SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, February 20, 2014
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 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator, Omar Masry, Aaron Starr, Tina Chang, Keith DeMartini, Kelly Amdur, Mathew Snyder, Sharon Lai, Brittany Bendix, Jessica Look, 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. 2013.1674T (K. HADDADAN: (415) 575-9068)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN THE CASTRO - Amendments to the Planning Code to allow the construction of an additional dwelling unit or units within the existing envelope of a residential building or auxiliary structure on the same lot (In-Law Units) on any parcel in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and within 1,750 feet of the District boundaries, excluding any lot within 500 feet of Assessor Block No. 2623, Lot Nos. 116 through 154; and authorizing the Zoning Administrator to waive density and other Planning Code requirements in order to create the In-Law Units; amending the Administrative Code to provide that an In-Law Unit constructed with a waiver of code requirements shall be subject to the provisions of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance if the existing building, or any existing dwelling unit, is already subject to the Rent Ordinance; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1, and directing the Clerk to send a copy of this Ordinance to the California Department of Housing and Community Development in accordance with State law.
(Proposed for Continuance to March 6, 2014)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to March 6, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
2a. 2013.0205CEKV (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
395 26th AVENUE - northwest corner of Clement Street and 26th Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 1407 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303 and 717.39 to allow the demolition of an existing two-story mixed-use building containing two dwelling units with ground floor commercial space and construct two buildings, a 45-foot tall, four-story mixed-use building fronting on Clement Street, containing three dwelling units, four residential parking spaces with ground floor commercial space and a 40-foot tall, four-story building fronting on 26th Avenue, containing three dwelling units and three residential parking spaces within the Outer Clement Street 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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2014)
(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2014)
SPEAKERS: - Steve Williams – No notice of continuance
ACTION: Continued to April 24, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
2b. 2013.0205CEKV (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
395 26th AVENUE - northwest corner of Clement Street and 26th Avenue; Lot 017 in Assessor’s Block 1407 - Request for Rear Yard Modification from Planning Code Section 134(e), which requires a 25-percent rear yard at all levels and a Variance from Planning Code Section 145.1, which establishes street frontage requirements in the NC Zoning District, including requirements that parking be set back 25 feet at the ground floor from any street frontage. The project proposes new construction of two buildings, each of which do not provide the required rear yard depth on the ground floor and propose parking that is not set back 25 feet from the street frontage. The property is located within the Outer Clement Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 16, 2014)
(Proposed for Continuance to April 24, 2014)
SPEAKERS: - Steve Williams – No notice of continuance
ACTION: ZA Continued to April 24, 2014
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. 2013.1673C (T. CHANG: (415) 575-9197)
1600 GUERRERO STREET - southwest corner of 28th and Guerrero Streets; Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 6616 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 182, 186, 303 and 726.44, to convert an existing limited-restaurant (d.b.a. New Alternatives Cafe) to a restaurant within an RH-2 (Residential, House – Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
SPEAKERS: - Patricia Serrano – Request to remove from consent
+ Luz Bourne-Ruiz – Project description
- Patricia Serrano- Opposed to another establishment selling liquor, parking
ACTION: After being pulled of Consent; Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19085
4. 2014.0006C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
1060 HYDE STREET - at the southeast corner of Hyde and California Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor’s Block 0251 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 723.83 and 303 to modify an existing Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facility for Sprint. The proposal would replace three (3) panel antennas, with three (3) panel antennas, screened within faux roof-mounted vent pipes; and replace three (3) equipment cabinets with two (2) equipment cabinets. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 6 Site (Limited Preference, Individual Neighborhood Commercial District) within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial 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
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19082
5. 2014.0148C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
501 LAGUNA STREET - at the northwest corner of Fell and Laguna Streets, Lot 035 in Assessor’s Block 0819 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 720.83 and 303 to modify an existing Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facility for Sprint. The proposal would replace three (3) panel antennas with three (3) panel antennas within a faux roof-mounted vent pipes, a faux mechanical penthouse, and flush mounted to an existing penthouse wall. The proposal would also replace three (3) equipment cabinets with two (2) equipment cabinets. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in the basement. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 2 Site (Co-Location) within the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial Transit 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: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19083
6. 2013.1783T (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)
AMENDMENTS TO THE THIRD STREET ALCOHOL RESTRICTED USE DISTRICT [BOARD FILE NO. 131121] - Ordinance amending the Planning Code, to amend the Third Street Alcohol Restricted Use District, to allow Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 2, “Winegrower” licenses; and making environmental findings, and findings of consistency with the General Plan, and the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 19084
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
7. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for February 6, 2014
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted
AYES: Wu, Fong, 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.
