To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
SFGovAccessibility
Seal of the City and County of San Francisco
City and County of San Francisco

September 15, 2005

September 15, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, September 15, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:  S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

 

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:     Olague,

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:40 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Jim Miller; Mathew Snyder; Tammy Chan; Paul Lord; Mary Woods; Glenn Cabreros; Sara Vellve; Dan Sider; Joy Navarrete; Ben Fu; Sharon Young; Sarah Dennis; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

 

  • 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.         2000.1164E                                                                     (P. MALTZER: (415) 558-5977)

1880-1886 MISSION STREET - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report.  The project site on Assessor’s Block 3547, on Lots 2A, 3, 4, and 29 is approximately 51,888 square feet in size and contains two existing buildings containing warehouse use and printing plant with offices.  The project site is located at 1880-1886 Mission Street at 15th Street (northwest corner) bordered by 14th Street to the north, Mission Street to the east, 15th Street to the south and Julian Street to the west, within the Mission District neighborhood.  The project site is located in a Heavy Commercial (C-M) zoning district, within a 65-B/50-X Height and Bulk district, as well as the Mission District Interim Controls district. The proposal is to demolish the two existing buildings and construct one seven-story plus basement building containing 194 dwelling units, including 39 affordable units, and 8,536 square feet (sf) of retail space.  The basement and ground floor levels would contain 181 parking spaces with ingress and egress from 15th Street.  The proposed project would require conditional use authorization by the Planning Commission pursuant to San Francisco Planning Code Section 303. 

(Proposed for Continuance to October 6, 2005)

 

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Olague

 

2a.        2000.1164E                                                                        (P. MALTZER: (415) 558-5977)

1880-1886 Mission Street  - Adoption of CEQA Findings.  The project site on Assessor’s Block 3547, on Lots 2A, 3, 4, and 29 is approximately 51,888 square feet in size and contains two existing buildings containing warehouse use and printing plant with offices.  The project site is located at 1880-1886 Mission Street at 15th Street (northwest corner) bordered by 14th Street to the north, Mission Street to the east, 15th Street to the south and Julian Street to the west, within the Mission District neighborhood.  The project site is located in a Heavy Commercial (C-M) zoning district, within a 65-B/50-X Height and Bulk district, as well as the Mission District Interim Controls district. The proposal is to demolish the two existing buildings and construct one seven-story plus basement building containing 194 dwelling units, including 39 affordable units, and 8,536 square feet (sf) of retail space.  The basement and ground floor levels would contain 181 parking spaces with ingress and egress from 15th Street.  The proposed project would require conditional use authorization by the Planning Commission pursuant to San Francisco Planning Code Section 303.

(Proposed for Continuance to October 6, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

ABSENT:          Olague

 

2b.        2003.0758C                                                                       (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1880-1886 MISSION STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets; Lots 2A, 3, 4, and 29 in Assessor’s Block 3547 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 215, 271, 303, and 304 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) exceeding bulk limits, and to allow construction of up to 194 dwelling units, 8,536 square feet of retail commercial space and up to 181 independently accessible off-street parking spaces, following the demolition of two light industrial buildings on the site.  Exceptions are requested from bulk, rear yard, off-street parking and dwelling unit exposure requirements of the Planning Code.  The site is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Land Use District, and a 50-X and 65-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

                        (Proposed for Continuance to October 6, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Olague

 

            3.         2004.0196D                                                                (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

101 POPPY LANE - north side past Diamond Street.  Assessor's Block 6713 Lot 056 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No.2004 0915 4254 to construct new three story, single family dwelling on a vacant interior lot, in an RH-1 (Residential House, One Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk district.   

                        Preliminary Recommendation:  Take Discretionary Review and modify the project.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

                        (Proposed for Continuance to October 20, 2005)

 

 

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Olague

         

            4.         2005.0264DD                                                                        (i. wilson: (415) 558-6163)

                        680 27TH AVENUE - east side between Anza and Balboa Streets, Lot 020 in Assessor’s Block 1569 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.07.08.8328, proposing to construct a 25-foot wide by 20-foot deep, three-story addition and a 17-foot wide by 12-foot deep deck (approximately five feet high) at the rear of the existing house, located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to September 15, 2005)          

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW requeSts WITHDRAWN  

 

SPEAKERS:

Marilyn Amini

  1. Asked the Commission if they have received a letter sent by the West of Twin Peaks Central Council requesting continuance of the Medical Cannabais item.
  2.      Requested a continuance on the Better Neighborhoods.  There was no department resolution giving policy analysis.
  3.      It is important that the Commission make findings regarding environmental review.  If a project is not exempt under statutory exemption, categorical exemption or nonphysical exemption, or if you have not established criteria for a determination of significance, the Commission is obligated to hear the public.

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

5.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commissioner W. Lee:

  1. One of the main comments by the Planning staff is that the Commission should take a firm and aggressive line on time management of the agendas. 
  2. Possibly, Commissioners should talk to staff before Commission hearings to seek answers to questions that can easily be provide to them.

            Commissioner Hughes:

  1. Would like to have a discussion or a joint hearing with the Department of Building Inspection  (DBI) in the near future regarding items of mutual interests, such as on going customer services, MIS data systems and data management and how they interact between the Planning Department and DBI.  We might also include a discussion with them regarding Better Neighborhoods Plus and what that might mean to both departments?

 

              Larry Badiner responded to Commissioner Hughes:

                        -  DBI Commissioners are asking for a joint hearing.  He will do some research with them. 

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

6.         Director’s Announcements

  1. Zoning Administrator announced that Director Macris has an appointment and will join shortly.
  2. Next week we will issue our PDR Report.  It has taken us some time, but we have been talking with our staff, and with interested parties in the Mayor’s Office and outside to develop a coherent policy on PDR.  We expect to have an informational hearing in October.       

