SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Commission Chambers, Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Thursday, May 22, 2014
12:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT WU AT 12:05 P.M.
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: John Rahaim – Planning Director, Scott Sanchez – Zoning Administrator,
Omar Masry, Michael Smith, Menaka Menahan, Kanishka Burns, Diego Sanchez, Glenn Cabreros, Jessica Look, Christine Lamorena, Thomas Wang, and Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary
SPEAKER KEY:
+ indicates a speaker in support of an item;
- indicates a speaker in opposition to an item; and
= indicates a neutral speaker or a speaker who did not indicate support or opposition.
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. 2011.0919C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
1010 BUSH STREET - at the northwest corner of Bush and Jones Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor’s Block 0276 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303 to allow a wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would feature nine (9) panel antennas on the roof of the existing four-story tall, mixed-use building. Three (3) of the antennas would be mounted behind two (2) new screening enclosures attached to the east facing wall of an existing rooftop penthouse. The remaining six (6) antennas would be mounted on the roof of the existing rooftop penthouse. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in a basement room. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 5 Site (Preferred Location; Mixed-Use Buildings in High Density Districts) within a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High Density) Zoning 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 May 8, 2014)
(Proposed for Continuance to June 12, 2014)
SPEAKERS: Terrance Jones
ACTION: Continued to June 12, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
2a. 2010.0931DDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
2825 LAKE STREET south side between 29th and 30th Avenues; Lot 001A in Assessor’s Block 1389 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2010.10.08.2618 proposing construction of a new third floor and a horizontal addition at the rear of the two-story single-family house and a new second floor above the garage structure within a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) 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: Pending
(Proposed for Continuance to June 19, 2014)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to June 19, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
2b. 2010.0931V (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
2825 LAKE STREET – south side between 29th and 30th Avenues; Lot 001A in Assessor’s Block 1389 - Rear Yard and Side Yard Variances sought: The project proposes construction of a new third floor and a horizontal addition at the rear of the two-story single-family house and a new second floor above the garage structure within a RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. PLANNING CODE SECTION 134 requires a rear yard depth equivalent to 25 percent of the lot depth. The project requires an approximately 19 foot rear yard at the lot’s greatest depth. As the existing house and garage structure are within the required rear yard, any expansion of these structures would require a rear yard variance. PLANNING CODE SECTION 133 requires two 5-foot side yards for the property. The existing garage structure is constructed into the western required side yard, and the vertical expansion of the garage structure would require a side yard variance, in addition to the rear yard variance referenced above.
(Proposed for Continuance to June 19, 2014)
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Continued to June 19, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
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. 2014.0305C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
2001 SACRAMENTO STREET - at the southwest corner of Sacramento and Gough Streets, Lot 019 in Assessor’s Block 0640 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.6(b) and 303 to allow a wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would feature six (6) panel antennas on the roof of the existing five-story tall, residential building. Three (3) of the antennas would be flush-mounted to the northern face of an existing rooftop elevator penthouse. The three (3) remaining antennas would be mounted in a freestanding location at the southeastern corner of the roof. Related electronic equipment would be located within an existing rooftop mechanical room. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 7 Site (Disfavored Site) 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.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions
SPEAKERS: None
ACTION: Approved with Conditions
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19155
C. COMMISSION MATTERS
4. Consideration of Adoption:
· Draft Minutes for May 8, 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.
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:
I'm not sure if this issue falls under the jurisdiction of MTA or the City through Planning or the State of California, but I had it pointed out to me by a visitor from out of town that almost every intersection on Van Ness Avenue has a sign citing a civic code, saying “Panhandling Prohibited” and then underneath every sign is a panhandler. So, I am not really sure, why it’s never enforced, if we’re going to have a code there, and whether, you know, it’s the City’s job or whether is a State’s job. It said Civic Code, so I would assume it’s a local code, I was just interested in, you know, I don’t need an answer today, but figuring out why there is never any enforcement of a code, it makes us look like we have laws that have no teeth in it. So, this was pointed out to me by someone from out of San Francisco, and I had to agree with them, because it doesn’t make a lot sense.
