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

April 6, 2006

April 6, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, April 6, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

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, Louis Scott, Diana Sokolove, Bill Wycko, Mary Woods, Shaun Mendrin, Michael E. Smith, Elaine Forbes, Craig Nikitas, 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. 2005.1042D (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

69 GARCIAAvenue - northeast side between Idora Avenue and Edgehill Way Assessor's Block 2936A Lot 001D - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005 0714 7578 to construct a new single family dwelling, 4 stories over a garage in the front and 2 stories in the rear, on a steeply sloping vacant lot in an RH-1(D) (Residential House, One Family Detached) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve the Project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 26, 2006)

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

2a. 2005.0946XV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

153 KEARNY STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, former Lot 2, new ownership lots 10, 11, 12 and 13, in Assessor's Block 293 - Request for a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit conversion of an existing office building to approximately 45 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirement, for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. . The proposal is to convert the existing office use on floors two (formerly the mezzanine level) through seven of the subject building to approximately 45 dwelling units, retaining the existing ground floor retail uses. The granting of a determination of compliance would be subject to the granting of variances for the three following aspects of the project: 1) Open space is proposed for the rooftop of the subject building, but less would be provided than the minimum required by the Planning Code due to necessary roof top equipment, stair and elevator penthouses, existing sky lights and fire code restrictions; 2) No parking would be provided in order to preserve the building's historic façade and to avoid creating automobile/pedestrian conflicts; 3) Sixteen of the 45 units would receive light and air from an interior courtyard that falls short in one direction of the minimum dimensional requirements for interior courtyards per the provisions of Section 140 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006)

(Proposed for continuance to April 13, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

2b. 2005.0946XV (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

153 KEARNY STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, former Lot 2, new ownership lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, in Assessor's Block 293 - Request for residential open space, dwelling unit exposre, and parking variances as decribed in item "a" above; for the subject property, which is in the C-3-O Zoning District and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission. See Item "a" above for a project description.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 13, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

3. 2004.0973C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

7070 CALIFORNIA STREET (a.k.a. 229 - 32nd Avenue) - north side on a through lot to El Camino del Mar between 32nd Avenue and Lincoln Park; Lot 37 in Assessor's Block 1392 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 209.3(g), 303 and 304 of the Planning Code to modify a previously approved Planned Unit Development under Motion No. 13678 for Case No. 1994.003C for a private elementary and middle school for girls (Kindergarten through grade 8), The Katherine Delmar Burke School, to allow the construction of a new two-story arts and sciences building, and the renovation of existing facilities, in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family Detached Dwelling) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Planned Unit Development would include an exception to rear yard requirements of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 2, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to April 20, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

4. 2005.1071C (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1800 MASON STREET - northeast corner at Union Street, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 0101, in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District ( NCD ) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District - Request for Conditional Use authorization for the addition of a  Bar to an existing  Full-Service Restaurant (dba  Trattoria Contadina ) that serves beer and wine. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to April 27, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

Following item 11, the Commission considered and heard speakers on proposals for continuance of Items 14, 17, 19 and 20. Subsequently, President Sue Lee instructed that item 19 would be heard today.

SPEAKERS [all of the following speakers are for item #19 and are opposing the continuance]

Ryan Burks

  1. I do understand this is a very long meeting, but this item is extremely important to us.
  2. We have a group of almost 25 teamsters, laborers and union members who have come out today because they want to speak on item #19.

John Becker, President, Teamsters Local 853

  1. It has come to my attention that a number of these property owners want independent sign operators to obtain rights to some permits, and we object wholeheartedly. This would take money out of the pockets of our members.
  2. I am happy to say we just concluded negotiations with CBS Outdoor. Successfully, 100% of the members voted to accept the negotiated agreement.

Pete Harris, representing Clear Channel

  1. I am a bill poster and union member.
  2. You have to go through protocol. Please make the right decision.

Bruce Morgan

  1. I wish you would vote no on the continuance.

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 20, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: W. Lee

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of November 10, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, Olague

EXCUSED: S. Lee

ABSENT: W. Lee

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 1, 2005

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: S. Lee, Antonini, Hughes, Olague

EXCUSED: Alexander, Bradford-Bell

ABSENT: W. Lee

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 8, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved as corrected: Commissioner Bradford-Bell was present at this meeting.