 

 

David Alumbaugh, Department Staff

  1. Reported on the work going on in Visitacion Valley, particularly in Executive Park.

 

7.         Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

 

BOS:

  1. There were two legislative items introduced.  Both were related items introduced by Supervisor Maxwell for Third and Oakdale Avenue for Affordable Housing [and] Special Use District.  A project at 4800 Third Street came to the Commission a few years ago.  It had some issues.  It has been redesigned and is being reintroduced.
  2. 3350 20th Street – Categorical Exemption Appeal – this was continued because the appellant indicated that they were trying to buy the project.  It was continued to September 20, 2005
  3. Land Use Committee – The Baby Diaper Changing Ordinance was sent to the full Board with a recommendation for approval.

 

BOA:

  1. 575 25th Avenue – Discretionary Review – Planning Commission disapproved the horizontal and vertical addition of a second unit.  Your findings included that the Project Sponsor might have deliberately misrepresented the case, and in spite of the appropriateness of the design, the Sponsor should not be rewarded for undermining the DR process.  The Board overturned your decision and subsequently the permit was approved with the only modification that the full bath at the garage level be made into a half bath.

8.         Department’s Work Program and Budget – Status Report

 

  1. Zoning Administrator announced that the Chief Financial Officer, Alicia John-Baptiste has been sick for most of the week and announced the need to continue this item to next week.

 

D.         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.

           

            Bob Planthold

            RE:  Elevator Penthouse legislation

  1. Asked the Commission to consider something they you might regard as criticism.  He invoked his right under the Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance. You folks added an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on the disability community with the amendment you made to the legislation.  You did not raise any question of the implications of civil rights and access for the disabled when you had your discussions.  You did not asked any question of the Mayor’s Office and Disability staffer as to his credentials.  You did not previously site any contact with the Mayor’s Office on Disability in any way whatsoever. 
  2. The amendment, I am saying, was pandering to those who are politically powerful and who supported supervisors.
  3. You put a burden on the disabled and on poor people by requiring that there be notice given to community in a building that would be under [65 feet], but have an elevator.
  4. The logical and functional question is, if a building is 64 feet high, why would it need such notice?  If it were 66.5, why would it not need such notice?
  5. You ignored a constituency that is a legally protected class.  Your response in the amendment was to appeal and appease those in power -- not to be fair, not to be inclusive, not to deal with the civil rights access.
  6. It’s too often the case in this city that people look at the city codes oblivious.  We are part of a State.  We are part of a nation that has overriding restrictions and requirements that did not enter into the debate.
  7. What you have done is put an extra burden on us when it comes to the Supervisors to take that unnecessary amendment out.
  8. That’s a disproportionate burden that has no functional basis except political appeasement.
  9. And I’m saying that, that you understand when I say disproportionate burden, the implications of potential future lawsuits on this and other aspects of city codes, that you ignore the disabled and the implications of legislations and decisions of projects before you.

Espanola Jackson

RE:  The ordinance that is being proposed by Supervisor Maxwell establishing a Visitacion Valley Community Facility and Infrastructure Fee

  1. At the meeting last Saturday, at least 80% of the people there were Asian and did not speak or understand English.  The ones who did understand even opposed the fact that Little Hollywood and the Executive Park will be strattled only for Visitacion Valley.
  2. I have been on the Executive Park Committee for the past 30 years to see that area get built up.
  3. If you go by what Sophie [Maxwell] plans to do with this ordinance, it is to draw a line that excludes Bayview Hunters Point.
  4. Visitacion Valley is exactly half a mile from Executive Park.  You have Little Hollywood that is two blocks away from Executive Park.  I live at Jamestown and Ingles.  I’m only five blocks away.  When they start building, I’ll be only three blocks away.  Still, we are being excluded from the proposed zoning.
  5. Asked the Commission not to do the zoning that Supervisor Maxwell is proposing.

Francisco DeCosta

  1. Supports the statements made regarding the disability community.

RE:  Emergency Response

  1. Since what happened in New Orleans, would like to ask the Commission if they have paid attention to our infrastructure.
  2. Would like to know if the Office of Emergency Services is talking to the Planning Commission, in case we have a big one.
  3. How are we going to address our evacuation sites? 

Jim Salinas, Sr.

Point of Order:  Early this week a written request for continuance of 680 Illinois was submitted to the Commission Secretary (Items 22 & 23 on today’s calendar)

-    Respectfully requested that the Commission consider that request now and grant the continuance of 680 Illinois Street.

 

THE COMMISSION RE-OPENED THE CATEGORY:  CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

            Under consideration/discussion at this time are items 22 and 23, 680 Illinois Street

 

SPEAKERS ON THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE ONLY:

James Nunemacher, Project Sponsor

            -     We are prepared to go forward today.

            -     Do not agree with the continuance because we have hade multiple meetings already with the union.

  1. We have met with the Carpenters Union and neighbors on five different occasions beginning in January of this year.  Primarily at that point they have been looking to get a commitment [from] us for union labor, which is fair enough to ask for I suppose, but we are unable to give that commitment because we don’t even know what we have.
  2. This is a very last minute thing that they’ve brought up after meeting since January and I think it’s just a delay tactic frankly.
  3. They didn’t give us a basis.  Delay for what?  I’m not sure.  We don’t understand.

 

 

Marge Vincent, representing Project Sponsor

  1. The request for continuance came in under the pretense of request a meeting with the project sponsor.
  2. Showed the Commission 10 copies of letters sent to the Carpenters Union by Mr. Nunemacher, the last of which was, “…I have written two letters regarding the Union Hall building with no response.”  This was dated July 18, 2005  “We have to assume that the building is not available at this time and have decided to proceed with our project in its current form.
  3. That was on July 18th.  I believe if Mr. Mulligan had some questions or issues related to the project in its current form he would have contacted us before September 10th, given that this hearing has been posted.  Everyone is aware of it.  We were not contacted.  I believe this is very much a delay tactic.