Commissioner Moore:
I got a number of very positive phone calls yesterday in response to a presentation on preserving our heritage through design guidelines. People are very excited about the presentation and what it implied. My question to the Director perhaps Tim Frye or anybody is, can we get a briefing on that at some point? The issue of the design guidelines is something we've discussed for a long time and I like to know how it was approached and is to whether or not there is anything else we can learn from it.
Commissioner Sugaya:
Yes, prompted by an article on Van Ness Avenue and the number of developments that have taken
place, such as, I think it’s called The Marlow, which we approved a number of years ago, the Emerald Fund Property, the AAA site, and others that have or will be taking place including the television station sale of that property pending, I don't know how pending it is, but the BRT, could we have a little short memo on both what has been developed along Van Ness in however many years? I know there are ones closer to here, for example, that have gone up, one at Sutter Street, and then maybe a projection if there are things coming into the pipeline, you know, that can be revealed a this point, might be interesting for us to know.
Commissioner Antonini:
Yeah. I read that same article, I think it was today’s Chronicle, John King, and I don’t – I do agreed with him, that The Marlow is kind of – is an interesting building, but it doesn't really, isn’t really contextual with the street. I don’t agree with him with the towers, which I think, did a good job trying to blend in with the older buildings that are along that street from the 20s and 30s, but it's just a matter of taste, but it is interesting that, you know, I'm very supportive of what Commissioner Sugaya had asked for because I think we need to know more about what's happening with the Bus Rapid Transit, hopefully, eventually light rail and how the street is going to be reconfigured.
D. DEPARTMENT MATTERS
6. Director’s Announcements
Director Rahaim:
I was actually going to talk a little bit about what happened yesterday at the Preservation Commission in light of Commissioner Moore’s question. It is, the preservation staff has started a process of looking at what we have been calling a local interpretation of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, basically guidelines in historic areas, to take the Standards to the next level that would be more San Francisco specific. I've hired a consultant to help us through that process. The Commission yesterday had a hearing on this, the first of what will likely be several hearings, to go over – to get public testimony, public dialogue, but also to hear different approaches that one can take to guidelines and historic districts both for - both for new construction and for renovations of existing historic buildings. We had the initial workshop, as I said yesterday and we are going to work on a series of public meetings and public discussions about these. I’m happy to ask the preservation staff to come and have a similar discussion here. I think it makes sense and I think that was the intent anyway, but I will try to get a schedule that we can work to make sure we can have that discussion with you in a timely way.
7. Review of Past Events at the Board of Supervisors, Board of Appeals and Historic Preservation Commission
LAND USE COMMITTEE:
· Resolution Calle 24. Sup Campos presented a Resolution that would establish the 24th Street, or Calle Veintecuatro Latino Cultural District, the boundaries of which are 22nd Street to the north, Cesar Chavez Street to the south, Potrero Avenue to the east and Mission Street to the west. 24th Street is thought to be the cultural center for the Latino community in San Francisco, and the primary purpose of the resolution is to acknowledge Latino history in San Francisco and the efforts of the community to create this cultural district partially to stabilize the displacement of Latino businesses and residents. The resolution does not establish a cultural district, but does express support for its establishment. At the hearing, Supervisor Campos presented the resolution stating that the effort is intended to preserve the culture heritage of the area through an inclusive process. OEWD, the Planning Department as well representatives from San Francisco Architectural Heritage, and San Francisco Latino Historical Society also presented at the hearing. The committee also took public comment from various stakeholders in the community. Sup. Kim expressed the need to keep the residents and business that made the Mission unique in the Mission, and that there needs to be a discussion on how to support diversity, including cultural diversity. Sup Cohen mentioned that she has been approached by her constituents in her district about creating a cultural district in the Bayview and is very interested in the results of this effort; and Sup Wiener expressed the need to focus on existing culture and people; however, we also need to recognize that change, both positive and negative, happens and that we should find a balance between the two. The Land Use committee voted unanimously to move the item to the Full Board.
