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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

June 22, 2006

June 22, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 22, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: President Sue Lee; Vice President Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; Shelley Bradford-Bell; Kevin Hughes; William Lee; and Christina Olague

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:35 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Neil Hart – Acting Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; Michael Li; John Billovits; Tom Wang; April Hesik; Nannie Turrell; 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. 2002.1263U (J. SWITZKY 575-6815)

333 Fremont Street - Motion to Approve In-Kind Agreement to Satisfy Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fee Requirement per Section 318.3(e). The Planning Commission approved a project at 333 Fremont Street on June 16, 2005, that includes approximately 88 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupied square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project required a payment of approximately $769,142. On March 14, 2006, the project sponsor deposited the full amount of its required fee, plus interest, into an escrow account payable to the City, pending approval of an In-Kind Agreement that would credit the sponsor for a portion of the fee in exchange for publicly-accessible improvements in accordance with the Rincon Hill Plan. The project sponsor has entered into an In-Kind Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to construct, and dedicate a permanent public easement on, a mid-block pedestrian pathway on the project site. The Planning Department recommends a fee credit equal to construction cost of the pathway improvements (approximately $240,000) plus the value of the public easement ($333,200), or approximately $573,200 total. The City would thus draw from the escrow account the difference of the full fee and this credit, or $195,942, and deposit this amount in the Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to July 13, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

2. 2006.0730U (J. SWITZKY 575-6815)

Motion to Approve Expenditure from Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund of up to $25,000 for Appraisal and Planning Services from the Real Estate Division. The Real Estate Division of the Department of Administrative Services is providing appraisal, transaction, and miscellaneous services related to implementation of the Rincon Hill Plan community improvements, including open space acquisition (Guy Place) and community facilities leasing (Sailor's Union of the Pacific). Planning Code Section 318.6(b) enables the Planning Commission to expend up to $250,000 from the Fund for planning, architectural, engineering, and other support services for implementation of the public improvements funded by the Rincon Hill Community Improvements Fund. Approval of this expenditure will approve establishment of a work order not to exceed $25,000 for the Real Estate Division.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to July 13, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

3a. 2005. 0307D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 CAPP STREET - west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2659 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project also includes the new construction of a three-unit building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

3b. 2005. 0329D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 CAPP STREET- west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2663 for the new construction of a three-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

4. 2005.0781D (M. SMITH (415) 558-6322)

1467 CLAYTON STREET - south side between Market Street and Corbett Avenue, Lot 004A in Assessor's Block 2712 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of a new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.07.25.8547, proposing to construct a four-story over garage, two-family dwelling, located in a 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 project as proposed

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 4, 2006)

NOTE: On May 4, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing, and continued the matter to June 22, 2006, with instruction to the project sponsor to remove the 4th floor by a vote +5 –1. Commissioner Antonini vote no. Commissioner Hughes was absent.

(Proposed for Continuance to August 3, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. Commission Comments/Questions

  • Inquiries/Announcements. Without discussion, at this time Commissioners may make announcements or inquiries of staff regarding various matters of interest to the Commissioner(s).
  • Future Meetings/Agendas. At this time, the Commission may discuss and take action to set the date of a Special Meeting and/or determine those items that could be placed on the agenda of the next meeting and other future meetings of the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. In reference to the article in the Chronicle today regarding the Flight of the Middle Class:
  2. I think it's worth discussing this because when people read articles like this, unless discussion is to the contrary, they think it's factual.
  3. There are things in here that are not correct.
  4. The author did a good job of making a distinction with cities and other parts of the country where the middle class have fallen to decay as opposed to San Francisco where the middle class is replaced by areas that have increased in land value and the problem is they are too expensive for people of middle income to afford.
  5. There were a few things I didn't think were accurate or I would like to see the statistics.
  6. They mentioned the Western Addition was middle class. I wonder where the boundaries were drawn.
  7. I don't know any place in the city where the sale prices of homes have decreased.
  8. I would be interested to see that if they draw the distinction between the year 2000 and the present.
  9. Also, if we are going to draw differences we have to do it with cities of the same size.
  10. Carmel and San Francisco are different in terms of their size and the things they do.
  11. Then, the other presumption that was made if you allow more density and eliminate our areas with detached homes that the middle class will stay.
  12. I think what we found, what little surveys we have had, as we build newer places, we found a low incidence of families there.
  13. The real way to solve this problem is to ask the question to people who are starting families. What are they looking for in housing?
  14. Are they looking for a one-bedroom accommodation on the 30th floor or a multi-bedroom or something that's less dense?
  15. Until you address the needs, regardless of price, you are still going to see many people with families flee San Francisco.
  16. While these buildings do good things and take pressure off the family friendly stock by having people who don't need bigger houses move into the units, that is not the entire answer.
  17. We have to look at building things that are more appropriate when we can.
  18. I'm interested in Alamo Square or on 19th Avenue where you have areas that are still individual for people.
  19. Maybe they have some common hallways, or mostly they have their own front door and parking places.
  20. I think that is something that you may reasonably expect families might stay in.
  21. And wherever we can take older housing stock and make it into family size units there is a better chance that people will stay there.
  22. But if you can make a flat a little bit larger where it will accommodate a growing family, I think this may have some promise, particularly on the eastern side of the city where our choices are small units or very expensive single-family homes.
  23. We don't have a lot in between.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I read the same article and had questions not so similar to Mr. Antonini.
  2. I think that one thing that stood out to me was the middle class; the type of housing available to starting families probably isn't going to exist much longer in San Francisco.
  3. We see a lot of issues around the expansion of single-family homes.
  4. Homes that go from 2-bedrooms, one story to 5-bedroom, 4-bathroom, 4-story homes.
  5. This is really impacting the character of certain neighborhoods that were before blue collar, working class and where people could afford to buy homes like Noe Valley.
  6. I wonder how much consideration is taken into the entire context of the neighborhood and the ultimate impact that these monster homes are having on neighborhood that were mixed economically?
  7. Most people are being priced out of most neighborhoods in San Francisco because a lot of what's left of the housing is being transformed to something that wasn't.
  8. There does seem to be a need for affordable housing for all people – middle class and very lower income people as well.
  9. In relation to the 2660 Harrison place: I know there was a decision at the Board and it had to do with the General Plan and the affordable housing piece of the Element and I wonder if we fulfill that when we plan?
  10. How is that being considered?
  11. On the second piece: When it came to the Housing Element and the General Plan and the affordable housing piece and future projects in the Eastern Neighborhood, how are we considering that as it relates to future projects?
  12. Are we examining the potential for identifying locations in the Eastern Neighborhoods for affordable housing?

Director Macris responded

  1. One of the things we are trying to achieve in the Eastern Neighborhoods is a mixed-use district, which means a mix of income levels.
  2. We are conscience of that and we have ways we will recommend to the staff to consider how to keep that balance; how we use the land and the balance of income levels within a mixed-use district.

