SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, November 14, 2013
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT FONG AT 12:06 PM.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Timothy Johnston, Sophie Hayward, Christina Lamorena, Kevin Guy, Brett Bollinger, Omar Masry, David Alumbaugh, Glenn Cabreros, 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. 2008.1122E (T. JOHNSTON: (415) 575-9035)
SAN FRANCISCO GROUNDWATER SUPPLY PROJECT – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report - The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is proposing the San Francisco Groundwater Supply Project (Groundwater Supply Project), which would provide an average of up to 4 million gallons per day of groundwater to augment San Francisco’s municipal water supply. All of the proposed groundwater well facilities would supply groundwater to existing reservoirs, where it would be blended with San Francisco’s existing municipal water supply before distribution within the city. All project components would be located on the west side of San Francisco on land owned by the City and County of San Francisco. The well facilities would be managed by the SFPUC, including those located on land currently managed by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department. The proposed Groundwater Supply Project is one of several projects that the SFPUC proposes to implement under the SFPUC’s Water System Improvement Program to meet system objectives and service goals.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report
(Proposed for Continuance to December 19, 2013)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to December 19, 2013
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden, Hillis
2. 2013.1368T (S. HAYWARD; (415) 558-6372)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING CODE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING TOURIST HOTEL TO RENT ROOMS TO HOMELESS VETERANS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT ABANDONING THE TOURIST HOTEL USE CLASSIFICATION [BOARD FILE NO. 13-0862] - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Campos adding Planning Code Section 205.5 to establish a new Temporary Use category focused on supportive housing for homeless veterans participating in the federally funded Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH) program. The amendment would allow all or some of the rooms of a Tourist Hotel, as defined in Planning Code Section 790.46, to be occupied by veterans participating in the HUD-VASH program without the Tourist Hotel use being considered to have been abandoned; and adopting findings, including environmental findings, Planning Code Section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
(Proposed for Continuance to January 23, 2014)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to January 23, 2014
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Borden,Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden, Hillis
B. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and may 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
3. 2013.1227Q (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
138-146 BEULAH STREET - north side of Beulah Street between Stanyan and Shrader Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor’s Block 1250 - Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story building at the front of the property and a two-story building at the rear of the property, each containing three dwelling units (six dwelling units total), into residential condominiums within a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden, Hillis
MOTION: 19017
4. 2013.1316Q (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
1865 CLAY STREET - south side of Clay Street Street between Franklin Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0623 - Request for Condominium Conversion Subdivision to convert a three-story over garage, six-unit building into residential condominiums within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) Zoning District and 105-D Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden, Hillis
MOTION: 19018
C. 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:
Just a few thoughts, unfortunately we are beginning to hear some – I think an inaccurate rhetoric, that reminds me of the first years, when I was on the Commission. Certain people are saying that we shouldn’t build any further market rate housing, only affordable housing. Well, we don’t live in a controlled society, at least not yet. All affordable housing actually comes from three sources government funding, funding from non-profits or funding from inclusionary housing requirements and all of these sources of funding ultimately have their origin in the private sector, which pays taxes and provides the kind of housing that as a requirement has to build inclusionary. And there've been arguments that, you know, people whose incomes allow them to buy housing in San Francisco and come from somewhere else, don't have the right to live here, and I think that’s the wrong kind of attitude to have, I mean - you know, new citizens bring in tax revenue and transfer taxes and provide the dollars for inclusionary housing. If you look thru the statistics that we get_ every year it shows the amount of the market rate housing built and the amount of affordable housing built and there's a direct correlation. The years when the economy was slow and we weren’t building or approving any market rate housing or very little, showed almost no affordable housing built and as you have noticed in the last few years, in fact, I heard a figure from Transbay, up to 35 percent, I believe, is what’s being proposed for affordable housing as part of Transbay, but there's a direct correlation and the other thing particularly now, where there's concern about the exiting stock and people being displaced from their homes the more new housing you build, tends to take pressure off the existing housing stock. I just wanted to kind of throw in my feelings about that type of thing. And I think in the last few years we've definitely understood the connection between the two and where appropriate we‘ve approved a lot projects that have help to make it a better city.