FULL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
· 706 Mission Subdivision Appeals. On Tuesday, the Board considered two subdivision appeals for the property at 706 Mission, also known as the Mexican Museum. One subdivision facilitated conveyance of the property from the Redevelopment Agency per earlier agreements. The second subdivision map delineated the spaces in the pending project. As you’ll remember, the underlying project was approved through a series of hearings March- July of last year. The project would rehabilitate the existing 10 story Aaron-son building and construct a new, adjacent 43 story tower. The project would contain up to 190 DU; retail and museum space. An EIR was prepared for the project, which was certified by the Planning Commission on March 21, 2013. The project was approved and appealed through various venues. The EIR was appealed. The Board of Supervisors upheld the EIR certification on May 7, 2013. Since the Board action, the appellants have sued the City and are litigating their CEQA claims in Superior Court. The Historic Preservation Commission approved a Major Permit to Alter on May 15, 2013. The HPC decision was upheld on appeal by the Board of Supervisors on July 23, 2013. The Planning Commission approved a Downtown Project Authorization on May 23, 2013 hearing; and this decision was upheld on appeal to the Board of Appeals on July 31, 2013.
· For the subdivision appeal, the appellants argued that the project violated the Planning Code and that the EIR was inadequate. The appellant presented no new information beyond what had already been presented to the BOS on previous appeals. After a short hearing, the BOS upheld both subdivisions.
· Calle 24. The Full Board voted unanimously to adopt the 24th Street Latino Cultural District resolution.
INTRODUCTIONS:
There were no new Ordnances introduced at the Board this week.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
No Report
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION:
Commission Secretary Ionin:
Commissioners as you’ve already heard, the Historic Preservation Commission did meet yesterday and conducted a training and briefing on the Secretary of Interior Standards.
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. With respect to 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.
F. REGULAR CALENDAR
The Commission Hearing Procedures provide for presentations by staff; followed by the project sponsor team; followed by public comment for and against the proposal. Please be advised that the project sponsor team includes: the sponsor(s) or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors.
8. (A. SMITH: (415) 575-9131)
19TH AVENUE TRANSIT STUDY – Informational Presentation of the 19th Avenue Transit Study (Study) by San Francisco County Transportation Authority staff. The Study builds on recent planning efforts to develop plans for a west-side grade-separated (i.e. partial subway or bridge crossings of 19th Avenue) alignment of the M-Ocean View as it traverses the neighborhoods surrounding 19th Avenue in Southwest San Francisco. The purpose of the Study is to define conceptual alternatives and assess their feasibility, benefits, and impacts.
Preliminary Recommendation: None – Informational
SPEAKERS: + Liz Brisson, SFMTA – Project presentation
ACTION: None – Informational
9. 2007.0550U (M. MOHAN: (415) 575-9141)
350 8th STREET IN-KIND AGREEMENT - Approving an impact fee waiver for 350 8th Street in the amount of $1.8 million to provide streetscape improvements on Ringold Street between 8th and 9th Streets - Street improvements will include pedestrian lighting, bicycle parking, repaving, and landscape improvements based on the completion of an In-Kind Agreement between the Project Sponsor and the City; making environmental finding and findings of consistency with the General Plan and the eight priority policies of the Planning Code Section 101. These improvements were identified in the Western SoMa Community Plan and the Western SoMA Neighborhood Transportation Plan and would be provided to satisfy a portion of project's impacts fees, subject to the Eastern Neighborhoods Area Plan.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve
SPEAKERS: + Sony Angulo, Aide to Supervisor Kim – Community input
+ Amir Massih – Sponsor presentation
+ Liz Brisson – Joint land use and transportation
+ Jim Meko – Huge project mitigation
+ (M) Speaker – Roll over into other neighborhoods such as the Tenderloin
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19156
10. 2013.0963UT (K. BURNS: (415) 575-9112)
INTENTION TO INITIATE DEPARTMENT-SPONSORED PLANNING CODE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO FORMULA RETAIL AND LARGE-SCALE COMMERCIAL USES AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AT A LATER HEARING. - Consideration of the Department’s policy recommendations and initiation of Planning Code Text Changes regarding formula retail and large-scale retail controls. This item was first heard by the Commission on July 25, 2013. On January 23, 2014 staff presented preliminary citywide analysis and a draft timeline of project deliverables, opportunities for public participation, and Planning Commission hearings to report results. On February 27, 2014, staff presented the draft Phase 1 report with revisions based upon the last hearing and four preliminary issue briefs. On April 24, staff presented the draft final economic study commissioned by the Planning Department focused on analyzing economic and land use impacts of formula retail establishments and controls on San Francisco’s neighborhoods. Pursuant to Planning Code Section 302, the Planning Commission will consider