Commissioner Hughes

  1. I didn't finish reading the article.
  2. It meandered to a generic overview that I didn't know how much weight one could give other than to say there is a trend on a worldly scope.
  3. But as far as work force housing goes: I guess we live in different San Franciscos, which is fine.
  4. I grew up in what you could call work force housing if work force houses are lots 25 feet wide–side by side; that are built side property line to side property line with an inch between; the lot is about a hundred feet deep; the building is somewhere between 25 feet wide with maybe 65 to 85 feet deep tops.
  5. They are boxes with different fronts on them.
  6. Many were build after World War II.
  7. They were economical and held working class families.
  8. Hence, work force housing.
  9. Visitation Valley has thousands of units that match that description. The outer Mission has hundreds, many, many parcels that would fit that description, ocean view, Ingleside – single-family residents. The outer Sunset is still somewhat affordable, maybe to people that both work and might be able to pay the bills.
  10. Bayview – those are 25 foot wide standard work force housing.
  11. The Excelsior District – all back through there, that's work force housing.
  12. Because it was such a blue-collar city.
  13. It was a merry time.
  14. I don't know. I didn't finish the article.
  15. Today is my last day and the last time I mention that.
  16. I had expressed what a pleasure it has been to work with everyone on the Commission. What good friendships I built with my fellow commissioners with all the people that are in planning.
  17. I would be remiss if I didn't mention the Department staff.
  18. Dean Macris. Everyone makes a contribution. That's what we are all doing here. You have really been spectacular in stepping in and filling a role and a need that was in the city at a particular time. I just want to recognize you in your efforts for that.
  19. Dr. Ghosh, likewise.
  20. Mr. Badiner, who was called away on a family matter; all the planners; Mr. Snyder – one of the things that you recognize over time is that as a planner you are torn and pulled between the people that bring you the project. Many times in opposition, neighborhood organizations or whomever, don't share their opinion.
  21. As a staff member, you are always getting pushed and pulled from one direction to the other.
  22. Whatever decision you finally weigh in with, you will be subject undoubtedly to criticism from whichever side does not share that view. And yet you find a way to come back next week and say I'm going to keep doing it anyway – that should not go unmentioned.
  23. Lastly, Commission Secretary Linda Avery, I want to say what a pleasure it has been to work with you. Many people don't know that Linda had a coin collection – one of the many things we had in common and developed that over the years.
  24. Speaking of being pushed and pulled week to week – something as mundane as the calendar is controversial. Anytime you have to tell someone no, no you can't be first, or no you can't have or do whatever it is you want, there is going to be a response that is not going to be something that is going to be complimentary or nice to listen to.
  25. I have certainly come to appreciate the work that you do as the Commission Secretary.
  26. I wanted to thank you and recognize you for that.

Commissioner Bill Lee

  1. I received through email the sky-high housing prices.
  2. I want staff to take a look at it.
  3. In this article they did a study that every time we delay a project after 12 months it doubles.
  4. I want staff to take a look at this article.
  5. I thought it might give us guidance on how long we [should take to] get projects approved.

President Sue Lee

  1. I want to echo some of Commissioner Hughes' comments.
  2. We have been here, the majority of us, since November 14, 2002.
  3. We have attended at least 150 meetings (40 a year at least).
  4. At those meetings we listen, deliberate and act.
  5. And by and large I think we as a commission have made decisions in the belief that we are making them for the public good.
  6. Sometimes those decisions have taken time and sometimes they have taken a long time.
  7. We sit here until those decisions are made.
  8. We wouldn't be able to make those decisions without all of you folks who come to the meetings.
  9. Whether you are project sponsors or representatives of the communities where the projects are proposed, we wouldn't be able to do that without your input and we wouldn't be able to do it without a professional department.
  10. We have seen the department grow in the short time, long time we have been here–from a low of 110 employees to 160 now.
  11. I think there are good times ahead for the department.
  12. I want to thank my fellow commissioners.
  13. I know we have personal support systems –family support systems. We hold other jobs.
  14. We do this as citizen commissioners and devote our Thursdays and many more hours than that every week to this job that some feel thankless.
  15. There is much psychic reward to being on the Commission and feeling that we have made a difference in the city.
  16. I want to thank my fellow commissioners for allowing me the privilege of having been President of the Commission.
  17. I wish all of us good luck and happy prospects in the future.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. Last week we talked about how great it's been working with Commissioner Shelley Bradford-Bell and Hughes.
  2. I wanted to mention how great it's been working with President Sue Lee and in general, what a great commission it is to work with.
  3. I've been involved with a lot of groups, some of which deal with issues that are of a lot less importance and significance than those we deal with, but they [those groups] are more contentious and disrespectful.
  4. It's a tribute to this Commission that we have gotten along so well even when we don't agree on things.
  5. I hope it continues in the future.
  6. I feel we made a lot of progress on issues.
  7. Thank you all, especially Sue.

Commissioner Bradford-Bell

  1. When there was the grueling Nominations Committee meeting, the first person who met me was Sue.
  2. I didn't know who she was. She introduced herself.
  3. I think from that point forward I felt a little bit better about how this was going to work because her energy was so positive.
  4. She was elegant about how we would work together from the moment we sat together November 14, 2002 to today.
  5. It has been a pleasure to serve with you, Sue. It truly has.
  6. Now that we both understand, we have both been the president while running a nonprofit organization, I'm looking forward for us to work together as Executive Directors of our organizations and continue the diversity and the arts in San Francisco.
  7. I look forward to that most of all because I always enjoyed working with you.

Commissioner Bill Lee

  1. Sue as President, and before, Shelley Bell was President &
  2. I look at the both of you and we have approved controversial projects.
  3. I thank you for making decisions.
  4. I sit and watch anguish in your face on the swing vote.
  5. I think it's difficult to be President of the Planning Commission.
  6. One thing that turned out even though we have differences is the commonalities are here.
  7. I looked at our voting records.
  8. Every project we approved, the Board has approved except one.
  9. We are meeting the needs of the public and the people that live in San Francisco.
  10. Given the seven of us, I think we have done a good job.
  11. Even the Board from 11 Districts, they came to the same conclusions we did.
  12. Sue, thank you for the difficult decisions.
  13. Commissioner Olague
  14. I want to thank you Sue.
  15. I will miss you. I learned a lot from you and I'm sorry to see you leave.
  16. It's going to be an adjustment and strange to come back in July without Kevin, Shelley and Sue.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. I think Sue stepped in at a time when we were at a crossroad.
  2. I think under her leadership, we came together as a Commission to make decisions on tough projects along with staff to get a lot of things done this year.
  3. A lot of that was due to Sue's determination and the time she put into this job.
  4. It takes a lot of time.
  5. Some of the time she took with me, we sat and had lunch and looked at the landscape of this planning.
  6. To come back here and not have the person at my right I can lean over to and say & ; to get a sense of direction –will be quite different.
  7. Commissioner Hughes – to always know he is going to come in with just the right comments on a particularly tough discretionary review question.
  8. And Commissioner Bradford-Bell &
  9. It will be interesting.
  10. But I'd like to think we will continue on and we will do all of you proud in the service you put in, proud by continuing to make tough decisions and do the right thing.
  11. I want to thank you for your service and friendship and I'm sure we will see each other down the road.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

6. Director's Announcements

Director Macris – Director of Planning

- Larry Badiner is out. There was a death in his family and he had to go to the East Coast and Neil Hart will be Acting as the Zoning Administrator during his absence.