Patrick Mulligan, Financial Secretary for Carpenters Local 22

  1. It is his understanding that the Project Sponsor and the Union have met about three times.
  2. We are a complicated bureaucracy, but he is the only individual authorized to speak on behalf of the Local’s assets.
  3. They spoke to the organizing department specific to construction issues—regarding whether union or non-union.
  4. They set up one meeting with me as Marge Vincent’s letter stated to make an overture towards acquiring our parcel.  Unfortunately, it’s not for sale.
  5. It’s my understanding that it is incumbent upon the developer to set up a repor with the neighbors and make a presentation of the project.  At no time, in any of these discussions were there any design options discussed.  They never showed us a set of plans.  It was strictly they met at the request of our organizing department to speak with them regarding construction issues.  Then they set up a meeting with me to make an offer on our property.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t for sale.  At that time I assumed they were looking for some other sort of development.  But at no time have they ever met with us concerning design options.  Even though they have tried to put a spin on this.
  6. The Carpenters Union has been in the Central Waterfront of this city nearly a hundred years.  We chartered 125 years ago and we’ve been acting as a non-profit in the city for most of that time.
  7. The size and scope of this project would severely impact our ability to perform our function of securing employment and providing job training to our members.
  8. We are currently already almost displaced from other development in the area to the point where we can’t hold our monthly meetings at that location.
  9. It would be in the best interest for the community, and certainly our 4,000 members if we could speak to the developer concerning design options.

ACTION:         Without hearing the case itself, the item was continued to 9/22/05.

AYES:           S. Lee, Alexander, Hughes, Antonini, W. Lee

NAYES:               Bradford-Bell

ABSENT:       Olague

 

E.         PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

 

            At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time.  Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

 

SPEAKERS: None

 

 

 

 

  1. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

 

9.         2005.0185D                                                                   (M. WOODS:  (415)  558-6315)

1865 CLAY STREET - south side between Franklin Street and Van Ness Avenue; Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 0623 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.11.17.9505S, proposing to convert the building’s authorized use from eight dwelling units to six dwelling units in an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed, Medium Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with   modifications, specifically, maintaining the ground floor two-bedroom unit and eliminating the second floor studio/guest room unit.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of July 14, 2005)

NOTE: On July 14, 2005, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and entertained a motion to take Discretionary Review and allow conversion of the guest room to an occupiable legal dwelling. With a vote of +3 –3, the motion failed.  Continued to September 15, 2005 by a vote +6 –0.  Commissioner Bradford-Bell was absent.

 

                        SPEAKERS:     None

                        ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approve

                        AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

ABSENT:          Olague

 

G.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the Commission.  There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the Commission, the public, or staff so requests, in which event the matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing.

 

10a.        2004.0920EXV                                                                                   (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

973 MARKET STREET - south side between Fifth and Sixth Streets, through to Stevenson Street, Lot 69 in Assessor's Block 3704, - Review Under Planning Code Section 309 and request for Exceptions, pursuant to a building permit application to convert a vacant commercial building to approximately 67 dwelling units. The ground floor and mezzanine level will retain their retail use. No exterior modifications to the Market Street facade are proposed as part of this permit. The project requires an Exception to the Code standards for rear-yard area, and will be the subject of a concurrent Variance Hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The site is in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 120-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary recommendation: Approval with conditions

 

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved

            AYES:              S. Lee,  Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Olague

 

10b.        2004.0920EXV                                                                                    (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

                                973 MARKET STREET - south side between Fifth and Sixth Streets, through to Stevenson Street, Lot 69 in Assessor's Block 3704 - Request for Variances of the Planning Code standards for dwelling-unit exposure and off-street parking in conjunction with the review of the conversion of a vacant commercial building to approximately 67 dwelling units. The project would provide no off-street parking in the existing historic building, where 17 spaces would be required. Thirty-six of the dwelling units would face a large new interior light court that does not meet dimensional requirements of Section 140. The site is in a C-3-G (Downtown General Commercial) District and a 120-X Height and Bulk District

ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING AND GRANTED THE VARIANCE.

 

H.         REGULAR CALENDAR 

 

11.        2003.0169ECV                                                                  (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

385-399 FREMONT STREET - Information Presentation on proposed project design. The proposed project is a 250-foot-tall, 25-story residential building of approximately 370,000 gross square feet (gsf) consisting of 195 dwelling units and about 195 underground parking spaces. The project site is located at the northeast corner of Harrison and Fremont Street in the block bounded by Folsom, Fremont, Harrison, and Beale Streets. Vehicular access to the parking garage would be from Fremont Street on the northern side of the building. Pedestrian access would be from a lobby facing Fremont Street. The site is subject to the Rincon Hill SUD RC-4 (Residential/Commercial High-Density) district controls, and a 250-R height/bulk district. This site is within the newly adopted Rincon Hill Downtown Residential (DTR) District, and within an 85/400-R height and bulk district.

 

SPEAKERS:     

[Ralph Markazie], project sponsor

  1. Gave the Commission a brief overview of the project.
  2. Indicated that he was in support of the project at 375 Fremont St.
  3. The archdiocese is firmly in the position of trying to promote housing stock and the creation of jobs.

Lu Blazej

  1. Our project is code compliant with all the requirements of the 2000 Rincon Hill Plan, with the exception of tower separation.

Clark Manus, Architect

  1. Gave an overall description of the project’s design.

Robert McCarthy, representing Project Sponsor of 375 Fremont St.