8. 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:
Thank you, well; this is a week as most weeks where in my opinion there's good news and bad news. Good news is that Google is apparently looking to acquire a building at 283 Alabama where they would put two hundred employees and I think that’s a good start to having more tech companies put more of their employees in San Francisco, rather than having them further down the Peninsula. And along those same lines, a good article in the Chronicle by John King, talking about the four towers under construction at First and Mission and part of this article talks on -- that same subject tells how this will be an excellent opportunity for, among others, tech companies to move and create a significant presence here, perhaps headquarters. These are, particularly a couple of them are, iconic kind of buildings and certainly it would be something that it would be appealing, if one were the leader of one of these companies. We see this even today, with companies like Transamerica Life Insurance Company, which does not own the Transamerica Pyramid, I don’t think if they are even in San Francisco, but they use it as their symbol, and it’s very impressive, it's often on TV commercials and other places where you see the pyramid, and it gives the company a real presence. I think wherever possible we should encourage companies to relocate to San Francisco where most of their employees live or a high percentage of them live, they bring with them a lot of revenue for businesses and probably would be a good thing in my opinion. I think there's a good chance that some of these things might happen as tech leaders become a little more mature and want to be in a city and an area where they’re in the middle of everything. That was, in my opinion, very good news. The other thing that's good news is, this is good and bad news, I noticed that there's a move afoot to have high-speed Wi-Fi in a lot of cities, but I haven’t heard anything about it in San Francisco, among the cities that are considering putting in the cable do to this or allowing private companies to do it are Austin, Texas; Provo, Utah; Santa Jose and Mountain View and Sunnyvale and unfortunately on the bad news side, we continue to hear more protests about the – you’re familiar with what is called Google buses, but that category fits buses from almost any companies that move their employees, who live in San Francisco to their campuses outside of the City. Those protesting make it clear they feel that these individuals are responsible for increasing property values and driving rents up, but I'm not sure that's accurate, even if they are, I mean, I think it's a good thing to have a City where your property values are going up where things are worth more and where people want to be. You’d rather not want to be around among the top 10 most dangerous cities in the United States, which was just listed, we're not among those, fortunately. It's little bit alarming, though, to see a shooting right by the Nordstrom and Bloomingdale's the other day and I think we definitely have to do something to make that a safer area, more police presence perhaps, and a whole redesign of the plaza to make it not so frightening down in there. It's certainly is not good for business when people are trying to go shopping and they have to, potentially avoid bullets, that is not a good thing. The other that I have received, is a lot of e-mails and most of the commissioners probably have also received a lot from people who live out in my area, in Western San Francisco, commenting on the Housing Element that, you know, was discussed, I'm not sure they’re exactly on target as far as what's in the Housing Element and what isn’t in the Housing Element, but I do think that they are making some very significant points in their letters. It's frightening to see that the supervisors are considering the legalization of in-laws, and this could apply in [RH-1] neighborhoods, which in the case of our residents out there, they would completely destroy those areas are meant to be family areas, and are not meant to be multiple housing areas. That is not something that is in the Housing Element per say, but Alternative C does speak to increase densification and some other things that sort of leads them to believe that's what's happening.