a Resolution of Intention to initiate amendments to the Planning Code. The amendments are intended to amend the definition of formula retail to include businesses that have 20 or more outlets worldwide; expand the applicability of formula retail controls to other types of uses; require Conditional Use Authorization for formula retail establishments in the C-3-G district with facades facing Market Street, between 6th Street and 12th Street; expand the applicability of formula retail controls to create a new administrative review process for the authorization of a new formula retail operator at a parcel that had previously received a Conditional Use Authorization for the same formula retail use type and size, which will include new notification procedures, performance standards, and a process for requiring Conditional Use Authorization when the performance standards are not met or upon request; remove the requirement for Conditional Use authorization when a formula retail establishment changes operator but remains the same size and use category and instead; require the new administrative review; amend the Conditional Use criteria for Large-Scale Retail Uses to require an economic impact study and establish new fees for said study; and adopting findings, including environmental findings, Section 302 findings and findings of consistency with the General Plan and Planning Code Section 101.1.
Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution Initiating Planning Code Text Changes to Be Considered for Adoption On or After June 5, 2014.
SPEAKERS: + Amy Cohen, OEWD – Invest in neighborhoods
= Kristen Evans – Level and fair playing field
= Kyle Snealy – Recommendations to proposal amendments
= Deedee Workman - Recommendations to proposed amendments
= Russell Pritchard – Recommendations
= Cindy Spade – Recommendations
+ Harry Cronander – Recommendations
= Kathleen Doughly – Recommendations
+ Jay Cheng – Realtor support
= (F) Speaker – SF Beautiful
+ C.J. Higgley – Retail center
= Jim Worshel – Recommendations
= (M) Speaker – Retail Vacancy rate
= Gary Weiss – Owner hold outs
= Stephanie Joullent – On behalf of another person
= Pat Tura – Signage, recommendations
= Wendy Mog – How to oppose formula retail
= Chris Wright – Suggestions
= Pamela Menelson – International formula retail
= Conner Johnston – Aide to Supervisor Breed – Corporate subsidiaries
= Paul Werner – Endorsing previous comments
ACTION: Initiated and scheduled for on or After July 10, 2014
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 19157
11. 2014.0509T (D. SÁNCHEZ: (415) 575-9082)
MISSION ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SPECIAL USE DISTRICT [BOARD FILE 14-0236] - Ordinance amending the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use District to allow mini-golf courses functionally and/or physically integrated with a restaurant use to obtain liquor licenses 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 with Modifications
SPEAKERS: + Laura Lane, Aide to Supervisor Campos – Project presentation
ACTION: Adopted a Recommendation for Approval with Modifications
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
RESOLUTION: 19158
12a. 2009.1074CV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
1433 BUSH STREET - south side of Bush Street between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street; Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 0670 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.8, 253, 271 and 303 to allow an automotive rental use, the new construction of a building over 50 feet in height in an RC District and exceptions from the bulk limits prescribed by the V Bulk District. The project proposes demolition of an existing one-story commercial building containing an automotive rental use and new construction of a 115-foot tall, 10-story mixed-use building containing 32 dwelling units, 26 residential parking spaces and a ground floor commercial space to contain an automotive rental use within a RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District, the Van Ness Automotive Special Use District, and 130-V 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: + Paul & Joe D’Ambrosio – Project presentation
+ Antony Joma – Project design
+ Don D’Ambrosio – Project support
+ Kelley Hensley – Project support
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended for staff to continue working with the Sponsor regarding concerns raised by Commissioners at the hearing
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19159
12b. 2009.1074CEKV (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)
1433 BUSH STREET - south side of Bush Street between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street; Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 0670 - Request for Variances from Planning Code Sections 134
and 145.1, which require a 25-percent rear yard at all residential levels and establish street frontage requirements in the RC District, including limitations to the total width of parking entrances along a street frontage and requirements that parking be set back 25 feet at the
ground floor and 15 feet at the second floor from any street frontage. The project site is located on a through lot with frontage on Bush and Fern Streets. The project proposes new construction of a 115-foot tall, 10-story mixed-use building with a courtyard at all residential levels and the re-establishment of an automotive rental use at the ground floor within a RC-4 (Residential, Commercial Combined, High Density) Zoning District, the Van Ness Avenue Special Use District, the Van Ness Automotive Special Use District, and 130-V Height and Bulk District.