  1. We support the archdiocese.  We support their project as proposed in their CU application.  We support their proposal with regard to reorienting the building around Harrison Street.  We support them and we will always support them.
  2. We have never endeavored to try to redesign their building.  We asked the same courtesy from Mr. Manus.  Which means that when he answered the question saying that we will get all the same units and all these alternatives, we respectfully disagree.
  3. We respectfully disagree with the staff alternative for 375 Fremont.  It does not preserve the same number of units.
  4. We applaud the archdiocese for its effort to be flexible and try to accommodate some of the issues regarding tower separation.

ACTION:             Informational Only.  No Action

                       

12.        2002.0449E                                                                            (T. Chan:  (415) 558-5982)

375 Fremont Street - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report.  Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, the project sponsor identified a new preferred alternative similar to Alternative B presented in the Draft EIR.  The preferred project, called Alternative D, is a 250-foot-tall, 28-story residential building of approximately 349,071 gross square feet (gsf) consisting of 225 dwelling units and about 217 underground parking spaces. One existing two-story building on the site which totals approximately 46,500 gross square feet would be demolished. The 375 Fremont Street Hill Building, constructed in 1929, is a listed in four local surveys containing buildings that could be considered historic resources.  The project site is located about mid-block on the eastern side of Fremont Street in the block bounded by Folsom, Fremont, Harrison, and Beale Streets.  Vehicular access to the parking garage would be from Fremont Street on the northern side of the building.  Pedestrian access would be from a lobby facing Fremont Street.  The site is within the RC-4 (Residential/Commercial High-Density) district, and a 250-R height/bulk district. This site is within the newly adopted Rincon Hill Downtown Residential (DTR) District, which is awaiting final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Should the Board of Supervisor adopt the propose Rincon Hill DTR, the proposed project would be in the new 85/400-R height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation:   Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.  Note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, January 6, 2005.  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 calendar.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 1, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued to October 6, 2005.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Olague

 

13.        2002.0449C                                                                      (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

375 Fremont Street - east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street, Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 3747 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow for the construction of a residential project that would include approximately 225 dwelling units, 217 non-independently off-street parking spaces, two off-street loading spaces, in a structure that would be 250-feet tall and 28-stories.  Conditional Use is required pursuant to Planning Code Section 253 for the construction of a structure greater than 40-feet in a Residential District, and pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B) for the construction of a project that would have full lot coverage on a sloping lot in the Rincon Hill Special Use District.  The project is being considered under the Planning Code Section 249.1, the Rincon Hill Special Use District, rather than the recently adopted new zoning controls for the Rincon Hill area as outlined in Planning Code Sections 827 and 309.1.  Planning Code Section 175.7 allows the subject lot to pursue entitlements under the zoning controls in effect prior to the adoption of the zoning amendments implementing the Rincon Hill DTR District.  Under the previous controls, the subject lot was in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Mixed High Density) District, the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 250-R Height and Bulk District.  Under the new adopted zoning, the project site is within the Rincon Hill DTR (Downtown Residential District), and a 400-R Height and Bulk District.   

preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications.

                        FOR SPEAKERS, ACTION, AND VOTE, SEE ADDENDUM

 

            ITEMS #14 & 15 WERE TAKEN OUT OF ORDER AND HEARD AFTER ITEM #10

 

            14.        2005.0256T                                                                             (P. Lord: (415) 558-6311)

                        Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District Residential Conversion to Other Institution - Consideration of an Ordinance amending San Francisco Planning Code by amending Section 724.1 to allow for conversion of upper floor residential units in the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District as a conditional use, where: the new use will be an Other Institution, Educational Service use, only one dwelling unit in building will be converted, and that unit is the only non-residential use in the building, and no legally residing tenant with be displaced: and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:    

No name stated

  1. We have full support from the community.
  2. Asked the Commission to approve this application.

Harry O’Brien, counsel for University High School

  1. There is a proposed limit on the enrollment of the summer program.  It is a higher limit than the school has ever had in the actual enrollment.
  2. The summer program averages about 100.  The cap is 110.
  3. The regular school year enrollment program is about double that.
  4. The school is comfortable that this cap would not affect their ability to operate the summer program

ACTION:            Approved

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Olague

            MOTION:           17101

 

15.        2004.1166C                                                                        (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

3220 SACRAMENTO STREET - north side between Lyon Street and Presidio Avenue; Lot 008, in Assessor’s Block 1007  - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 121.1, 121.2, 303, 724.11, 724.21, 724.38 and 724.81 to modify an existing Conditional Use authorization for a Planned Unit Development under Motion No. 13578 (for Case No. 1992.498C at 3065 Jackson Street) for the expansion of an Other Institution (Large), Educational Service use (San Francisco University High School Annex Campus) at 3220 Sacramento Street; to allow an Other Institution (Large) use on the second and third floors; to allow a non-residential use size that exceeds 2,500 square feet, and on a lot that exceeds 5,000 square feet in area.  The site is within the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)

             

SPEAKERS:     Same as Item #14.

            ACTION:           Approved

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Olague

            MOTION:           17102

 

            16.        2005.0527D                                                                    (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1847 SCOTT STREET   - west side between Pine and Bush Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1050 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.17.5059, proposing to add two stories to an existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the application as revised

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to 10/6/05.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, W. Lee

            ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague

           

17.         2005.0224D                                                                        (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1615 FULTON AVENUE  - south side between Central Avenue and Lyon Street, Lot 036 in Assessor’s Block 1185 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission’s policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.02.02.4568 proposing to legalize the conversion of the building's authorized use from four dwelling units to two dwelling units in an RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the permit.