Commissioner Moore:
Just to clarify not to contradict anything, but the letters that the Commission has been copied on regarding housing are actually copies addressed to, primarily Ms. Sarah Jones as the Environmental Review Officer, who is in the middle of the EIR updating the Housing Element, so any of the comments are only for her benefit and they are not really yet delivered in any context, which can be discussed, so they just stand there, as we receive, kindly copy, these things, but they're not ready for prime time.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Yes. Just a personal observation, I guess prompted by Commissioner Antonini’s comment about high speed, or whatever the term is, internet connection. Most of those cities are under – are being provided cable services through Google. Google’s first experiments were in the two Kansas Cities
they are extending it, I think they are in Austin, and already in Provo, and they’re extending it to other communities. I think it's ironic that at the same time, we're thinking we want Google to come here, but we're protesting their buses and using that as a symbol. If I were Google I'd put San Francisco last on any list.
Commissioner Wu:
I just want to let the Commission know that I will be absent next week; I'll be at a Conference on Regional Equity down in LA. I look forward to seeing you after that.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
9. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
Thank you. Good afternoon Commissioners, just one announcement today, I just wanted to highlight the Public Realm Plan Workshop that we are having for the Haight-Ashbury District. This is a plan that staff has been working on with that community for several months, and there is workshop next Thursday the 27th from 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., at the Urban School, on Page Street. Again the Haight- Ashbury Public Realm Plan Workshop, next Thursday, the 27th, from 6:00 to 8:00 P.M. That concludes my report.
10. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
No Report
BOARD OF APPEALS:
There is a report of the Board of Appeals, they met last night, a couple of items, that might of interest, first was an appeals of a site permit and demolition permit for the property at 340 Fremont Street, this was first approved by the Planning Commission in 2006, it’s on Rincon Hill, and been extended since then five times because in Rincon Hill it is a very tight performance timeline, so it had been extended several times, and the permit was issued and appealed by the occupants of the adjacent high-rise residential building the Metropolitan, and they cited mostly seismic issues and wanted the building to be built to a higher level of seismic safety, than otherwise required and also, it’s my understanding, it will be higher than any other residential high-rise building that has been approved in San Francisco. They want it to be built to a level of safety such as was done for the MoMa, the expansion which is the public building. A couple of reasons cited for the need for the increase of the seismic safety, was one, that it was next to a PG&E substation, although we received no comments from PG&E about any concerns that they have. Second was as part of the mitigation measures for the environmental review that this required a small interpretive display on the ground floor, because this was the location of some Maritime Union halls, so that was part of the mitigation measure and they thought that would attract people, as cultural resource, be similar to SF MOMA, and so that justified increasing the seismic safety of the building. The Board unanimously upheld the permits and denied the appeal. The other item that I think might be of interest is the budget, they adopted their budget last night, they noted that there is a slight increase in the number of appeals, but overall, it’s still bellow historic averages. They also considered, or discussed coming back in the future and looking at their fee structure. You have a higher appeal fee for Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator appeals than for the building permits, so they discussed taking a look at that, and also looking at doing more electronic submittals and the Planning Commission was highlighted for the use technology here, and how we have case reports online, so they are going to do more investigation on that. They will be meeting again, next week, when they consider findings related to their action on 1050 Valencia Street and I will keep you informed on that.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
Tim Frye is not here, but I have the HPC report. Yesterday they considered the ROSE; they provided review and comments on the draft ROSE, Recreation Open Space Element. They requested edits and proposed preservation policies to align the policy language closer to existing policies in the Housing, Urban Design, Commerce and Industry Elements. The HPC’s comments will be forwarded to the Commission prior to your action on the ROSE, and the second item was 660 Third Street the HPC recommended approval of conversion of PDR to office space for this building, under Planning Code Section 803.9, as you're aware this Code Section does allows greater flexibility in zoning controls provided that the property owner agreed to a long term preservation and maintenance plan for historic properties, so that was adopted and that is all to report.