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

EXCUSED: Alexander

ABSENT: W. Lee

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to April 13, 2006

AYES: Antonini, Hughes, Olague

EXCUSED: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, S. Lee

ABSENT: W. Lee

  • Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. I think many of you saw the article in the newspaper about the ICF consulting study that was in response to Proposition I, and had to do with jobs and housing in San Francisco. I have not read the study.
  2. I have read the newspaper accounts to the extent that they are accurate. I think they pointed out some interesting things.
  3. First of all, we still have a propensity among the jobs in San Francisco - professional, technical, managerial, sales and office jobs that still account for around 80%
  4. Regrettably, we have seen a decline over the years in production jobs with a slight increase in the last few years in service jobs; although, that still probably only represents about 11%.
  5. Another more encouraging note, I guess you would say that [there is a] 10% increase in the number of workers in San Francisco who are now earning $50,000 or more.
  6. That represents about two-thirds of individual workers in San Francisco. Regrettably; according to the story, the lower third has not increased.
  7. I don't have those figures but I do know that of the two-thirds that make over $50,000, about a third of them are making over $100,000.
  8. As we look at our inclusionary housing requirements, it means that a very high percentage of people are excluded from consideration particularly because of making more money.
  9. And yet, they probably can not afford to by a house in San Francisco or even rent one because the restrictions are even lower for rental.
  10. The other thing that was in the study that I found interesting was that over 50% of the people who work in San Francisco commute from somewhere else.
  11. They must have a real compelling reason not to be here because last week with the BART failures four days in a row these commutes are not a pleasant thing.
  12. I think we really have to look at what we need to do in San Francisco in terms of housing and schools and whatever other factors exist that cause people to want to live somewhere else if they work here.
  13. Conversely, I think the Mayor commented on this. There is a significant percentage [but it was not mentioned in the study] that live in San Francisco and work elsewhere.
  14. I look at both things, with respect to Commissioner Olague, sort of a green job housing nexus type of situation.
  15. The more we can get people to live and work in San Francisco, the less we are using up fossil fuels and urban sprawl and a lot of other bad things that occur when people have to travel long distances to their jobs.
  16. I think the Mayor made some good comments in regards those people who live in San Francisco and work for companies outside of San Francisco.
  17. He is saying: why do not you relocate some of you workers or your business here in San Francisco where we have the office space and we have the workers. These workers are no longer just the kids out of college, but these are people now of all age groups who are starting to establish permanent residency in San Francisco.
  18. I think that if we can move in that direction towards having lower numbers of people who commute into San Francisco and lower numbers of people who commute out of San Francisco who are residents here to the extent that we can do anything as a Planning Commission in terms of housing and other planning issues to make this a reality, I think we've accomplished a lot of our goals.
  19. I will be interested in reading this entire study when I have a change to look at it.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. For those of you who are Commission watchers or frequently at the commission, you might notice I have been absent from this bench for a number of weeks.
  2. I think I do owe you an explanation because I have a public charge.
  3. I was back with my mother in the Midwest who had a rather serious surgery. I was there with her for a number of weeks while she evaluated options and was recuperating.
  4. I'm glad to say she's back home and doing well now.
  5. I am back to Commission business and I trust, in watching the hearings over the number of weeks that Commissioners performed the job well in my absence, so I am glad to be back.

Commissioner Olague:

  1. I had a couple questions on things that I want to be clarified. Maybe I can request them now and then they can be clarified at a later date.
  2. On page 2 of the memorandum that Maltzer sent out regarding 2660 Harrison, I am just going to read the last sentence on the second point that says that BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the City& on the City's ability to meet its housing needs as expressed in the City's General Plan and on land use and housing delineated in the Department of Environmental checklist, then be it.
  3. When there is a reference to the City's ability to meet its housing needs as expressed in the City's General Plan, Is that in reference to the affordable housing needs of the City that have not been met?
  4. According to the study that we received, the presentation by the Mayor's Office of Housing and other studies I have read certainly that is clarified in the Housing Element. I was curious about that.
  5. In instances where affordable housing is being proposed on sites that are currently zoned as industrial, would there be a different application in those instances, or not?
  6. Since the affordable housing need would be met, I am just wondering how the first part that really addresses more or less cumulative impacts would be&
  7. I am just curious as to whether or not 100% of affordable housing projects would be met with different criteria or not, or just how would that be handled? If they meet one and not the other?
  8. This week I sat in on the Backstreets Advisory Board Panel Task Force and they had a discussion on the regional crisis.
  9. San Francisco and a lot of other cities in the area, Oakland and others when it comes to losses in PDR or industrial type of jobs.
  10. I know that frequently we hear that we are displacing PDR and we can always move it to Oakland or Emeryville.
  11. When you sit in a room with people who have dealt with those types of industry in those areas, they are facing a lot of the same concerns we see here.
  12. I was reading through the Commerce and Industry inventory that you gave us a few months ago that says between 2002 and 2004 we have seen a decrease in about 80 thousand jobs here in the City.
  13. If there is ever any time in the future where we see some kind of report maybe from the Mayor's Office of Economic Development or somewhere, I just want to know what the plans for industries in San Francisco are.