                       

SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Did not take Discretionary Review and approved.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            NAYES:            Hughes

            ABSENT:          W. Lee and Olague

           

18.        2002.0401DV                                                                    (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

1740 20TH STREET - northeast corner of 20th Street and Wisconsin Street, lot 018 in Assessor’s Block 4069 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.26.4213 proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition and a rear horizontal addition.  The property is within an RH-2 (House, Two-family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Do Not Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed.

                        DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

 

NOTE:  Items 19, 20 and 21 were called and heard together.

 

 

19.     2005.0664ET                                                                                         (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6097)

Medical Cannabis Dispensary regulations introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi under Board File No. 051250 - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 209.3, 217,  710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, and 818, and by adding Sections 790.141, and 890.131, to: define medical cannabis dispensaries; prohibit dispensaries in residential-house and residential-mixed zoning districts; permit dispensaries elsewhere subject to restrictions based on a dispensary's proximity to schools, community centers and institutions for the treatment of addictive diseases; require adequate ventilation in dispensaries; prohibit the sale or distribution of alcohol at dispensaries; require Planning Department notice to interested individuals and properties within 300 feet of proposed dispensaries; require dispensaries operating before April 1, 2005 to obtain a permit within 18 months of the effective date of this legislation or cease operation; require a notice that permits for dispensaries are not intended to and do not authorize the violation of State or Federal law; and make environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan; amending the San Francisco Health Code by adding Sections 3200 through 3220, to: set medical marijuana possession guidelines; require a permit, business license, and business registration certificate for a medical cannabis dispensary; set out the application process for a medical cannabis permit; set out operating requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries; and set out the administrative process for imposing penalties and/or permit suspension or revocation for violations; amending the San Francisco Traffic Code by amending Sections 53 and 132, to create an infraction for double parking in front of a medical cannabis dispensary and set the fine at $100; and, amending the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code by amending Section 1, and by adding Sections 1.177 and 249.17, to authorize the Department of Health to issue medical cannabis dispensary permits and to set out the license fees for medical cannabis dispensaries.

 

SPEAKERS:    

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, District 5

  1. What motivated him to move on this issue is that he has been an strong advocate for the decriminalization of marijuana.
  2. He has been involved in advocating for Medical Cannabis to become a legitimate institution within San Francisco.
  3. Proud of the fact that California has showed the rest of the country, the ability and the need of course, to reconcile the very schizophrenic and often negative attitudes toward marijuana by acknowledging the fact that in light of the Aids crisis on the ‘80s and ‘90s were tens of thousands of lives were claimed, many of them here in San Francisco, and those who suffer from other illnesses, that we needed to express some response.  We needed to take care of the health strategy that is has not been considered by allowance in the administration of medical cannabis.
  4. The club dispensaries have increased considerably, and this is a good thing.
  5. What is before you today is a composite.  It is a composite of people who have chimed in from all facets of life.  It is patient driven.
  6. This is also sensitive to neighborhoods as well so we can alleviate the tension that is between patients and neighborhoods.  And the government steps up to the plate and help to regulate a main stream, what is really considered a very prevailing practice.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd

  1. Appreciated all recommendations that the Planning staff have made in relation to Supervisor Mirkarimi’s Legislation.  Supervisor Mirkarimi said they are really the foundation of what he has done and would like to urge the Commission to approve those recommendations.
  2. What we have before us is an issue that is completely noble and very unique.
  3. We had to do these moratoriums because we did not have any idea what was going on.
  4. The staff’s point that the foundation of this legislation is patient care and health care is absolutely true.
  5. What was the motivation behind the legislation? No just for him, but, he also believes as much for Supervisors Mirkarimi and Sandoval, it was the neighborhood revolt.  There was a lot of crying out for land use control.
  6. As much as medical cannabis is a patient issue, what really motivated the discussion on this were land use issues.
  7. After all these permits go through the process we would have to stop and see how it works.  Not just for the patient communities, but also for the neighborhoods.  Are these regulations adequate?

Joseph Trun, Legislative aide to Supervisor Sandoval

  1. Asked the Commission, on Supervisor Sandoval’s behalf, to consider forwarding his amended legislation to the Board without recommendations just as planning department staff recommended for Supervisor Elsbernd.

Karen Woodson

  1. One of the things that is important to bring to light is that some of the comments to some extent are true.
  2. Yesterday, there was a press conference held about polling.  The most recent polling indicates to a large extent that San Franciscan supports the Medical Cannabis Dispensaries and its regulations.
  3. What we are hearing--this crying out--is very a vocal minority.  A lot of the reasons why they are crying out loud have to do with the fact that there has been an absence of regulations up until now.  And I think the point of going through this proposal process and the Planning Commission taking some land use issues under consideration is important.
  4. Deeply concerned about the restrictions placed on proximity of other medical cannabis dispensaries and the so called, anti-clustering rules.
  5. These dispensaries are clustered together because they are near public transportation. It makes sense for patients that are suffering from a variety of debilitating diseases.

Catherine Smith

  1. Rules can be good but they have got to be fair and done in a democratic way.
  2. We need to clarify the definition of “existing.”  Is it when you lease your location? When you started your business license?
  3. Another thing that she would like clarified is the term “grandfathered.”  You the Planning Commission did not plan on how you determine who is grandfathered and who is not.
  4. Why, for some reason, have you decided not to have the dispensaries clustered?  I do not understand why?
  5. If you are going to do that, how are you going to close or move the dispensaries? How are you going to figure what is fair, what is democratic? How much time you going to give them? Where are you going to move them?
  6. You said, the Health Department is going to handle this, but you do know say how?