  1. I have known Judy [Boyajian] for 25 or 26 years.
  2. This is Judy's last Commission Hearing.
  3. She is retiring on July first.
  4. I wanted the Commission to know that Judy started in 1980 and I was [believe it or not] the Planning Director.
  5. Judy and I got acquainted quickly because we were doing creative things in the Downtown Plan and being driven by the public to try new ideas out that stretched the imagination of the City Attorney's Office.
  6. We succeeded in doing that because Judy and her colleagues understood what kind of demand there was to be creative and pioneering.
  7. She helped us think through how we can do things not just on the planning side but to make them justifiably legal and sound.
  8. It takes a team like that and Judy has been one of our team members for a very long time.
  9. Judy, I think, started in 1987 as head of the Land Use section of the City Attorney's Office and has been spectacular through all of that.
  10. She has left a long record of collaboration with the Planning Department.
  11. I know this commission recognizes there is the fine line between what we do as planners and whether we are meeting the letter of the law. And how you can be creative and that just as much as a planner or planning commission, being creative in solving problems.
  12. That's your tradition in San Francisco and Judy has been a big part of that.
  13. Best of luck to Judy.

Judy Boyajian – Deputy City Attorney

  1. It's an accomplishment to work with Dean and the Planning Department.
  2. I'm actually not leaving. I will re retiring, and after a little break and vacation, I will be coming back and working half-time as a retiree and working in the Land Use Section.
  3. I will still be working with the Planning Department and will get to see the Commission form time to time.
  4. I love this job of working for San Francisco and watching the good things that the Commission and Department has done for San Francisco all these years.
  5. Thank you very much for your comments.

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

Dan Sider from Department Staff reporting

  1. President Peskin's Planning Code Amendment for Sign Relocation – This ordinance was adopted. The matter was passed on second reading of the full Board with a vote of 10 to 0.
  2. Kathrin Moore received a 10 to 0 vote from the Full Board for confirmation to the Planning Commission. She will assume the seat presently occupied by Commissioner Kevin Hughes.
  3. Supervisor Amiano wants to have hearings on Saint Lukes and General Hospital. Specifically on how the two hospitals are prepared to address the seismic safety by 2013. The Supervisor has questions on their plans to maintain service.
  4. Supervisor Maxwell has requested a hearing on the scoping and ongoing community process for the Department's socioeconomic. These are the rezoning efforts. This hearing may occur as early as next week at the Land Use and Economic Development Committee Hearing.

Director Macris reported on the Department's budget before the Board.

  1. Supervisors Daly, Peskin, Elsbernd, Dufty and Mirkarimi are the five supervisors on the Budget Committee.
  2. I met with each of the individually a week before the hearing.
  3. I explained the progress we have made on the Fee Schedule; the 60 personnel transactions as we move people in the Department–hiring 40 people in the past year; the multimillion dollar computer program to revamp our tracking system; and that we are going to move as early as October to a new location so we can consolidate our 2 offices in one place.
  4. All of that was well received. They couldn't be more supportive of what we are trying to do. They want us to do more.
  5. I do want to report to you on the reputation of the Department's professionalism.
  6. The kinds of decision making that you are making is very much appreciated at the Board of Supervisors.
  7. The think I wanted to talk about particularly last night was a succession program for the Directorship.
  8. I reminded them that this October I will be 75 years old and it would be impudent not to have a way to work this out.
  9. What we are trying to do is make it happen in a way that it is as comfortable for everybody because it is a city leadership responsibility.
  10. The Commission is the initiator, as you all know.
  11. You make recommendations to the Mayor and the Mayor makes a selection.
  12. It is just as important for the Board of Supervisors to have comfort as to who will run this extremely important process.
  13. We are 160 people.
  14. We touch many people's lives.
  15. One of the things I have said for 45 years, sooner or later somebody needs some kind of permit.
  16. We make a difference in the micro and larger scale of levels.
  17. Like Transbay Terminal, which will dramatically make changes to our city at that high level.
  18. When you adopted the budget, included in it was a spot for a Deputy  Director.
  19. I hope you recall that.
  20. One of the thoughts there was that may be a way to do this is sort of ease into it. That we find the appropriate person who is considered the heir apparent, and bring that person on.
  21. That person would work with me for a while.
  22. After we have a couple/few months together, we make the change to the directorship.
  23. It has always been our concern in an approach like that, that the Commission be involved in the selection of the Deputy  Director, should we choose to go that way.
  24. We need to work out a method that the commission is the lead in selecting the Deputy Director. Ultimately, that person would be the Director and you should have the sign of on who that will be.
  25. Last night, the way it was left is that I would work with the Controller and the City Attorney to make sure that we have a method that involves the Commission in a practical, formal way in that process. So that by the close of next week when the budget is adopted by the Board, we will present a scheme for that to happen.
  26. I reminded the Board last night that the Director is two pieces. One is the ability to manage a Department of our scale
  27. The second, does the Director understand the culture and the political environmental arrangements of a city?
  28. There has to be confidence that the Director understands the culture of San Francisco.

SPEAKERS

Marilyn Amini

  1. I'm going to be sorry to see Commissioner Hughes, Lee and Bell leave.
  2. I didn't know about Commissioner Lee until today.
  3. Commissioner Hughes, everything you say is pertinent.
  4. Director Macris talked about what was brought up at Budget and Finance.
  5. There was a request that there be a Deputy Director hired.
  6. That would subvert the public process.
  7. The Commission began hearings to select three candidates consistent with the Charter requirements and hearings went up until December 16th and we had Director Macris come in as Acting Director.
  8. Now the Director is suggesting he hand pick a Deputy Director.
  9. At least one commissioner was not aware of this suggestion until yesterday.
  10. The community was not aware of this until this week.
  11. On the budget, this is a line item for $198,000 that includes salary and benefits.
  12. This is a policy call.
  13. Commissioners have to determine whether there should be a Deputy Director appointed or not.
  14. It is fully discretionary and should be scheduled on the agenda for a full discussion.
  15. This is like an end run in the back door.
  16. Director Macris would select somebody that would be a Deputy Director who would eventually take over the Department.
  17. This whole thing is wrong.
  18. I ask that you request that line item be held and ask that it be scheduled on the agenda.
  19. I attended a meeting on Tuesday night. The organization voted to oppose this type of a procedure.
  20. I think the commission should select three candidates, let the public respond to the three, and put it forward to the Mayor.
  21. This is the required procedure.
  22. If Dean wants to stay on however, that is something that could be decided but the process should not be subverted.
  23. This is the wrong way to go about selecting a Director of San Francisco's Planning Department.
  24. It will be a SPUR surrogate.

John Bardis

  1. The Director says we have a culture in the city that has to be observed.
  2. What is a culture but the process by which we select the people who will direct our City Government?
  3. And the process includes certain people, which are not the public.
  4. And that is the process that we want to occur now and institutionalize it in the budget process and get a City Attorney's opinion to justify that it is correct.
  5. You might say you are being consistent.
  6. You had a Planning Director who was away for a year and the City functioned without a Planning Director.
  7. What's different now?
  8. I think there is a need to recognize that this budget matter was something that seems to have slipped into the budget process.
  9. This is a policy issue that this commission should have addressed in public before the public with a proper public hearing that addressed the issue.
  10. On the side, I want to thank the commission for the service you provide even when we disagree.
  11. I respect any person who is willing to volunteer and provide service as commissioners of the city and the time that is required.
  12. It is more than we in the neighborhoods have been doing.
  13. We are deeply appreciative and respect your efforts.
  14. God speed in all your efforts and I hope you come back to the trenches and help us volunteers.