Commissioner Wu:
Commissioner Comments is probably not the right place to have this kind of discussion, but I just want to state that our diverse views on the Commission about this issue.
Commissioner Moore:
I would second that comment in addition to the fact that this morning there was an encouraging article that Mayor Lee, Supervisors Kim, Avalos, Campos, Chiu, all are trying to find ways to mitigate the crisis we are obviously in.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
6. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Good afternoon, Commissioners. Just a couple of items, I thought I might just spend a minute talking about my recent trip to Detroit, as you know that is my hometown. But I went for a purpose of a symposium on Legacy Cities, which is a relatively new term, talking about post industrial cities that are suffering severe population loss and vacancy. It was a very interesting symposium, organized by The Bruner Loeb Foundation in cities from that part of the country, post industrial cities were represented, actually 14 of those cities. On the one hand, it's discouraging to see what has happened to these places. For example, in Detroit 20 percent of the parcels are now completely vacant land, but if you count parcels that have vacant buildings and streets that are essentially no longer used 50 percent of the city is now completely vacant, and the medium price of that house is about $8,000 today. Having said that, Detroit is only the most extreme example of many cities that are going to very similar situations, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Buffalo, St. Louis, parts of Philadelphia and many smaller cities are experiencing the same problems, Gary, Indiana; Syracuse, New York and other cities. I will say that in spite of those kind of dire statistics, and they are pretty severe, I left with a fair amount of optimism about the number of people, the communities, the passion that is being represented – that was represented around the table on how to make a difference. In fact, looking at how these cities could become different places, kind of new models for American cities, using urban agriculture. We visited a neighborhood, where there is a very active community organization that is looking at establishing a one hundred acre sheep farm in their neighborhood. It's very interesting to have those discussions and to see the possibilities. In terms of the physical planning aspects of these cities the primary issue was what to do with the all this land. Because the land has no value, under our current market system, the land actually has negative value because the cost of maintaining and paying for the taxes is actually higher than the value of the land. So, these communities – and there are a lot of them across the country, have an elaborate land banking systems, that are in place, they are looking alternative uses for the land, storm water management, agriculture, forestry, it's very interesting to see what is going in these places, where people are grappling with very different issues, very different issues than what we grapple with here. I was gratified and I left, actually, with a fair amount of optimism on how it is going, so I just thought I would share that with you I'm happy to talk to any of you in detail more about it.
7. Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Because of the holiday; the Board did not meet on Monday. One item that I did want to report on it is a hearing that is actually still in progress. This is a hearing that – at the Government Audit and Oversight Committee that was called by Supervisor Cohen, specifically on the topic of the infrastructure needs in Eastern Neighborhoods and how we are going to make up the gap between with what was proposed on the plan, and what is actually being funded through impact fees. There was a number of Departments that presented. I actually made the initial presentation to talk about the plan about the pipeline and the plan -- the representative of the Eastern Neighborhood CAC made a presentation, the Controller's Office, MTA, Rec/Park and DPW all presented various aspects of the projects, that we are moving forward with, on Eastern Neighborhoods, I think the bottom line for us is that, the impact fees, of course, were never intended to fund all of these projects, but were intended to be used as leverage to get other grants, for example the way we did with the 17th and Folsom Park. Because of the increased development activity, the impact fees --revenues that are coming are increasing pretty dramatically, especially in the years 2015 and 2017, when we will see the biggest jump in those revenues. In addition, the biggest capital need in the Eastern Neighborhoods, just as much of the City, is around transportation. So, there was a long presentation, about this Mayor’s Transportation Task Force and the MTA to talk about the proposals that are on the table, to fund MTA improvements. I had to leave before public comment to come to this meeting, but that hearing still going on and we can report to you on more detail next week.