Dean Macris – Director

  1. On the questions that you have raised about the memorandum, we will discuss that with Paul Maltzer and we will come back and talk some more.
  2. You are absolutely right there. Other cities are facing the same issues that we are.
  3. I cited on other occasions that in New York City, for example, the City there established an Industrial Boundaries Commission to isolate where there would be exclusive business and employment districts that would not be encroached upon by housing.
  4. Oakland, as you mentioned, is going through the same sort of thing and it's happening all over.
  5. Chicago already set aside districts exclusively for industrial purposes in its modern sense.
  6. We will come back and talk to you some more about some of the other questions you raised.
  7. The thought occurred to me that since Commissioner Antonini raised the point about this new analysis that has been done as part of the effort to create an economic development plan in the general sense for the City; perhaps, we should have the LEED staff to give a presentation to the Commission about the findings of this work.
  8. It is important stuff and I think the Commission should be aware of it. Maybe it would be a good step to have Ted Egan do a presentation of these findings.
  9. We will arrange for him to come to the Commission.

Commissioner Olague:

  1. When it comes to the inclusionary housing ordinance, I think it would be important at some point to really clarify what 120% of the AMI means.
  2. A lot of time we hear a lot of rhetoric around this.
  3. I think there is still a misunderstanding by the public that affordable housing means public housing, but it really does not.
  4. Affordable housing ranges up to pretty significant incomes and it would be good to have a break down.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

  1. Director's Announcements

Dean Macris – Director of Planning

  1. I know you were invited to the Light Court earlier today. I did not see any of the Commissioners and if you were there I am sorry I did not see you. I certainly would have acknowledged your presence.
  2. I thought it was an interesting late afternoon. The Mayor came and made some comments. The subject was about having to deal with better streets and what the City would do to address its Better Street Program.
  3. It was a large crowd with maybe over 200. It was televised, and it is going to be replayed on our local channels and you might be able to see it.
  4. I thought it achieved its purpose. It was well regarded and I think people got a lot out of it.
  5. It is going to be a series that the Department is sponsoring with Friends of City Planning, AIA, Mayor's Office and I think there's one other sponsor. SPUR is not involved.
  6. We urge you to come one of the future ones.
  7. The idea is to address the two priority objectives that we've assessed for quite a while about the Better Streets Program.
  8. I want to remind you that the Department is involved in collaborative arrangements with other City Departments.
  9. We are all putting some money into undertaking a master plan, a comprehensive master plan for city streets that we hope will lead up to a method for annual funding for improving and changing the character of streets.
  10. The outcome of this discussion is very simple. Our streets are in sad condition and other cities have bypassed us in efforts to improve the experience of the public and residents on streets.
  11. We need to do something about it and we need an organized program to do it. Chicago has been a leader in this, and it has taken them 10 or 15 years to get to where they are.
  12. It is a slow process but we need to be committed to it to make our City look better and make it feel better for citizens and put us in a position where we remain one of the great cities in the world.
  13. There will be other discussions on this on how to improve design generally and architecture in the City.
  14. It is all part of this arrangement that we are involved in with these other sponsors.

Amit Ghosh, Chief Planner

- The entire program was videotaped. The video is also available on our Planning web page.

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

Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator

Board of Supervisors

  1. Alcohol Residential Use District – Approved. As you recall, this allows the serving of beer and wine in any movie theater on Haight Street.
  2. Amendment of Mills Act Eligibility – Passed. Currently only landmarks and national registered properties are eligible to be land marked with a total of 335 properties. We have seen two Mills Act properties and I think we have one pending review within the Planning Department.

The amendments would expand the eligibility to contributory buildings within our historic districts - Category 1 through 4 in Downtown Conservation Districts - and would increase the eligibility to approximately 2000 properties. We hope to see more active use of the Mills Act, which is a strong tool for preservation.

Board of Appeals

  1. I issued a determination on a property in the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood Commercial District where someone wanted to add a new restaurant. Restaurants are not permitted in the Upper Fillmore Neighborhood.

