side of Brannan Street, between Stanford and 3rd Streets; Lot 039 of Assessor's Block 3788 - Request for Large Project Authorization and exception under Planning Code Sections 329 and 136 for a front setback obstruction for the proposed construction of a five-story, 65-foot building of approximately 116,650 square feet. The property is within a MUO (Mixed Use Office) 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: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Andrew Junius – Project description
+ Charles Blasez – Project design
= John Elberling – Office, open space, neighborhood amenities
= Ethan Levine – Small retail space < loop
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19000
11c. 2007.0385EBKX (D. Sanchez: (415) 575-9082)
345 Brannan Street - south side of Brannan Street, between Stanford and 3rd Streets; Lot 039 of Assessor's Block 3788 - Request for Office Development Authorization pursuant to Planning Sections 321 and 322 to establish 102,585 square feet of office use within a five-story, 65-foot building. The property is within a MUO (Mixed Use Office) District and 65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Andrew Junius – Project description
+ Charles Blasez – Project design
= John Elberling – Office, open space, neighborhood amenities
= Ethan Levine – Small retail space < loop
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include a micro-retail component no less than 300 sq. ft.
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19001
12a. 2010.0101CV (R. SUCRÉ: (415) 575-9108)
658-666 SHOTWELL STREET - located between 20th and 21st Streets, Lot 062 in Assessor’s Block 3611 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 209.3(c) and 303 for expansion of a residential care facility (d.b.a Morning Star Residences) from 29 beds to 30 beds and for the new construction of a two-story single-family residence for use as a caretaker’s dwelling. The subject property is located 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 Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Andrew Junius – Project description
+ Flor Mateo – Project description
+ Steve Swanson – Project description
+ Larry Mateo – Project community outreach
- (F) Speaker – Opposed
- Jeremy Paul – Concerned neighbors of Shotwell Street, historic preservation
- Joyce Berman – Outdoor space
- David Brownell – Historic context should be preserved
- Marianne Hartman – Opposed
- Angelie – Level of care provided
- David McKee – Level of care provided, profit maximization
- Bonnie Feinberg – Level of care provided
- Sean Case – Pressure on the neighborhood due to the removal of the green space
- Gilliam Gay – Preserve the unique block
- Gayland Joseph – Opposed
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended to include that staff is to coordinate with other State and/or local health and safety agencies for the inspection of the premises to determine the appropriate location of the additional bedroom
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Moore
NAYES: Hillis
RECUSED: Sugaya
MOTION: 19002
12b. 2010.0101CV (R. SUCRÉ: (415) 575-9108)
658-666 SHOTWELL STREET - located between 20th and 21st Streets, Lot 062 in Assessor’s Block 3611 - Request for Rear Yard and Open Space Variances, pursuant to Planning Code Section 134 and 135, for the new construction of a two-story single-family residence for use as a caretaker’s dwelling associated with the existing residential care facility (d.b.a. Morning Star Residences). The proposal would 1) construct a new residence without providing for the required rear yard; and, 2) would provide the required 1,450 sq. ft. of useable common open space for the residential care facility and new single family residence; however, not according to the dimensions specified in the Planning Code and not of a character that is suitable. The subject property is located within a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
ACTION: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND INDICATED AN INTENT TO DENY
13. 2013.0407C (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)
2407 MISSION STREET - southwestern corner of Mission Street and 20th Street, Lot 029 in Assessor’s Block 3610 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303 and 703.4(b) to establish a Formula Retail use (d.b.a. T-Mobile) within the Mission Street NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit) Zoning District and 55-X Bulk and Height District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Sugaya
NAYES: Moore, Wu
MOTION: 19003
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))
SPEAKERS: Ace Washington – African American Context Statement
Adjournment - 4:35 p.m.
ADOPTED – October 24, 2013