11. (J.RAHAIM: (415) 558-6411)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE 13-01 – HOUSING PRODUCTION AND PRESERVATION OF HOUSING STOCK
SPEAKERS: - Franciso DaCosta – What are you doing to replace the dwelling units eliminated, and to help the poor?
- Dr. Espanola Jackson – 1992 – V.P. of US visit to Hunter’s, view, Olson Lee
= Sue Hestor – First good step, housing data, affordability, gentrification
= Robert Woods – Increased population
= Yolanda Lewis – Technology, poor being left behind
ACTION: None - Informational
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: Francisco Da Costa - Muwekma Ohlone – First people, land was stolen, cultural competency, quality of life issues
Dr. Espanola Jackson – Legalization of apartments
Sue Hestor – Request for public hearing on staff emails
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
12. (K. DEMARTINI: (415) 575-9118)
FINALIZED FY 2014-2016 DEPARTMENT BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM - Review and adopt a recommendation of approval of a balanced Fiscal Year 2014-2016 department budget and work program for submission to the Mayor’s Office.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Recommendation for Approval
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 19086
13. (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)
UPDATE ON THE PERMIT AND PROJECT TRACKING SYSTEM (PPTS) – Informational Presentation
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: + Francisco Da Costa – Presentation and training at PUC contracting center
= Paul Wermer – BBN system
= Sue Hestor – PIM request for notices
ACTION: None - Informational
14. 2007.0168C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)
The 22.5-acre Hunters View Public Housing Development: Middle Point and West Point Roads and Wills and Hare Street, Lots 003, 004, and 009 in Block 4624 and an adjacent vacant property, a portion of Keith Street, Lot 027 in Block 4720 - Informational Presentation on Phase II for the proposed project approved under Planned Unit Development / Conditional Use Case No. 2007.0168C. The Project in its entirety consists of demolishing and replacing all of the existing Housing Authority units and constructing additional units resulting in approximately 800 dwelling units, 6,400 square feet of resident-serving commercial uses, 21,600 square feet of residential care and other supportive services, along with new streets, parks, and other open space. Phase II includes the build out of two additional development blocks, about six blocks of new roadway, along with other public improvements. The two blocks would include approximately 107 dwelling units and 57-off street parking spaces. This informational presentation is required as a Condition of Approval, Planning Commission Motion No. 17621. The subject site is within a RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District, the Hunters View Special Use District, and 40/65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: None - Informational
SPEAKERS: + Sophie Hayward, MOH – Hope SF project introduction
+ Catherine Etzel – Project description
+ Paulette Tagart – Project design
+ Daniel Simons – Site plan
+ Pam Sims, MOH – Response to questions
- Dr. Espanola Jackson – Corruption, precautionary principles
- Yolanda Lewis – Phase I, hope treatment of black people
= Francisco Da Costa – Conceptual design, high density, vs. townhouses management
ACTION: None - Informational
15. 2013.1432C (S. LAI: (41) 575-9087)
2060 FILLMORE STREET – southeast corner, of California and Fillmore Streets, Lot 023 in Assessor’s Block 0653 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 303, 703.3, and 703.4, to replace two vacant tenant spaces with a new formula retail apparel establishment (d.b.a. Rag and Bone), within the Upper Fillmore Street NCD (Neighborhood Commercial District), and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + David Nevel, Owner – Project description
+ Nannie Fizcher – Neighborhood outreach
+ Janet Crane – Project design
+ Anmarie – Special retailer
+ David Pierce – Furniture company owner and the relationship built
+ Renel Garibaldi – On behalf of Nicole Scott in support
+ Ben Lazzareschi – Commercial leaving perspective
+ Leah Prassinos – Relationship w/Rag and Bone
+ Rachel LaLabo – Business inter-relation
+ Margot Gopal – Market demand
+ Heather Luntz – Support
+ Ellen Schatz – SF education fund
+ Tood David – Ed match, relations w/education institutions
+ Elizabeth Gonmas – Community commitment
+ Justin Renfro – Micro-loans Kiva zip o5 small business loans
- Beverly Winchoff – Fillmore St., formula retail proliferation
- Paul Werner – Fillmore becoming an airport mall
- Alice Pigas – Variety of Fillmore shopping experience
- Laura Porter – Fillmore St., is a very specific and unique shopping destination
- Holly Dillon – Fillmore St., personality
- Thomas Reynolds – Fashion and cosmetics companies impact on rents, definition of formula retail, to include foreign retailers
- Joan O’Connor – Basic service small businesses departure from Fillmore St.