-It was thought that they were saturated at the time that the zoning went through.

-This Upper Fillmore District and two other districts, one of them is the Castro, in the preamble talks about that in order to preserve the equilibrium of the neighborhood, new restaurants are not permitted.

-Now, there are other districts where new restaurants are not permitted, but only three districts use the phrase equilibrium.

-I issued a determination saying that I do not think that is significantly different than anything else.

-The fact is that the way we have always treated these is a new restaurant is not permitted.

-You can move a restaurant but once one goes out of business another one can not come in.

-In the Upper Fillmore, to use an example, there were 35 restaurants in 1997 when we passed this. Now there are 27 restaurants because new restaurants have not been permitted.

-The Board of Appeals overruled me and said the equilibrium language was very important.

-If you've reduced the number or restaurants since then, the equilibrium has been changed and you can go back up to that level that was there before.

-I think staff and I are going to look at the other three districts. I think we can probably pull together the figures about what was there when it was originally approved in 1997.

-We have a survey from 1985 and we will use that.

-It is conceivable that in two or three districts where we have been saying since the controls came in that new restaurants are not permitted, some new restaurants may now be permitted and they may go up to the level that was there in 1997.

-The other districts I do not know. They may still be at that level. It may make no difference.

-In the Fillmore it could be four to six new restaurants that could come in.

-I will keep you apprised as we do that work.

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. I think we had something similar and I'm not sure if it was under the same auspices with 24th Street where a recent legislation was passed to allow them to add three new restaurants because they net out lower than they had before.
  2. I think that was a different action that was taken by the Board of Supervisors.

Larry Badiner - Zoning Administrator

  1. I don't think we actually went out and made that comparison between 1987 and today.
  2. Some members of the neighborhood believe that additional restaurants have snuck in under other auspices.
  3. It has been the same effect, but that was actually to allow up to three or five new restaurants over three years -- I think those are the numbers for that one.
  4. In other words because of this new interpretation by the Board of Appeals in the Fillmore District, you do not have to impose that legislation because you could get up to the original number.
  5. I do not believe Noe Valley was one of the ones that used equilibrium. I can check on that.
  6. That legislation has gone through and I do not believe that the ones in Noe Valley have actually been reduced since then.
  7. That could mean that if someone wants to put in a restaurant as I suggested to the project sponsor, why don't you go seek an amendment to the code? Well now they don't need to do that amendment to the code.

ADDENDUM

8a. (L. SCOTT: (415) 558-6317)

Resolution recognizing the professional contribution of May Fung to the San Francisco Planning Department.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Adopted

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

RESOLUTION: 17216

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:

Jansin Neu

  1. I was surprised to see the Dwelling Unit Merger Policy on today's agenda.
  2. It was my understanding from the January hearing that we are going to take an opportunity and bring stakeholders in and talk to staff about this policy. I would like to request a continuance or a postponement until we have an opportunity to do that.

Pat Buscovich

  1. I know Planning is trying to grapple with what to do with these billboards floating around the City.

There is a lot misinformation about how far they are off. I sampled 15 billboards in the city.

- If Planning is going to do anything with these signs, it would be better to do it in conjunction with the Building Department.

- A lot of these signs are or have become structural hazards over the last fifty years.

No name stated

  1. I represent the Southeast Development Group which is largely citizens that live in Bayview Hunters Point.

- Is it possible for you to come down to Bayview Hunter's Point to the Commissioners room and give your report on what the status is as far as the hiring, who is going to do it, and just a general report on what is going on down there about that building project?

- I am talking about the Home Depot project.

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:

Shorley Chapman

  1. I am here to speak on behalf of the Senior Housing at 3575 Geary. My wife and I are residents of the Richmond District.
  2. We are both seniors who are going to need senior housing very soon.
  3. I have letters that I would like to leave with the secretary.

[Unclear name], Alameda County Public Works Agency.

  1. I am here to express concern about the adequacy of the inadequate response to our comments on the draft EIR for the Sunol/Niles Dam removal.
  2. The concerns are expressed in an e-mail letter dated March 13, 2006.
  3. The District expressed its desire to work with the SFPUC in the following conditions: a) to include a permit issued for the dams removal and authorization for the District to undertake it. b) to be able to quantify the value on the sediment c) that the SPUC in the District enter into some MOU to undertake certain activities including collaborative efforts with regulating agencies regarding permit issues and other resources protection activities that benefit the two entities.
  4. Today, the District is here to emphasize these points and highlight the concerns.
  5. There is no sound basis for the conclusion drawn upon the volume of sediment from the Dam.
  6. The report assessed that sediment behind the dam will be removed and transported downstream in a normal annual rainfall with no substantial studies or data.
  7. The report also assessed that the sediment handed down will take decades to reach the District facility downstream. Which one is it?