Tony Bowles

  1. Supports Supervisor’s Mirkarimi’s legislation.
  2. Clustering the medical dispensaries does not pose an adverse effect on the community. Rather, it will provide greater access for patients and resolve an increase in competition among dispensaries, which will keep prices low and promote better patient services.
  3. On site consumption:  patients as well as staff must be able to medicate in a safe place.  Many patients cannot smoke at home.
  4. A recent poll was just released reporting that 75% of San Franciscans agreed with the State that patients should smoke at dispensaries if the facility is properly ventilated.
  5. Medical cannabis dispensaries are not open to the general public.  They impose little or not threat to the public and our children, playground or drug treatment facilities.
  6. In fact, they provide the patient with a safe, confined place to consume medicine and they keep patients off the street.

Alex Franco

  1. I would like to ask the Commission what is the message that we are sending to our children when we put these arbitrary restrictions on medical cannabis patients?  Are we saying, we do not care about the sick?  That we do not feel compassion for those who can’t move?  Are we saying this a moral agenda?  Yes, this is a moral agenda.  Do you really opposed medical cannabis? Why is my medicine a danger to children?

Mira Ingram

  1. It is crucial that on-site consumption is allowed at the dispensaries.  Otherwise patients will be forced to use their medicine in public, which is the thing that you are trying to prevent.

Jonathan Beaver

  1. It is very important that you take out the drug rehab clause in the proposal because all of our facilities support harm reduction.
  2. Cannabis has been used as a harm reduction tool for thousand of years.

Patrick Goggin

  1. In favor of proposed legislation with amendments.

Emily Scott-Texler

  1. A dispensary is a community center as well as a safe place for patients to access medicine.
  2. We are supporting patient access to medicine.  We must be careful throughout this process to not hinder that which we seek to protect.
  3. In order to avoid this we must bare in mind the true nature of dispensary use and create an infrastructure which cultivate and support the dispensary’s ability to have a positive impact on patients, neighborhoods and wider communities.

Rob Simmons

  1. In favor of the legislation.

Shona Gochenaur

  1. In favor of the legislation.

 

Blair Moser

  1. Supporter of medical marijuana.
  2. There are a lot people that come to this dispensary from other neighborhoods.
  3. This drug trafficking endangers not only the public safety, but also patients--local patients who depend on NCD for their supplies of medical marijuana.
  4. Supervisor Mirkarimi’s anti-clustering is excellent.
  5. We think that the product should be made available to patients across the City, conveniently in their neighborhoods, rather than in dense corridors, as is presently the case.
  6. Hope you consider the need of our neighborhood--the elders and the school children in our neighborhood.

Mary Louise Beecroft

  1. Would like to request that zoning absolutely prohibit these uses in the NCD districts.

Robyn Few

  1. In support of the legislation.

Michael R. Aldrich

  1. There is a need for clustering because these are in the main area where cannabis dispensaries can meet the 1000-foot requirement.
  2. On site consumption is necessary in all NCDs to keep patients off the street, keep it out of the parks, and away from the playgrounds.
  3. If you do outlaw smoking in NCDs that are less than 1000 feet from schools, you will have the affect of putting it in the school yards and in the playgrounds because they [patients] can not smoke in a safe environment where they would not have to be harassed by the police or by anybody else for that matter.

Michelle Aldrich

  1. Normally, when you set zoning rules in the City, you are dealing with legal enterprises.  Under federal laws, the NCDs are illegal.
  2. If we limit the area where this NCD is located, we are falling under the traps set by the Federal Government that says there is no medical use for marijuana.
  3. The Citizens of San Francisco believe otherwise.  Medical cannabis is accepted by 95% of the city.

Charles Moser

  1. Asked the Commission to revoke a permit or relocate the cannabis to a non NC-1 zone.

Sonjia Miles

  1. In favor of the clubs.  They are a good thing.
  2. The 1000-foot rule will be un-justice to the medical cannabis community.
  3. The land use issues must not hamper us from using our medicine for health and safety.

Charley Pappas

  1. In support of Mirkarimi’s legislation.

Melinda Bishop

  1. 1000 feet restriction is unnecessary.
  2. These patients need a safe environment.

Albert Sandoval

  1. Supports Mirkarimi’s legislation.

Percy Coleman

  1. In support of the Mirkarimi legislation.

Marilyn Amini

  1. Requested that the Commission continue this item because there was not proper notification; the environmental review impact report of the sites is inadequate; and there also should be special land use classifications.  This is a very significant use. 

            ACTION:           Approved as amended:

.          

1.         Eliminate the requirement relating to “community clubhouse[s], neighborhood center[s], or other community cultural center[s].” Defining and listing such facilities with fairness, accuracy, and/or consistency is not possible. Moreover, the merit of this requirement is debatable in light of the broad spectrum of uses and types of community facilities.

 

2.         Add a requirement to prohibit MCD’s within 500 feet (or 1,000 feet if smoking is offered on-site) of children’s playgrounds operated by the Recreation and Parks Department. MCD’s have potential negative externalities of a type that should not be allowed to impact children’s play areas. To implement this requirement, the Recreation and Park Department should provide the Planning Department with a list of such facilities at regular intervals not less than once each calendar year.

 

3.         Allow operation only between 8am and 10pm, excepting one MCD per district which should be allowed to remain open at all hours. Operation of multiple dispensaries beyond these base hours could create conflict with nearby land uses and prevailing neighborhood character. Moreover, these hours are typical of many conventional pharmacies. An MCD is intended to serve a public health need; late-night operation has the undesirable effect of rendering a facility more comparable to a nighttime-entertainment establishment than a medical outlet. Reasonable patient access to medical cannabis has been anticipated by the drafters of Proposition 215 in the form of designated caregivers. Should a patient not be able to procure his or her medicine within the proscribed hours of operation, a caregiver has the ability to obtain his or her patient’s medicine on his or her behalf. Nonetheless, the allowance for a single facility to remain open at all hours account for unforeseen and/or emergency situations under which medical product is required without any delay.