Hiroshi Fukuda

  1. From the neighborhood meeting last week – I am reading this on behalf of Judy, President of the Coalition [the statements are not clear and their position on whether or not they support the position or the process it was brought forward is not evident].
  2. I personally appreciate all the hard work and services that Commissioners Sue Lee and Kevin Hughes have provided.
  3. I have been coming to commission meetings since the late'80's, the heyday of the Richmond Specials.
  4. I have to say that one of the most courageous decisions that a commission ever took was when this commission stood up and decided to send back the Better Neighborhood's Plus legislation to the Board of Supervisors.
  5. That was very commendable and it took a lot of courage.
  6. Thank you very much.

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.

SPEAKERS

Robert McCarthy

  1. I am here today not to discuss a plan or cause.
  2. I will see Commissioner Bell at her farewell party at Pier 23.
  3. Commissioner Lee we know you as the poster child of an iron fist in the golden glove.
  4. Your ability to run a meeting and allow people to express their emotions – you set a standard for people running public meetings that should be heralded and replicated.
  5. You have been accessible.
  6. You have been a great fashioner of compromise.
  7. You have in every respect adequately dispensed your duties as a commissioner and the president.
  8. For that we are thankful for your almost three decades of service to the city.
  9. We look forward to your continued role in expanding the understanding of the Chinese community, and your directorship of the Chinese Historical Society.
  10. Commissioner Hughes is known as the Grand Inquisitor.
  11. We appreciate what you brought to the commission especially from working men and women.
  12. That is an important perspective that needs to be appreciated because those are the folks who build our town and maintain it.
  13. Your fellow commissioners have such respect for you that that perspective will be in their brain when they approach a project.
  14. I want to thank you for the preparedness you bring to the process and the standard to which you held those of us who appear before you to be at least adequately prepared waiting for the question.
  15. You held us to a standard.
  16. And Commissioner Bell, I wish you well and hope your successors meet at least half the standards you have set. Thank you.

John Bardis

  1. I would like to make an observation regarding what Commissioner Hughes referred to as work force housing that was constructed in the city and at one time really provided the housing for the work force.
  2. These days we can't provide anymore.
  3. How many demolitions did this commission approve of single-family dwellings over the past 4 years, which was the work-force housing of our city?
  4. Maybe they were to create new units of housing.
  5. That is a market, but not for families.
  6. When you demolished those single-family units, did not the commission/department take the initiative to see how they will be replaced?
  7. It is a serious problem as Commissioner Hughes pointed out.
  8. Commissioner Bill Lee mentioned that we have to do something about these applications that are being held up in a terrible process by which things are being delayed and the prices and costs of construction are going up.
  9. Commissioner, I invite you to look into an application that was submitted in 1999, three years before this commission was formed.
  10. It is still in effect.
  11. Why is it still in effect after seven years?
  12. If you are that concerned about how the process is, and you feel it is the bad guys or people in the neighborhoods, look into that one and find out how the departments have been wolfing up or the project sponsor. It is a mess.
  13. Hope to see you back and wish you God speed in your retirement.

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

Bill Chionsini

RE: Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCD's)

  1. We are concerned about the language in the proposed ordinance that will amend the existing ordinance governing MCD's.
  2. We are concerned about the redefinition of recreation and community buildings.
  3. We feel that some language should be in there that deals with license day care centers and licensed childcare centers.
  4. We are concerned about the notice requirement.
  5. We feel the Planning Department should provide owners within 300 feet of an MCD.
  6. The more people involved, the more it will get aired out.
  7. In the long run, it will be a great benefit to everybody.
  8. We are concerned and do ask that you add a recommendation to the proposed ordinance that would require that an MCD not be permitted in Lake Shore Plaza without a Conditional Use permit hearing before this commission.
  9. We are not asking more than what's on the books in the current ordinance that deals with West portal.
  10. West portal has a condition that says for the permit is permitted you need a Conditional Use hearing before the Planning Commission.
  11. We are concerned that the residents out in the southwest quadrant of the city are heard.

Rosaura Kenyon

  1. I've been a resident in San Francisco for 40 years.
  2. For years I worked with nonprofits and the Mayor's Office of Employment and Training. I was on several Boards and Commissions.
  3. I am not able to continue that type of work.
  4. However, I am benefiting from some of the activities and some of the marches that I was on.
  5. One of those things was my freedom to be able to access any service that I wanted to access that was given to me as a citizen of not only the United States but of San Francisco City and County.
  6. Every year, we are limited to more and more services and public benefits that we have been previously given, offered and accepted.
  7. I am of the opinion that I paid my dues.
  8. I feel I should be able to access services I need.
  9. These dispensaries not only provide medicine, but they provide social services and public benefits to many of us.
  10. I went through a lot with this town and I feel that my life shouldn't be made anymore difficult because someone is not reading the posted signs that are placed on every building when an enterprise is going to be opened.
  11. I will leave you with the comment that services for us are becoming limited and you have the power to maintain these services.

Lenora Brown

  1. I'm citizen of San Francisco. I'm 57 years old.
  2. I am a marijuana cannabis card user.
  3. I'm here to speak up for that service.

Patrick Goggil

  1. There are approximately 11,000 registered ID cardholders for medical cannabis, and 20,000 in the city that has recommendations to medical cannabis.
  2. We estimate that approximately 25 percent of those patients are seniors or 60 years or older.
  3. 70 percent of those folks are recipients to free medicine and compassion programs.
  4. In the city, we are facing significant attrition of MCD's.
  5. There were 42 MCD's in the city and now there are 30.
  6. With the regulations and the requirements of getting a permit we estimate that will be halved.
  7. We are very concerned about the impact that this will have in the neighborhoods where the MCD's survive.
  8. I don't know whether it is the Department of Health Services or the Planning Commission that should have a study to determine what is the appropriate numbers that is needed to serve its patient base.
  9. I would like to echo the thanks and congratulations on the commissioners leaving today and acknowledge the fine term you have served.

Michelle Aldrich

  1. I happen to be lucky. I live in the Marina.
  2. I'm here to urge you to vote yes on the amendments to the Dispensary law.
  3. The city has put so many blocks in front of the dispensaries, we would like a couple of holes filled.
  4. The city is a neighborhood.
  5. It's this neighborhood and that neighborhood and all neighborhoods.
  6. And people that are patients live in each of them.
  7. What you are doing with these rules/hoops that the dispensaries are going to have to jump through, are saying that we are going to come down to four or five clubs in the city.
  8. If you think the neighborhoods are going to be upset now, what are we going to see when 11,000 people try to go to four or five clubs or dispensaries?
  9. I urge you to approve these amendments.
  10. I hope that the worst fears about the dispensary provisions turn out to be wrong.
  11. And congratulations on all your service and thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Michael Aldrich

  1. We have strict restrictions in place for medical cannabis – better laws than other cities in California.
  2. Some restrictions include that nay dispensary must be located outside 300 feet from schools and community centers.
  3. These regulations make it impossible for someone who is forced to relocate in San Francisco to find another place.
  4. Trying to stay a thousand feet away from a school is difficult.
  5. There have been only two successful cases of relocation.
  6. We are in the process of removing the old fashion community centers and replacing them with an expensive process that only warehouses medical marijuana sales establishments like a Walgreen's for marijuana that can survive the permit process.
  7. We will end up with a different situation than the small clubs.
  8. I urge you to adopt the amendments requested by the Planning Department.
  9. Do not make more restrictions. Do not adhere to the thousand-foot rule or you are establishing a moratorium.
  10. I think the noticing requirements should be 150 feet as the amendment proposes like any other project.
  11. There will be neighbors in every neighborhood that doesn't want marijuana near them.
  12. There will be more neighbors in the same neighborhoods that are patients of medical marijuana clubs and don't want to go across town.
  13. They would like to work with the smaller clubs with associate services.
  14. They approved the process we are discussing.