SPEAKERS: + Paul & Joe D’Ambrosio – Project presentation
+ Antony Joma – Project design
+ Don D’Ambrosio – Project support
+ Kelley Hensley – Project support
ACTION: ZA closed the PH; and took the matter under advisement
13. 2014.0129C (O. MASRY: (415) 575-9116)
1800 UNION STREET - at the northwest corner of Union and Octavia Streets, Lot 039 in Assessor’s Block 0530 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 725.83 and 303 to allow a wireless telecommunications services (WTS) facility operated by AT&T Mobility. The proposed macro WTS facility would feature six (6) partially screened panel antennas on the roof of the existing three-story tall, mixed-use building. Two (2) of the antennas would be mounted within individual faux vent pipes, atop a faux chimney box, near the northern edge of the roof. The four (4) remaining partially screened antennas would be mounted atop an approximately 2.5-foot tall vertical expansion of the existing rooftop stairwell penthouse. Related electronic equipment would be located on the roof and in a basement room. The facility is proposed on a Location Preference 6 Site (Limited Preference, Individual Neighborhood Commercial District) within the Union Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 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: + Ted Vriheas – Project description
- Robert Bordel – 1933 Art Deco building in Golden Gate Valley
- Melinda Cardwell – Poor design
- Candace McKenzie – Poor building choice
- Peter Atkinson – Neighborhood is not in support
- Megan Chichil – Alternative site analysis flawed
- Andrew Christie – Against any large industrial installation would clutter rooftops
- Roye Chan – Macro revisited
- Sky Zember – Opposed – Art Deco design
ACTION: Approved with Conditions as amended for staff and the sponsor to continue working on the design
AYES: Wu, Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
MOTION: 19160
G. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW CALENDAR
The Commission Discretionary Review Hearing Procedures provide for presentations by staff; followed by the DR requestor team; followed by public comment opposed to the project; followed
by the project sponsor team; followed by public comment in support of the project. Please be advised that the DR requestor and project sponsor teams include: the DR requestor and sponsor or their designee, lawyers, architects, engineers, expediters, and/or other advisors.