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Good afternoon, President Fong and Commissioners, Corey Teague for staff. There was a Board of Appeals hearing last night and there were three cases that may be interesting to the Commission. The first was an appeal of a permit for a third story edition at 555 Rockdale Drive an RH-1(D) Zoning District. The Department determined it to be a fairly modest addition that met the Residential Design Guidelines, the Appellant had not filed Discretionary Review, they chose not to that, instead appealed the building permit to the Board of Appeals, and the Board of Appeals voted unanimously 4-0 to uphold the permit. Second, was an appeal of a permit for a rear deck at 174 Brighton Avenue? The neighbor was concerned because they operate a home daycare and were concerned about privacy issues and ultimately the Board of Appeals voted 4-0 to uphold the permit with the condition that the Project Sponsor add bamboo along the fence line, up to certain height to add a little bit of additional screening. That was a compromised position that both the Appellant and the Applicant come to at the hearing. And finally, 350 Mission Street, if you remember, the Planning Commission has taken two separate actions on this project one’s for the original building approval with a 309 downtown project and also office allocation and then after the site was rezoned under the Transit Center District Plan, and Salesforce was brought on board, they came back this year and requested an additional office allocation for an additional up to 6 floors and an additional 80 thousand sq. ft. of office space. There were two separate appeals filed on that, and the first appeal was withdrawn. And there was an agreement made to reduce the size of the additional office story from 6 to 3 floors, but there was one appeal that remained from Sue Hestor that was only specifically for the office allocation and the only issue – the primary issue raised in the appeal was that the development impact fee, which had been deferred under the fee deferral program through DBI for the entire project, the Project Sponsor had agreed for the additional floors that were recently approved, to go ahead and pay all of those impact fees up front, but they were not willing to take the other impact fees for the original project and pull them out of the deferral and go ahead and pay them up front. The Appellant felt that they should. There was much interesting discussion, but in the end, the Board of Appeals did vote 4-0 to uphold the permit.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
No Report
8. (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
535 MISSION STREET - Informational – Public Art Presentation
SPEAKERS: + Serrana Bosnick – Project introduction and description
+ Gordon Hutcher – Art component
+ Tony Stonteiner – The “Band”
ACTION: None – Informational Only
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: David Eisenberger – Opposition to 2116 Jennings Street
Robert Davis – Opposition to 2115 Jennings Street
(M) Speaker – Oppostion to 2111-2115 Jennings Street
Linda Chapman – 1111 California EIR
Jay Wallace – 1111 California EIR
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
9. 2011.0471E (B. BOLLINGER: (415) 575-9024)
1111 CALIFORNIA STREET (MASONIC CENTER) - Assessor’s Block 0253 Lot 020 - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Masonic Center is located at the southwest corner of California and Taylor Streets, in the Nob Hill neighborhood. The project block is bound by California, Taylor, Pine and Jones Streets. The proposed Project would renovate the existing Auditorium, and ground-floor California Room, Exhibition Hall, and catering kitchen. The maximum allowable number of large events (over 250 attendees) would increase from 230 to 315 events. The Auditorium ground floor seats would be removed increasing the maximum capacity from 3,166 to 3,300 patrons. The existing building capacity of 4,674 persons would not change with the proposed project.
Please note: The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on November 2, 2010. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission Agenda.
Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final EIR
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Certified EIR
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis
NAYES: Moore
RECUSED: Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 19019
10. 2013.0834C (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
1111 CALIFORNIA STREET - southwest corner at Taylor Street, Lot 020 of Assessor’s Block 0253 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to change the existing legal nonconforming entertainment use of the “Nob Hill Masonic Center” to a conditionally permitted Other Entertainment use, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 182(b)(1), 303, and 723.48. The requested Conditional Use Authorization would also upgrade the existing catering kitchen to a commercial kitchen, and would add five permanent accessory food and beverage service stations for patrons of entertainment and assembly events, pursuant to Planning Code Section 238(d). No exterior modifications are proposed by this project. The project includes alterations to the main floor of the Masonic Auditorium to remove the existing fixed seats and provide a flexible range of audience configurations (tables and chairs, fixed seating or general admission) which would increase the maximum audience capacity of the Auditorium from 3,166 persons to 3,300 persons. The project also includes a reconfiguration of the existing auditorium stage, as well as installation of new sound and lighting systems. The facility would host a maximum of 79 large live entertainment events per year (defined as events with more than 250 attendees). Of these 79 events, the facility would host a maximum of 54 music concerts per year. The project site is located within a RM-4 (Residential, Mixed, High Density) District, the Nob Hill Special Use District, and 65-A Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Steve Vettel – Project description