David Bisho – President of West of Twin Peeks Council

  1. Our big concern is safety.
  2. Based on what we were told by the Police Department, criminal incidences occurred at every pot club in the city.
  3. There is no way to give the families with children a reason to brave it out and stay here.
  4. We don't want pot clubs or medical marijuana unless a city agency is in charge or distributing it.
  5. How can that make sense when the actions of this commission, the Planning Department, and the Mayor's Office are enabling this activity already?
  6. With respect to considering Mirkarimi's amendment, our council knows these amendments are an effort to increase the ability of allowing these businesses that no one wants to live near by changing definitions.
  7. We ask that you vote no on the amendments and give the current legislation a chance to work.
  8. In this town, once a policy is established it is hard to undo it.

Veronica Gayner

  1. I'm with the Community Coalition.
  2. Last year our neighborhood was involved with a cannabis club in our neighborhood.
  3. On June 6th there was a meeting to ask neighbor's input.
  4. As a result of that input, our neighborhood was involved with the Medical Cannabis legislation.
  5. We asked for Discretionary Review.
  6. As a result, the current legislation is what we now have.
  7. This was a compromise by neighbors and cannabis clubs.
  8. By not allowing neighborhood input you are opening yourself up to countless meetings.
  9. I suggest you let the legislation play itself out for three years and legislate accordingly.
  10. The purpose of the legislation was to prevent abuse and watering it down now seems counter effective.

[Name was not given]

  1. I have a resolution from the San Francisco Coalition of San Francisco Neighborhoods.
  2. At the June meeting we proposed the following resolution:
  3. The Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods opposed any change of the requirements on medical cannabis dispensary and the notification requirements.
  4. Now speaking on my own:
  5. I believe that change the notification area to 150 feet presents you a standard we have for buildings or DRs or whatever is not the right thing to do in this situation.
  6. I say that because cannabis is not to be taken lightly.
  7. I support medical use of cannabis
  8. I think it is important.
  9. There are many studies to indicate that patients thrive better with it. No question.
  10. But I am concerned about the misuse.
  11. There have been stories that people who do not necessarily fit into the category of medically needing cannabis, can obtain it easily. For profit.
  12. Medical Cannabis is controversial.
  13. You should increase the notification area.
  14. Hiroshi Fukuda
  15. As a Pharmacist, the City should investigate the use of pharmacies, professional licensed pharmacies as the proper way to go.
  16. When you say club, it seems like you are going to have a good old time.
  17. This is serious business.
  18. Stephanie Tucker
  19. I'm a community activist and I'm representing 150 voters in the Western Addition.
  20. It's really important that we protect and preserve the Cannabis Clubs we have left in the city servicing sick patients.
  21. They are under attack and we are trying to resolve the situations in the neighborhoods.
  22. We need a level playing ground.
  23. That would best happen if you approve the amendments on the table before yo.

David Cincotta

  1. RE: Wharf J-10 EIR Certification
  2. I want to emphasize I'm here on behalf of the Fish Company who is one of the tenants of the space.
  3. We do not reject the demolition.
  4. We are concerned in the manner and way it should be done.
  5. We all want to make sure there is no further contamination of the Bay.
  6. We know there is a contaminated site by Exxon Mobile.
  7. They said they don't want to do further testing in the area until the demolition occurs.
  8. We think that is wrong.
  9. We thing the testing should occur prior to the demolition.
  10. It would help know what could be the cause there.
  11. In the Comments and Responses document, we notice that the Port is proposing to replace concrete slabs and retaining walls that may interfere with sediment and soil.
  12. Exxon Mobile should do the testing before the structures are in place to determine whether those structures will impact the feasibility of removal of the soils.
  13. I think we all have the same concerns: We want a clean, safe Bay.
  14. On page 10 there is a correction that needs to be made.
  15. There is a sentence that says the project would not result in loss of fishes because there has not been fishing there for the last five years.
  16. There reason that is is because we have been removed from the site because of its unsafe condition.
  17. If it was up and we could use it there would be fish processing.
  18. Technically it is correct.
  19. But it should be clarified that we can't use it because it is unsafe.
  20. Finally, I spoke at the last hearing that there is mitigation measures in here to prevent the disturbance of fish migration.
  21. We want to schedule the demolition at a time when it is not disruptive to the businesses that are doing fish processing.
  22. The comments were that is a socioeconomic impact and not suitable to be considered.
  23. I think it is a valid consideration I will speak to at every possible hearing I can.

[Speaker was not identified]

  1. RE: Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Amendments
  2. What is being changed is the notification.
  3. We are not saying anything about what should be done about the dispensaries.
  4. The notification requirement of 150 feet is only six stores. 300 feet is 12 houses.
  5. What is the big objection?
  6. What is bad about notification?
  7. It helps everyone get everything in order so it is on track so we don't get into more things of why people were not notified properly.
  8. There is no need for the amendments.

Marilyn Amini

  1. Right off the top, you can't take action because you do not have an adequate environmental determination.
  2. This legislation is said by the department to be grandfathered under the originally passed piece of legislation General Rule Exclusion.
  3. Chapter 31 of the Code does not allow for a General Rule Exclusion unless the commission adopted criteria.
  4. This will have impact because you are redefining residential.
  5. If you look at the fourth, the last of these you see there are 42 locations.
  6. The buffer zone for recreation is being redefined and you are including criteria that serve primarily those under age 18.
  7. That is arbitrary. How will they quantify how many are 18 or over?
  8. What about the 19 and 20 year olds, et cetera.
  9. Marijuana is an important substance.
  10. There is a lot of crime associated with these dispensaries.
  11. You haven't had the Police Commission address you.
  12. The Drug and Crime Detail will be glad to give you information on the impact of the ones that currently exist.
  13. You have to request notification regarding a particular medical cannabis dispensary.
  14. That amendment is a bad amendment as well.

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

8. 2006.0092ET (d. sider: (415) 558-6697)

Planning Code amendments relating to Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCD's) [Board File No. 060032] On January 10, 2006, Supervisors Mirkarimi and Ma introduced legislation which would have allowed certain existing MCD's to relocate irrespective of Planning Code restrictions on the proximity of new MCD's to schools and recreation buildings. On March 28, 2006 a substitute Ordinance was introduced by Supervisor Mirkarimi, which instead would amend [1] grandfathering provisions for existing MCD's, [2] the definition of a  recreation building' with respect to proximity restrictions for new and existing MCD's, and [3] noticing requirements for MCD permits. The substitute Ordinance would also modify portions of the Health Code in order to make amendments to the MCD permitting process and MCD permit provisions.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

NOTE: On June 8, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued the matter to June 22, 2006 by a vote +4 –0. Commissioners Bradford-Bell, Hughes and W. Lee were absent.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Adopted

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, Olague

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

RESOLUTION: 17270

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.