Judy Berkowitz

  1. The Coalition in its March meeting unanimously passed a resolution supporting all 150 senior housing units to be built within a 50 foot building.
  2. We want to make sure that you know that we oppose the project as currently proposed and we are asking that you deny the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
  3. Approve a plan that downsizes the office space, omits the conference center and increases the parking, yet retains all 150 senior housing units within a 50 foot building.

Laurie Rosenthal

  1. You asked the developer to reduce to a 50 foot height with at least 120 housing units.
  2. They have not done so. And as a result they make their units too expensive to be reasonably competitive with the tax credit funding that they seek.
  3. Why do they continue to penalize seniors to maintain their office space by providing fewer and less affordable units?
  4. They reported the number of residence programs, staff, office workers or conference attendees. However, it is based only on current scattered IOA sites and not based on future development of this site.

[No name]

  1. We support the senior housing, but the building should be scaled down and the conference center and offices should be taken out for in compatibility with the community.
  2. The oversized project as proposed would have a significant adverse visual affect in that it would tower over other buildings in the area and be grossly out of scale with the area.
  3. These affects are not adequately addressed in the EIR. It is insufficient and the alternative is unreasonable.

Libby Benedict

  1. This project is way out of scale and character with the neighborhood.
  2. Change in the existing character of the residential neighborhood was not found to be a substantial impact in the EIR. We need to understand what CEQA requirements are merely suggestions.

Greg Hylton

  1. Another deficiency in the EIR is the erroneous construction cost data provided by the project sponsor. The project sponsor has rejected the alternatives described in the EIR as too expensive and infeasible.
  2. President Sue Lee and Commissioner Dwight Alexander in the last EIR meeting asked to investigate the feasibility of the building at a 50 foot height with 150 units of senior housing. Why was that not done?

Dick Millett

  1. 3575 Geary proposes a project with seniors of which one quarter of the units is for seniors with special needs. We therefore must ask for special protections.
  2. We must require increased seismic analysis and construction as being required for California hospitals.
  3. We must develop and require an updated, improved disaster plans. Current requirements are inadequate.

Rich Warner

  1. The project description simply does not meet CEQA standards. It fails to adequately describe the use of the meeting room with frequency of use or number of people using the facility.
  2. The meeting room is in fact a $2.9 million, 8,200 square foot conference center capable of holding 100 conferences in excess of 100 people.
  3. The EIR does not conduct adequate analysis of traffic, parking, employment, or air quality impacts of large and frequent conferences.
  4. The Institute on Aging has refused to commit to any standards for evaluation and thus the EIR is flawed because of the lack of information from the sponsor.
  5. We ask that you require the sponsor to provide the relevant data needed to analyze this unusual aspect of the project.

Rose Hilson

  1. One of the points I brought up in the last meeting was the environmental issues and wildlife.
  2. I understand the applicable laws will protect nesting sites and endangered species of animals.
  3. The proposed project will be on the previous site of the cemetery, many of the bodies remain.
  4. There are many sections in this cemetery under mitigation measures for archeological resources.
  5. I also understand from mitigation measure, hazardous waste measures will be in place for existing building materials. However, this natural recurring asbestos in the rocks is commonly known to be in the cemetery areas.

Nickie MacKenzie

  1. We want the project but parking is a big issue in this area.
  2. Let us make everybody win by having employees with parking spaces and allowing the residents of Jordan Park to be able to find a place occasionally, as we now are able to do.

Don Lusky

  1. I understand there have been questions raised with regard to the adequacy of the feasibility analysis that we submitted to the City.
  2. I would like to leave memorandums and letters for Commissioners and affirm our belief in the accuracy of our analysis that was submitted to the city and the supporting data.

Gaby Berliner

- Although I am in support of the senior housing project, the size and bulk of it is totally unacceptable.

- This primarily residential area of single and multifamily units will be irreversibly damaged by increasing height above five stories. Traffic will be further disrupted by not providing adequate parking.

- I urge the Commission to require a reduction in height and provide off street parking.

Bradley Wiedmayer

- Urged to vote against the EIR. The historic architectural resource section is completely false.