+ Matt Freesoff – Live Nation & Event management
+ Joanne Desmond – Stage hands
+ Craig Allamos – Settlement agreement, event conditions
+ Stanley Lanfor – Settlement agreement
+ Bob Tandler – Project description
+ (F) Speaker – Project description
+ Paul Parrity – Heinz & Investco purchase of 41 Tehama
- Linda Chapman – Nob Hill Association
- Jay Wallace – SUD’s, procedural errors & interpretation of the code
- Sue Hestor – Circulation, more bulk, more density on an interior block
= Captain Garrett Tom – Masonic Auditorium recent track record
= April Venerosso, Aid to Supervisor Kim – Concern for the process of increasing heights
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended and read into the record by staff
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore
ABSENT: Borden, Sugaya
MOTION: 19020
11a. 2013.0256XV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
41 TEHAMA STREET - south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 74-77 & 78A of Assessor’s Block 3736 - Request for Downtown Project Authorization, including Requests for Exceptions, pursuant to Planning Code Section (“Section”) 309. On November 29, 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Downtown Project Authorization and Requests for Exceptions pursuant to Section 309, for a proposal to demolish an existing surface parking lot, and construct a new 31-story building, reaching a roof height of 318 feet, with a mechanical enclosure reaching a height of 342 feet, containing approximately 325 dwelling units, 700 square feet of retail space, and 241 off-street parking spaces. In addition, the Zoning Administrator issued a Variance Decision Letter granting Variances for the project from Planning Code requirements for dwelling unit exposure (Section 140), active street frontages (Section 145.1), and vehicular entry width (Section 145.1) (Case No. 2008.0801EVX). The Project proposes to amend the previous approvals to add four additional floors containing an additional 73 dwelling units, reaching a roof height of 360 feet with a mechanical enclosure reaching a height of 380 feet. The amended project requires a Downtown Project Authorization, with requested exceptions to the requirements for separation of towers (Section 132.1), rear yard (Section 134), ground-level wind currents (Section 148), and bulk limitations (Sections 270 and 272). The Project Site is located within a C-3-O(SD) District, the Transbay C-3 Special Use District, and 360-S 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: + Steve Vettel – Project description
+ Matt Freesoff – Live Nation & Event management
+ Joanne Desmond – Stage hands
+ Craig Allamos – Settlement agreement, event conditions
+ Stanley Lanfor – Settlement agreement
+ Bob Tandler – Project description
+ (F) Speaker – Project description
+ Paul Parrity – Heinz & Investco purchase of 41 Tehama
- Linda Chapman – Nob Hill Association
- Jay Wallace – SUD’s, procedural errors & interpretation of the code
- Sue Hestor – Circulation, more bulk, more density on an interior block
= Captain Garrett Tom – Masonic Auditorium recent track record
= April Venerosso, Aid to Supervisor Kim – Concern for the process of increasing heights
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 19021
11b. 2013.0256XV (K. GUY: (415) 558-6163)
41 TEHAMA STREET - south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lots 74-77 & 78A of Assessor’s Block 3736 - Request for a Variance, pursuant to Planning Code Section (“Section”) 305, from the Planning Code requirements for dwelling unit exposure (Section 140). On November 29, 2012, the Planning Commission approved a Downtown Project Authorization and Requests for Exceptions pursuant to Planning Code Section 309, for a proposal to demolish an existing surface parking lot, and construct a new 31-story building, reaching a roof height of 318 feet, with a mechanical enclosure reaching a height of 342 feet, containing approximately 325 dwelling units, 700 square feet of retail space, and 241 off-street parking spaces. In addition, the Zoning Administrator issued a Variance Decision Letter granted Variances for the project from Planning Code requirements for dwelling unit exposure (Section 140), active street frontages (Section 145.1), and vehicular entry width (Section 145.1) (Case No. 2008.0801EVX). The Project proposes to amend the previous approvals to add four additional floors containing an additional 73 dwelling units, reaching a roof height of 360 feet with a mechanical enclosure reaching a height of 380 feet. The project requires a Variance from the Planning Code requirements for dwelling unit exposure (Section 140). The Project Site is located within a C-3-O(SD) District, the Transbay C-3 Special Use District, and 360-S Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: After Closing the Public Hearing; the ZA indicated an intent to Grant with conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