9. 2006.0639C (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

400 Howard Street - northeast corner at 1st Street (the entire block bounded by Howard, 1st, Natoma, and Fremont Streets), Lot 008 in Assessor's Block 3720 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish approximately 8,835 square feet of office use on the ground floor of a previously-approved building. Foundry Square, Building 1 was previously authorized under the annual office limit for approximately 295,000 square feet of office space and approximately 14,200 square feet of retail space (Case No. 1998.902X, Motion No. 15005 and Case No. 2000.1019B, Motion No. 16069). The building permit application for the construction of the building specified approximately 286,161 square feet of office space. The current conditional use application proposes to convert approximately 8,835 square feet of retail space on the ground floor to office space without exceeding the authorized 295,000 square feet of office space. There will be no physical expansion of the approved envelope of the building. The project site is within the C-3-O(SD) (Downtown Office Special Development) District and a 350-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17271

  • H.REGULAR CALENDAR

10. 2006.0074 U (J. LAU: (415) 558-6383)

Delegation Agreement for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project The Commission is being asked to consider a delegation agreement between the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency, which defines the roles and responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as corrected:  & authorize the Director of Planning on behalf of the Planning Department and the Formal agreements presented to the Planning Commission & ' The language should not read on behalf of the Planning Commission.

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

NAYES: Olague

MOTION: 17272

11. 2005.0582C (T.WANG: (415) 558-6335)

655 BROTHERHOOD WAY - south side between Junipero Serra and Lake Merced Boulevards; Lots 037 and 038 in Assessor's Block 7380 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3 (f) and (g) and 304 Planned Unit Developments to allow for Brandeis Hillel Day School (1) construction of an athletic and theatre pavilion building and (2) amendment of a previous Conditional Use authorization related to the school in an RH-1(D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached Dwellings) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

SPEAKERS:

Bill Bundy – Architect of the Day School

- I'm representing the school and the San Francisco Jewish Center preschool which is present on this site.

  1. The three institutions on this site have come together to form a campus for Jewish learning on Brotherhood Way.
  2. We came before you with a Master Plan of this site.
  3. The first phase was completed.
  4. In 2001 the school moved in.
  5. The classroom and library building on the east side has been a successful project for the school. It has provided great academic space.
  6. It gave the campus a new identity and created a place for the school to grow.
  7. The success of that project lead to the school's growth.
  8. They are up to 382 students – almost full enrollment for next year.
  9. The existing gym is serving for athletics, dining, after school space, performing arts, all the special events like book fairs.
  10. They had staff moving tables in and out all day.
  11. The school has designed a new performing arts and gym building.
  12. The new proposal has the pavilion located in the northwest corner.
  13. The outdoor play space is moved to a roof top play area.
  14. We create a better courtyard in the middle of the campus for activities.
  15. We are keeping the two-story wing in the back as part of future planning.
  16. The new building is set down here and maintains the green screen on the frontage road.
  17. It creates a new exterior plaza.
  18. For the gym: You come in on the entry level.
  19. Seating and a portable stage can be moved in.
  20. There is a roof top play area with bathrooms and on the lower level we are providing a green room, drama and performance space.
  21. The project serves the school and they realize it is a dream for the future and ensures the success of the students.
  22. Robert Pender
  23. I'm not trying to be a spoiled sport, but the first time me and my organization heard about this was on June 6th of this year when we got a letter from the Planning Department.
  24. I think the people that live there should receive notice more than two weeks in advance.
  25. There has already been a project planned and approved I believe at 800 Brotherhood Way, which is across the street.
  26. Brother has two lanes of traffic in each direction.
  27. I think the people who live here are entitled to have a traffic survey.
  28. Are we going to be overwhelmed by the cars?
  29. This is, in my opinion, a poor example of planning.
  30. I'm blaming the sponsors.
  31. The churches on the odd side number of Brotherhood Way knew we were there.
  32. They know me and my organization have been there for 20-30 years.
  33. Why were we not consulted or informed about it?
  34. Why didn't they have the curtsey to inform us about this?
  35. I hope the Planning Department will continue to notify me, at least notice me when something is happening in our neighborhood at least a month in advance.

ACTION: Approved as corrected

  1. Added a new number 6 to Conditions of Approval to read: The Applicant shall obtain a building permit for this project within three (3) years from the date of this Conditional Use authorization, and construction shall thereafter be pursued diligently to completion of the said authorization shall be deemed null and void.
  2. Re-numbered the remaining conditions

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

MOTION: 17273

12. 2006.0084D (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

980 CORBETT AVENUE - west side between Portola Drive and Hopkins Avenue, Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 2826 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.11.0076, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition, a three-story rear horizontal addition, and alter the front façade of a single-family dwelling, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project as proposed

SPEAKERS:

James (Jim) Lassart – Representing Lawrence Gray, the DR requestor

  1. Mr. Gray is a retired San Francisco Police Captain.
  2. He has been at that location for 30 years and raised his family. He's been retired for 20 years.
  3. There are six buildings together that are the same height in a row.
  4. The buildings have the same rear configuration.
  5. These are the old single-family dwelling style homes.
  6. Mr. Gray raised his family there and now intends to enjoy his retirement there.
  7. One enjoyable feature of that is his backyard – the patio and garden.
  8. We are not talking about an issue of view.
  9. We are talking about an issue of side spacing and an issue that fits in the area of light and privacy.
  10. There was a one story studio/office.
  11. That studio will be expanded 10 feet from its rear when demolished and go 20 more feet higher.
  12. It will be a very short distance from my client's side yard.
  13. You will see no objectors from the southern side of the building because on the eastern side you will see that's where their patio is to take advantage of the sun and light and air.
  14. It's the folks to the north that will be impacted
  15. There was an indication they will potentially expand the side track but not completely down the line as staff indicated.
  16. It's when you are there and when you see this area in which he wishes to enjoy himself you see it's impacted gravely.
  17. It's too big a building next to a space that's enjoyable to him.
  18. I ask you for your consideration on behalf of my client to allow him to enjoy the space he has for many years and not have it impacted by a large construction.
  19. Lawrence Gray
  20. I live at 966 Corbett Street and I've lived there for 30 years.
  21. My wife and I raised my family there
  22. My two sons have now gone and grown and have families of their own.
  23. I lost my wife to cancer six years ago.
  24. I'm by myself in this house. House of many memories.
  25. My wife and I first looked at Corbett Street 10 years earlier but could not afford it at that time.
  26. I was a young police officer at the time.
  27. 10 years later this house was available and we moved there.
  28. From the front of the house there is a beautiful view that I appreciate everyday, that looks on the east side of San Francisco – the eastern district, the Bay view.
  29. In the back of my house I have windows into my breakfast room – two sides of solid glass where the sun comes in.
  30. From the first landing and up the stairs is a large window where light pours in from behind.
  31. It is not often I have to turn lights on except at night.
  32. In the Bathroom there is a window where light pours in and there is a small bedroom, which faces the back and light comes in.
  33. The yard itself is very [beautiful]. We have a decked area where we walked out and dined in the past.
  34. My wife was a great gardner.
  35. The house is described as going up steeply.
  36. There are a series of four walls where the gardens run to the back fence.
  37. This is an area where I have my coffee in the morning or read the paper or listen to the ball games.
  38. It is an important part of the house.
  39. This wall would cut out all the light until the late afternoon hours.
  40. I guess maybe I've just become aware of how important it is to me – my house and the memories of my house.
  41. Maybe I took it for granted because now it could all be lost.