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis
NAYES: Wu, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19087
16a. 2013.0007BX (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
81-85 BLUXOME STREET - south side, between 4th and 5th Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 3786 - Request for a Large Project Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 329 and 845.66 for the new construction of a five story, 65-foot tall, office building of approximately 55,000 gross square feet. Under the Large Project Authorization, the proposed project is seeking exceptions for (1) an obstruction over a sidewalk per Planning Code Section 136 and (2) an off-street loading space sidewalk per Planning Code Section 152.1. The subject property is located within the Western SoMa Mixed Use-Office (WMUO) Zoning 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: + Sirus Senedaji – Project description
+ Meaghan Yogeeswaran – In favor as is
= Sue Hestor – Jobs housing linkage and affordable housing
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19088
16b. 2013.0007BX (B. BENDIX: (415) 575-9114)
81-85 BLUXOME STREET - south side, between 4th and 5th Streets, Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 3786 - Request for an Office Development Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 321 and 322 to establish 55,000 gross square feet of office use within a five-story, 65-foot tall building, proposed as new construction. The subject property is located within the Western SoMa Mixed Use-Office (WMUO) Zoning District and 65-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: + Sirus Senedaji – Project description
+ Meaghan Yogeeswaran – In favor as is
= Sue Hestor – Jobs housing linkeage and affordable housing
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19089
17. 2013.0518C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
2775 VAN NESS AVENUE - at the southwest corner of Lombard Street and Van Ness Avenue, Lot 030 in Assessor’s Block 0503 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303 to modify an existing wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would replace (6) panel antennas, with (9) panel antennas; with (3) of the antennas mounted on the uppermost portion of the east facing building facade. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in the parking garage. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 2 Site (Co-Location) within a RC-3 (Residential – Commercial, Medium Density) 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 February 13, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + Tedi Vriheas – Project description
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Borden, Hillis, Sugaya
ABSENT: Antonini, Moore
MOTION: 19090
18. 2013.1201C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
1701 HAIGHT STREET - at the southwest corner of Haight and Cole Streets, Lot 001 in Assessor’s Block 1248 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 719.83 and 303 to develop a Wireless Telecommunication Services (WTS) Facility for AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would feature (12) roof-mounted panel antennas housed within individual faux vent pipes. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in the basement. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 6 Site (Limited Preference, Individual Neighborhood Commercial District) within the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 23, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + Ted Vriheas – Project description
- Victor Jacob – Opposed – potential historic resource
- Liza Engelken – Opposed – number of antennas in the immediate vicinity
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19091
19. 2013.0170D (J. LOOK: (415) 575-6812)
2123 CASTRO STREET - east side of Castro Street between 28th Street and Valley Street; Lot 6612 in Assessor’s Block 027 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317, of Building Permit Application No. 2013.03.18.2428 and 2013.03.18.2424, proposing to demolish a single family dwelling and construct a new single family dwelling unit. The property is located within a RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the project for purposes of CEQA, pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: + David Silverman – Project description
+ Mark Thomas – Project design
+ Ewing Notting – Project process, green building/passive house
+ Brodwin Barry – Passive house California
+ Sean Kiegran – Net gain of family housing
= Georgia Schuttish – Historic education
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
DRA No: 0351
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: Georgia Schuttish – Remodels and additions virtually demolitions
Adjournment – 6:14 P.M.
Adopted - March 6, 2014