12. 2011.0499C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
2395 26th AVENUE - at the northwest corner of Taraval Street and 26th Avenue, Lot 008A in Assessor’s Block 2355 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 741.83 and 303 for a macro wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would consist of six panel antennas housed within faux roof-mounted vent pipes. Related electronic equipment would be placed on the rooftop, and within an existing parking garage. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 6 Site (Limited Preference) within the Taraval Street Neighborhood Commercial District, Taraval Street Restaurant Sub 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: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of October 17, 2013)
SPEAKERS: + Mark Blakeman – Project description
+ Howard Weston – In favor, not a health hazard
+ Jim Salinas, Sr. - Coverage
- David Wilner – Project description
- Debbie Wilner – Project description
- Debra Rojano – Parking
- Tommy Abid – Radiation, roof leaks
- Mrs. Tokhini – Does not fit with the community
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
MOTION: 19022
13. 2012.0718E (D. ALUMBAUGH: (415) 558-6601)
EVENT CENTER AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AT PIERS 30-32 AND SEAWALL LOT 330 - Blocks/Lots: Piers 30-32 - 9900/030 & 9900/032, Seawall Lot 330 - 3770/002 & 3771/002 - Informational Item, Updated Project Design, GSW Arena LLC (GSW) proposes to construct a multi-purpose event center, public open space, maritime uses, a parking facility and visitor-serving retail uses on Piers 30-32. The event center would host the Golden State Warriors NBA basketball team during the NBA season, as well as provide a year-round venue for a variety of other uses, including concerts, cultural events, family shows, conferences and conventions. The project would include substantial repair and structural upgrades to Piers 30-32. GSW also proposes to construct a mixed-use development including residential, hotel and retail uses on Seawall Lot 330, located directly across The Embarcadero from Piers 30-32.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: + Craig Dykers – Project design, pier stabilization
+ Jim Salinas – Apprenticeships
+ Steve Kantonini – Support the trades
+ Dennis Mackenzie – Sports education
+ Kevin carrol – Hotel council
+ Pat Ballentino – New design, public transit
+ Ruben Anchinova – Location, social spaces
+ Nick Bollani – Transit
+ Matt Freesoff – Arena events
+ Lus Maria Rodriguez – Jobs
- Sue Hestor – Auto egress
- (M) Speaker – Traffic improvements
= Jesee Blont – Responding to Commissions questions
= Peter Albert – Transportation assessment
ACTION: None - Informational
14. 2012.0759DV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
2526 CALIFORNIA STREET/33 PERINE PLACE - north side of California Street between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 0634 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2012.06.11.2336 and 2012.06.11.2329 proposing to construct two, four-story, two-unit buildings – one building per street frontage on a through lot – within the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial 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: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve.
NOTE: Variance Case No. 2012.0759V for the project was heard by the Zoning Administrator on June 26, 2013. The Zoning Administrator has taken the variance under advisement, and a decision is pending the Commission’s action on the Discretionary Review request.
SPEAKERS: - Roger Machin – DR requestor
+ Steve Williams – Project description
+ Dave Sternberg – Project design
+ John Strickland – Family housing
+ Judy Kummer – Scale
+ David Iwahashi -
ACTION: No DR Approved as proposed
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
DRA No: 0342
15. 2013.0959D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
1040 BRODERICK STREET - east side between Eddy and Turk Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1129 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2013.03.05.1549 proposing to construct a three-story rear horizontal extension to the existing two-story-over-basement, single-family residence within a RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) 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: - Leslie Donaldson – Solar systems
- Greg Ward – Heating system not passive
- Lisa Ward – Active system
+ Dan Frattin – Project description
+ Kass Smith – Project design
+ Amanda Clark – Project description
+ Steven Russo – Floor area
+ Bill Bodecker – Amanda’s character, work w/at risk foster youth
ACTION: No DR Approved as proposed
AYES: Fong, Wu, Antonini, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Borden
DRA No: 0343
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 – 6:11 PM