Mike Connell

  1. I'm working with Lawrence Gray on the project.
  2. The initial project was submitted last June and staff recommended the building be setback five feet or the entire top floor be removed.
  3. The current staff report recommends it be pushed back three feet and we support staff.
  4. This will take out all available light.
  5. There will be a small mid-day light on the north side of the deck in the summer months.

Richard (Dick) Poley

  1. I live at 972 Corbett. That is the next house up to the north.
  2. My partner and I lived in this house for 31 years and enjoyed the afternoon sun, much as Captain Gray has.
  3. I really feel we are going to lose it due to this massive wall.
  4. It's going to block off all of the sun except for possibly slivers of it in June or July.
  5. This is a serious problem from our point of view.
  6. The amount that the extension goes back is not so much a problem as the height.
  7. These modifications that have been made are band-aid approaches.
  8. I hope that additional adjustments could be made to allow us a little more light.

Carolyn E. Dutton

  1. I brought letters from three neighbors that have done similar projects, which took up more of their property than ours is going to.
  2. I grew up in this property since I was six.
  3. My parents bought the property in 1951.
  4. This property was destroyed by fire while I was out of town almost two years ago.
  5. It's taken a long time to get this going.
  6. These are a row of tract homes built at the same time.
  7. Even they are two stories above the garage, they are small.
  8. Many people who have bought these houses now have put on additions more extensive than mine.
  9. We have cut off a story.
  10. It is not going up 20 feet; it is going up 8 feet.
  11. Just one story from where the previous addition was on the back.
  12. We need the extra bedroom.
  13. We were lacking it when we lived there.
  14. We are willing to extend the light well up to his retaining wall, which is the more used part of his backyard with the deck.
  15. If we extend that light well we would like to do it on the second story.
  16. There are two stories not three in the back.
  17. If we extended it we want to do it on the upper room not the ground level room because it doesn't impact sun at all.
  18. If we indent it on the second level that would give us room for the room on the first level.
  19. My 82-year-old neighbor was here earlier but couldn't stay.
  20. He authorized me to say he is in support of the project.
  21. He is our neighbor to the south.
  22. He has been there for many years also.

David Soffa – Project Architect

  1. In San Francisco a 25-foot wide lot with 0 side yards has been the norm for maybe a hundred years?
  2. The original project proposal was significantly within the Code set boundaries for the property.
  3. It is somewhat confusing because the property slopes so steeply. If we went to the 40-foot height limit that zoning allows, it would be huge and something inappropriate.
  4. We went up a floor and straight back, which gave us a triangle shaped building.
  5. There are others that built larger projects.
  6. Six were built in the recent past.
  7. These are contemporary developments you have already approved.
  8. In the case of this project, sun and light are important to us.
  9. We see the future of perhaps the southern property next to ours as being a similar development.
  10. Our intent was to get sun and light to our property even if someone built the same project in back of us.
  11. We used half of it and reserved the other half for a space that would get sun even if another building were built there.
  12. We have also tried to accommodate the neighbor to the north because we appreciate his sunlight.
  13. It's difficult to do that with his cooperation.
  14. He has refused to meet with us until Mike Smith told him that the meeting was scheduled. Then we got a call.
  15. The first interaction was after the first proposal went to the Planning Department.
  16. We rearranged the floor plan to cut back a three-foot light well.
  17. We offered to slope the roof and the further extension of the light well and another slopped roof to get more sun to Mr. Gray's property.
  18. Basically the Planning staff's proposal I think is a good one.
  19. It does what we were going to do and I support it with the exception I would like the light well to occur on the third floor.

Patrick Colling

  1. There are six projects that have done similar modifications on the block.
  2. We are close neighbors.
  3. 994 Corbett got passed through planning and it is a bigger plan.
  4. 996 Corbett has no setbacks. There were a couple of others.
  5. We had a setback of three feet at the top. We had a shadow study done.
  6. It sounds like they have been quite good at working with their neighbor.
  7. We support this type of project.
  8. It is a betterment of the neighborhood.
  9. The houses are small.

ACTION: Following public testimony, this item was continued to August 10, 2006 with instructions to the Project Sponsor to provide new and better plans. The public hearing remains open.

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

13a. 2006.0661D (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

889 NORTH POINT STREET - south side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.10.6437, proposing to build a new four-story three-unit building. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. This Discretionary Review is only for the building at 889 North Point Street. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 27, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

13b. 2003.0367V (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

2998 LARKIN STREET, 899 NORTH POINT STREET, 889 NORTH POINT STREET - South side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for a Zoning Administrator Determination under Planning Code Section 228.4 for conversion of the former gasoline service station to a new use. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 27, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

13c. 2006.0367V (I.WILSON (415) 558-6163)

2998 LARKIN STREET, 899 NORTH POINT STREET, 889 NORTH POINT STREET - South side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 – Request for a Variance under Planning Code Sections 121(e) and 134(c)(1) for conversion of the former gasoline service station to a new use. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. Section 121(e) of the Planning Code requires a minimum lot area of 1,750 square feet for the corner lot at 2998 Larkin Street. This lot is proposed to be 1,656 square feet and does not meet the minimum Planning Code requirement. Section 134(c)(1) of the Planning Code limits the last 10 feet of building depth permitted by rear yard averaging to 30 feet in height. The buildings are proposed to be up to 39'-3 in height at the rear and do not meet this Planning Code requirement. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT-2 (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 27, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

14. 2005.1208D (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

287-291 PAGE STREET - south side between Octavia and Laguna Streets; Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0852 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.28.6856. The subject property, which is a through lot fronting on two streets, contains two buildings with a total of four units, with the main building at the front of the lot containing three residential flats, and a cottage at the back of the lot containing one dwelling unit. The proposal is to convert the front building's authorized use from three dwelling units to two dwelling units, merging the two top flats, which are original to the subject building. The property is within an RH-3 (Residential House, Three-Family) District and an 80-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Jay – Project Architect

  1. The property presents the unusual situation of having two street frontages and no mid block open space.
  2. There are two buildings on the lot – a three-unit building and a cottage at the rear.
  3. There are a total of 4 units. This is one more than the allowable required by the Planning Code, which allows up to three.
  4. There is no mid-block open space.
  5. There is no parking.
  6. We propose to improve the conditions and bring it in conformance of Codes.
  7. We are removing one unit.
  8. Given the poor condition of the building we know the existing tenants do not want to remain.
  9. There is a lack of light and air, an old kitchen and stairs, and a crumbling foundation.
  10. The ground floor unit was not meant to be a unit.
  11. The building was clearly designed as a two-unit building.
  12. We feel it is consistent with the General Plan of San Francisco that calls for bringing properties [back to original intent] when possible and providing diversity of housing.
  13. This is what we are doing.
  14. At this time, units as we are proposing are rare.
  15. The only options for families are to move.
  16. The merging of the two units will help with the creation of open space. Changing the occupancy allows us to remove the second exit at the rear. We can remove the porch and stair and create open space between the two separate buildings.
  17. I believe it is in the city's interest to allow this project to proceed.