 

4.         Allow applications to be received only during a one-time-only filing period. DPH should be allowed to receive MCD permit applications only during a 180-day filing window, which would commence upon the effective date of the legislation. Thereafter, DPH would be required to submit a yearly report to the Board of Supervisors describing the overall adequacy of the City’s medical cannabis services. Should the Board so choose, it would then have the option of pursuing legislative measures to reopen the application period. This modification is based on the premise set forth in Supervisor Elsbernd’s similar legislation (introduced under Board File Number 051455).

 

                                    5.         Encourage appropriate Planning Staff levels. Advise the Board to explore authorizing the Department to retain a temporary staff-person trained in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) who can aid the Department in assembling a proximity based mapping system so that MCD applications can be quickly and efficiently processed in the great numbers expected.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            ABSENT:          W. Lee, Hughes, and Olague

            RESOLUTION:   17103

 

20.        2005.0665ET:                                                                                             (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6097)

Medical Cannabis Dispensary regulations introduced by Supervisor Sandoval under Board File No. 051260 - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 209.3, 217, 303, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, and 818, and by adding Sections 790.141, and 890.131, to: define medical cannabis dispensaries; prohibit dispensaries in residential-house and residential-mixed zoning districts; permit dispensaries as conditional uses elsewhere subject to the restriction that no dispensary may be located within 1000 feet of another dispensary; provide additional conditional use criteria for evaluating proposed dispensaries relating to the proposed dispensary's proximity to schools, playgrounds, neighborhood centers, drug treatment centers, child care centers, and other medical cannabis dispensaries; allow medical cannabis dispensaries in operation prior to April 1, 2005 twelve months from the effective date of this legislation to obtain a conditional use permit or otherwise discontinue operation; prohibit dispensaries from applying for conditional use permits while they are under a notice of violation from the Planning Department or the subject of legal action by the City; require a notice on all dispensary permits that the permits are not intended to and do not authorize the violation of State or Federal law; and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as Item #19.

            ACTION:           The Commission did not take a position.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            ABSENT:          W. Lee, Hughes, and Olague

            RESOLUTION:  17104

 

21.        2005.0772ET                                                                         (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6097)

Medical Cannabis Dispensary regulations introduced by Supervisor Elsbernd under Board File No. 051455- Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco Planning Code by amending Sections 209.3, 217,  710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, 719, 720, 721, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726, 727, 728, 729, 730, 810, 811, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, and 818, and by adding Sections 790.141, and 890.131, to: define medical cannabis dispensaries; prohibit dispensaries in residential-house and residential-mixed zoning districts; permit dispensaries elsewhere subject to restrictions based on a dispensary's proximity to other dispensaries, schools, community centers and institutions for the treatment of addictive diseases; require adequate ventilation in dispensaries; prohibit the sale or distribution of alcohol at dispensaries; require Planning Department notice to interested individuals and properties within 300 feet of proposed dispensaries; require dispensaries operating before April 1, 2005 to obtain a permit within 18 months of the effective date of this legislation or cease operation; require a notice that permits for dispensaries are not intended to and do not authorize the violation of State or Federal law; and make environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan; amending the San Francisco Health Code by adding Sections 3200 through 3220, to: set medical marijuana possession guidelines; require a permit, business license, and business registration certificate for a medical cannabis dispensary; set out the application process for a medical cannabis permit; limit the time period for submitting applications for medical cannabis dispensary permits; require an annual report from the Director of Public Health to the Board of Supervisors; set out operating requirements for medical cannabis dispensaries; and set out the administrative process for imposing penalties and/or permit suspension or revocation for violations; amending the San Francisco Traffic Code by amending Sections 53 and 132, to create an infraction for double parking in front of a medical cannabis dispensary and set the fine at $100; and, amending the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code by amending Section 1, and by adding Sections 1.177 and 249.17, to authorize the Department of Health to issue medical cannabis dispensary permits and to set out the license fees for medical cannabis dispensaries.

 

SPEAKERS:     Same as Item #19.

            ACTION:           The Commission did not take a position.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            ABSENT:          W. Lee, Hughes, and Olague

            RESOLUTION:  17105

 

22.        2004.0546CE                                                              (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

680 Illinois Street - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. On Lots 3 and 7 of Block 3994, the project would demolish two concrete warehouse/garage structures at 680 Illinois Street and 550 18th Street and construct one 50-foot tall building consisting of 35 dwelling units, 9,128 square feet of retail/commercial space, and about 35 off-street parking spaces.  The project would include 74,012 square feet in five-stories, and four commercial spaces on the ground floor.  The 50,966-sf residential uses would have open space provided through a second story deck.  The 10,580 sf parking garage would be at the ground floor and accessed from Illinois Street. The two warehouse structures located at 680 Illinois Street (or 2075 Third Street) and 550 18th Street are included in the Central Waterfront Cultural Resource Survey, the M-2 zoning district, and 50-X height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

 

SPEAKERS:  None

ACTION:          Without hearing. Continued to 9/22/05.

AYES:           S. Lee, Alexander, Hughes, Antonini, W. Lee

NAYES:               Bradford-Bell

ABSENT:       Olague

 

23.        2004.0546C                                                                                (B. Fu: (415) 558-6613)

680 Illinois Street - northwest corner of Illinois and 18th Streets, Lots 003 & 007 in Assessor's Block 3994 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 215, 303, and 304 to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow the construction of up to 35 dwelling units, 7,000 square feet of commercial space, and 41 independently accessible off-street parking spaces within a M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation, and in the Housing/Mixed Use Zone as designated by Planning Commission Resolution No. 16202.  Exceptions are requested from density, off-street parking, and permitted obstructions, as mandated by the Planning Code.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

            SPEAKERS:        None

ACTION:                Without hearing. Continued to 9/22/05.