14. 2013.0314D (J. LOOK: (415) 575-6812)
1110 ASHBURY STREET - east side between Clayton Street and Downey Street; Lot 021 in Assessor’s Block 2629 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2013.04.05.3911, proposing to construct a new horizontal addition at front, a vertical addition with roof deck on an existing single-family dwelling structure 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.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + Ty Bush – Project presentation
- Mary Gallagher – DR presentation
- (M) Speaker – character of neighborhood
- Suchi Pande – Not enough revision
ACTION: After hearing and Closing public comment; a motion to take DR and modify the current proposal failed by a vote of +3 -4 (Hillis, Moore, Sugaya, Fong against); a motion to continue and work on the design failed +2 -5 (Antonini, Borden, Sugaya, Fong, Wu against); the project was approved as currently proposed
DRA No: 0364
15. 2013.1340D (J. LOOK: (415) 575-6812)
1423 OCEAN AVENUE - south side between Granada Avenue and Miramar Avenue; Lot 063 in Assessor’s Block 6941 - Request for a Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 737.84 and 790.141 in association with Building Permit Application No. 2013.04.23.5179, proposing to establish a Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a. “Bay Area Compassionate Health Center”) on the ground floor of an existing building, this project lies within the Ocean Avenue NCT (Neighborhood Commercial Transit ) Zoning District and within 45-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: Take Discretionary Review and Approve the MCD with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 1, 2014)
SPEAKERS: Jen Low, Aide to Supervisor Yee – Request for continuance
ON THE MATTER OF CONTINUANCE:
- Greg Schoepp – Opposed to continuance
- Jorgy Roberts – Opposed to continuance
- (F) Speaker – Opposed to continuance
+ Robert Karas – Continuance
- Shona – Hear it today
- (M) Speaker – No continuance
- Paul Ausbury – No continuance
- Christina – No continuance
- (M) Speaker – No continuance
- Steven Crane – No continuance
+ Carolyne Karas – Continuance
- Jonathan Dyer – No continuance
- Oscar Isles – No continuance
- (M) Speaker – No continuance
- Gordon Atkinson – No continuance
- (M) Speaker – No continuance
- Alex Hernandez – No continuance
- Dennis Dony – No continuance
+ Edna James – Continuance
+ Dan Weaver – Continuance
+ Harold – Continuance
- Oscar Isles – No continuance
+ (F) Speaker – Continuance
- (M) Speaker – No continuance
+ Bridgette Churnin – Continuance
+ Roger Ritter – Continuance
+ Margaret Bernstein – Continuance
- (M) Speaker – No continuance
- Alejus Hernandez – No continuance
- Denise Dorry – No continuance
+ Edna James – Continuance
ACTION: Continued to July 17, 2014
AYES: Fong, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
NAYES: Borden, Sugaya
RECUSED: Antonini
16a. 2013.1355D (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
3305 BRODERICK STREET - west side between Bay and Francisco Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0926 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Demolition Permit Application No. 2013.07.30.3155, proposing to demolish a one-story over garage, single-family dwelling, 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.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + John Weiss – Project description
ACTION: No DR, Approved Demolition
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Wu
DRA No: 0365
16b. 2014.0624D (C. LAMORENA: (415) 575-9085)
3305 BRODERICK STREET - west side between Bay and Francisco Streets; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0926 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Building Permit Application No. 2013.07.30.3152, proposing to construct a new three-story over garage, two-unit residential building, within a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 8, 2014)
SPEAKERS: + John Weiss – Project description
ACTION: No DR, Approved New Construction
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Wu
17a. 2013.0344D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)
456 27TH STREET – on the north side of 27th Street between Noe and Sanchez streets; Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 6580 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Demolition Permit Application No. 2013.03.11.1908, proposing to demolish a one-story, single-family dwelling in 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 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
SPEAKERS: + David Silverman – Project description
+ Vivian Lee – Project description
+ Rob Edmunds – Project design
+ Jan Versande – neighbor support
- Lorna Murdock – Additional time to review shadow
- Michelle Piazza – Additional light and shadow studies
ACTION: No DR, Approved Demolition
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Wu
DRA No: 0366
17b. 2014.0671D (T. WANG: (415) 558-6335)
456 27TH STREET – on the north side of 27th Street between Noe and Sanchez streets; Lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 6580 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to Planning Code Section 317(d), of Building Permit Application No. 2013.03.11.1903, proposing to construct a three-story, two-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Staff Analysis: Full Discretionary Review
Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve
SPEAKERS: + David Silverman – Project description
+ Vivian Lee – Project description
+ Rob Edmunds – Project design
+ Jan Versande – neighbor support
- Lorna Murdock – Additional time to review shadow
- Michelle Piazza – Additional light and shadow studies
ACTION: No DR, Approved New Construction
AYES: Fong, Antonini, Borden, Hillis, Moore, Sugaya
ABSENT: Wu
H. 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 - 7:27 P.M.
ADOPTED: June 5, 2014