Eric Grossman

  1. We bought the house 11 months ago.
  2. When we bought the property the tenants lived there and we presumed they would be there for a long time.
  3. They were not evicted and there is documentation there.
  4. The house is in derelict conditions.
  5. I gave you pictures of before and after of the cottage.
  6. We plan to do the same thing to the house in time.
  7. Our neighbors are supportive of this.
  8. They like what the cottage has done for the neighborhood and hopefully the main house will do that as well.
  9. The options was living here or commute from the suburbs.

Devon

  1. I'm a neighbor that lives across the street.
  2. I'm here in support of them because I believe they are really doing the right thing with their house.
  3. I have seen the condition of the house previously and the result of their remodeling of the cottage.
  4. If they do that similar level of work, which I know they are going to do to the front house, I support this.
  5. They are great neighbors and I hope they stay in the neighborhood and I think they are going to make that building, that property into an attractive rental unit.
  6. It was something that just really needed to happen.
  7. I know personally my neighbors on both sides – all four of us that face their building are in support of what they are trying to do and hope they can turn it into a home where they can stay in the neighborhood and city.
  8. I hope it happens.

Anna Grossman

  1. I'm pregnant and I want to raise our family here.
  2. We love the idea of being in a diverse city, especially one like San Francisco and all it has to offer – the arts and everything.
  3. We appreciate and want our children to grow up in this type of environment.

MOTION: To not take DR and approve

AYES: Antonini and W. Lee

NAYES: Alexander, S. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion and the failure to achieve four votes for discretionary review, the project is approved as proposed.

15a. 2005.1090CV (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14TH AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008, 015A and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 303 to allow the establishment of a child-care facility providing less than 24-hour care for up to 25 children by licensed personnel and meeting the open-space and other requirements of the State of California and other authorities. The proposal includes the conversion of the ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool will also use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue and a portion of the rear yard of 1366 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The site is within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 3, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

15b. 2005.1090CV (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14TH AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008, 015A and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Variances from Planning Code Sections 135 (usable open space) to allow the elimination of required usable open space for the single-family dwelling at 1362 14th Avenue and 159(a) & (b) (required off-street parking not on the same lot as the structure) to allow the required off-street parking (for the single-family dwelling and proposed preschool) to be provided on a separate lot approximately 30 feet to the south. The proposal is to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool will also use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue and a portion of the rear yard of 1366 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The proposal will maintain the existing dwelling units located at both addresses (total of 2 units) and the building footprints will remain the same. The proposal will be subject of a concurrent hearing before the Planning Commission for a conditional use authorization to allow the establishment of a preschool in a residential district. The properties are located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 3, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

15c. 2006.0688D (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 14TH AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lot 015A in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.07.8544 proposing to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to August 3, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

16. 2006.0087D (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

2290 VALLEJO STREET - north side between Fillmore and Webster Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 0557 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.06.3803 proposing to merge two dwelling units into one single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 15, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Jeremy Paul – Representing the Project Sponsor

  1. This is about the lack of diversity in the housing stock in San Francisco.
  2. There is a hole in how the codes work together in San Francisco.
  3. The Building Code will not allow two dwelling units to exist without an occupancy interpretation between them.
  4. The Planning Code does not have provisions for two kitchens in a single dwelling unit.
  5. The Blenders bought this house in 1952.
  6. It went from one to two units.
  7. The description of the scope of work was installation of a new kitchen on the first floor.
  8. What they were trying to do was create a separate housing unit.
  9. They were trying to create a separate dwelling in their home for family members.
  10. That is what this family, who are two owners removed from that owner in '52, wishes to do.
  11. The directories are consistent from '53 to '55.
  12. In 1961 only is the address 2290 used.
  13. The apartment two doors down are listed at 1, 2, 3, 4.
  14. The apartment down shows a separate occupant and residents.
  15. In 1988 there is no second listing.
  16. This is when the Blenders seized occupancy of the home.
  17. They deeded it to the San Francisco symphony as a charitable contribution.
  18. Through all of the records, we don't see an instance of there being another occupancy of this unit.
  19. To the current, there is not showing any residents at 2290.
  20. Did this ever function as an actual separate unit?
  21. Are we changing the character of the property by removing a door so the grandmothers can live down stairs?
  22. There is no evidence that the unit functioned differently than the manner this family wants to live.
  23. This is a large home for a successful family.
  24. This is a captain of industry who whishes to grow his family and companies here.
  25. He wishes to support our tax base and employment base with good paying tech jobs in San Francisco.
  26. It is incumbent upon us to provide opportunities for housing that people like this want to live in.

Project Sponsor

  1. We bought this house a year ago.
  2. My mother and mother-in-law live with us and we love the fact that they do.
  3. My mother-in-law has been with me for 20 years and my mom is just moving in.
  4. We want them to have their space.
  5. Adding the upper unit will do that.
  6. I know what it means to have mother and mother-in-law living with you.
  7. Please, take that into consideration.

MOTION: To take DR and disapprove

AYES: Alexander, S. Lee, and Olague

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

RESULT: Motion failed

MOTION: To continue to July 13, 2006

AYES: Alexander and Olague

NAYES: Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion and the failure to achieve four votes for discretionary review, the project is approved as proposed.

17. 2006.0537D (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

1678 Great Highway - east side between Moraga and Lawton Avenues, Lot 026, in Assessor's Block 1895 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit 2006.02.01.6549 proposing to legalize work performed without permits, including reconstructing the rear of a single family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 13, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander

18. 2001.0636E (N. TURRELL; (415) 558-5994)

WHARF J-10 - Fisherman's Wharf waterfront between Hyde and Leavenworth Streets - Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 0007 - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. The proposed project includes the demolition of an existing vacant fish processing building and wharf, to abate an existing public health and safety hazard caused by the deteriorated condition of the structure and its potential for collapse. Following demolition, the Port of San Francisco would install guardrails and new riprap (rock to protect the seawall). Existing Port tenants of Wharf J-10 could pursue reuse of the site, including a new fish processing building for use by F. Alioto Fish Company; an outdoor platform for use by California Shellfish Company; and possible Port-sponsored improvements that might include a public fish receiving dock at the east end or west end of Wharf J-10, a second new building for use by the fishing industry, and/or a new floating boat repair dock at Wharf J-10 or at the foot of Leavenworth Street. There are no definitive reuse plans at the present time. The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, Waterfront Special Use District No. 1, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

NOTE: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report is closed. 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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Final EIR certified

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell and Hughes

MOTION: 17274

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: 6:13 p.m.

THESE DRAFT MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2006

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, W. Lee, Hughes, Olague

EXCUSED: Moore, Sugaya

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and nay action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:21 PM