AYES:                 S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Hughes, W. Lee

NAYES:                        Bradford-Bell

ABSENT:             Olague

 

24.        2005.0565C                                                                            (S.YOUNG: (415) 558-6346)

2110 CLEMENT STREET - north side between 22nd and 23rd Avenues; Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 1411 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 717.27, 186.1(b) and 303 of the Planning Code to legalize the extension of the hours of operation of an existing nonconforming full-service restaurant (“My Favorite Cafe”) from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. in the Outer Clement Neighborhood Commercial District (NCD) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  No exterior modifications will be made to the existing building envelope.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

SPEAKERS:    

Phillip Young, Project Sponsor

  1. Respectfully asked the Commission to approve the conditional use.

Steven Gee

  1. This café is in violation of hours of operation.
  2. Because they are open to 2:00 am and sometimes to 3:00 am, It has become a late night hang out for young people
  3. There is a lot of loitering, loud noise, littering and the use of my driveway as a personal parking lot.
  4. They have total disregard for the working class people who lives in the area.
  5. Degrading the quality of life in our neighborhood is intolerable and not acceptable.
  6. On behalf of 30 residents and myself, we urge the Commission to deny this application.

Veronica Lee

  1. In favor of the café extending their hours of operation from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on the weekends.
  2. The café not only serves unique desserts, but also provides a safe and welcoming environment to our customers.

Wendy Yeung

  1. Asked the Planning Commission to support the café’s request to extent their business hours.

Christina Tam

  1. I support the café’s request to extent their hours of operations.

Katrina Lau

  1. Strongly urged the Commission to approve the application.

Christine Tour Sarkissian, Attorney for “My Favorite Café”

  1. My client’s café has tremendous support from his customers.
  2. The project is in conformity with the existing concept within the Outer Clement.

ACTION:           Public hearing closed.  Continued to December 15, 2005, to allow the café operator to comply with the existing conditions.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            ABSENT:          Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

 

25a.      2005.0492CV                                                                   (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2461-2463 LOMBARD STREET - south side between Divisadero and Scott Streets in an NC-3 (Moderate-scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, Lot 024 in Assessor’s Block 0937 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 161(j) and 303 to reduce the parking requirement for the project where one off-street parking space is required. The proposal is to construct an additional dwelling unit within the ground floor of an existing two-story, one-unit cottage located at the rear of the subject lot.  A three-story, two-unit building with a ground-floor commercial space exists at the front of the lot.  No building expansion is proposed at either building.  The project would result in a total of four dwelling units and one-commercial space at the subject lot.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

SPEAKERS:    

Fred Hosfield, representing Project Sponsor

  1. Gave the Commission a brief overview of the project.

Rene Girerd

  1. Respectfully asked the Commission to approve his application.

Doris Ann Girerd

-  Spoke in support and asked the Commission to approve the application.

            ACTION:           Conditional use disapproved.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            ABSENT:          Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

            MOTION:           17097

 

 

25b.      2005.0492CV                                                                  (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2461-2463 Lombard Street - south side between Divisadero and Scott Streets, Lot 024 in Assessor's Block 0937 - Request for rear yard, open space, dwelling unit exposure and non-complying structure variances from Planning Code Sections 134, 135, 140 and 188 to construct an additional dwelling unit within the ground floor of an existing two-story, one-unit cottage at the rear of the subject lot located in an NC-3 (Moderate-scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 11, 2005)

 

             SPEAKERS:    Same as those listed for item 25a

             ACTION:          Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and has taken the matter under advisement.

 

5:00 P.M.

 

26.        2005.0524T                                                                            (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS PLUS TEXT AMENDMENTS   - Consideration of an ordinance  [Board of Supervisors File Number 050601] which would   establish   a   "Better   Neighborhoods   Planning and Implementation Process" by  (a) adding Chapter 36 to the Administrative Code  in  order to set forth uniform procedures for  developing  comprehensive neighborhood plans, (b) amending Administrative  Code  Section  3.4  to  provide  for integrated budget  documents,  and (c) adding Section 312A to the Planning Code regarding discretionary review for projects located within plan areas.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Modifications

NOTE:   On August 4, 2005, following public testimony, the commission president directed that this item be calendared for discussion at all commission hearings through September 15, 2005 with possible action on September 15, 2005.

 

SPEAKERS ON THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE ONLY:      

No name stated

  1. In favor of continuance.

Marilyn Amini

  1. In favor of continuance.

Kathy DeVicenzi

  1. In favor of continuance.

Judy Berkowitz

  1. In favor of continuance.

Peter Cohen

  1. In favor of continuance.

No name stated

  1. Thanked the Commission for continuing this item.

George Williams

  1. We have been criticized for the legislation changing.  We went through a very scrutinized review with staff to work out things they saw that we did not see.  They saw with the eyes of how it will be implemented.
  2. Just realized today that the new version of the legislation contains a lot of changes.
  3. These changes were in response to the workshop we held at the public library, the many public hearing we have had before you, and from some of your comments.

            ACTION:           Continued to October 6, 2005.  The public hearing remains open.

            AYES:              S. Lee, Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell

            ABSENT:          Hughes, W. Lee, and Olague

           

 

 

I.          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))

 

             None

 

Adjournment:   11: 15 P.M.

 

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2006.

           

SPEAKERS       None

ACTION:            Approved

AYES:               S. Lee; M. Antonini; Bradford-Bell; K. Hughes

EXCUSED:         C. Olague

ABSENT:           D. Alexander W. Lee

 

 

 

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:17 PM