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

9. 2001.1149E (Tape IB) (D. SOKOLOVE: (415) 558-5971)

SUNOL/NILES DAM REMOVAL - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the removal of Niles and Sunol Dams, which are located in the Niles Canyon reach of Alameda Creek in Alameda County. The purpose of the project is to remove barriers to fish passage and reduce an existing public safety hazard. Both dams are considered historical resources and are individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources.

NOTE:The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on December 7, 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.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Environmental Impact Report

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Certified

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

MOTION: 17217

10. 2003.0410E (Tape IB) (W. WYCKO: (415) 558-5972)

3575 Geary Boulevard Senior Health Services Facility & Affordable Senior Housing ProjecT - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report - The project site is at 3575 Geary Boulevard between Arguello Boulevard and Stanyan Street in Assessor's Block 1083, Lot 2 and Assessor's Block 1084, Lot 4. The site is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and is in an 80-A Height and Bulk District. The project sponsor proposes to develop a senior health services facility and 30 supportive housing units for independent seniors with special needs, to be operated by the Institute on Aging (IOA), as well as an additional 120 affordable dwelling units for independent seniors, built by BRIDGE Housing. These uses would operate in a new six-story building totaling 177,600 gross square feet (gsf), with approximately 122,140 gsf used for the supportive housing units for independent seniors and affordable housing units for independent seniors, and approximately 55,450 gsf for IOA senior health services and program space. On the sloped project site, the new building would be up to 72 feet in height along Geary Boulevard and up to 59.5 feet in height along its frontage at Almaden Court. The first floor of the building, a portion of the second floor and a portion of one below-grade level of space would be devoted to IOA's offices, senior health services facilities, and meeting space. The proposed senior health +services facilities would consolidate, replace, and expand similar existing IOA operations in the area. A portion of the second floor of the building would also be devoted to 30 supportive housing units for independent seniors with special needs. The upper four stories would provide a total of 120 studio, one- and two-bedroom units affordable to seniors earning up to 50 percent of area median income. A one-level, underground parking garage with 67 spaces, and a ground floor loading area within a porte-cochere with two loading spaces totaling approximately 37,200 gsf, would be provided for use by IOA staff, service providers, and residents. The existing single-screen, 33,000 gsf Coronet Theater, and an adjacent surface parking lot with 93 parking spaces, would be demolished to accommodate the project. The project would require a conditional use authorization, authorization as a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and approvals by the Department of Public Works and Department of Parking and Traffic.

NOTE: The public hearing on the Draft EIR 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.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certification of the Final EIR

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Certified

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

MOTION: 17218

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

11. 2003.0410C (Tape IB; IIA; IIB; IIIA) (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

3575 GEARY BOULEVARD - south side between Arguello Boulevard and Stanyan Street; Lot 2 in Assessor's Block 1083 and Lot 4 in Assessor's Block 1084 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 121.1, 121.2, 134, 135, 140, 151, 152, 271, 303, 304, 712.11, 712.21 of the Planning Code to allow a Planned Unit Development on an approximately 45,920 square-foot lot for the construction of a 54- to 72-foot high, six-story mixed-use development consisting of up to 150 senior housing units, and approximately 55,500 square feet of senior program spaces for office, senior health services, and meeting rooms, and up to 67 underground parking spaces, in an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and an 80-A Height and Bulk District. The Planned Unit Development would include exceptions to rear yard, dwelling unit exposure, usable open space, off-street parking, off-street loading, and bulk limit requirements of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS

Ann Romero, Project Manager - Mayor's Office of Housing

  1. I am here today on behalf of Matt Franklin, Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing who could not be here.
  2. I would like to convey to you the Mayor's Office of Housing's strong support for this project.
  3. It addresses on of the top goals identified in the 2005 consolidated plan in that it is to construct 900 new senior units in the next five years.
  4. We believe that Bridge Housing is a very strong developer and property manager and its institute on aging is an excellent service partner for the project.
  5. The City has already made an investment of nearly $2 million dollars and it would ultimately provide approximately $15 million dollars to this project in financing.

David Whitaker, Project Sponsor

  1. I am a physician and CEO of the Institute on Aging - IOA as it is often called.
  2. This is a very important project for the IOA and for seniors in San Francisco and for their families.
  3. One of the greatest concerns is how to meet the needs of a rapidly growing population of older adults, especially those who are frail with chronic illness and limited financial resources.
  4. As is often the case in San Francisco, some of the most creative solutions come from nonprofit community-based organizations like the IOA.
  5. This project takes all of the IOA's comprehensive health and supportive services and combines them with affordable housing with easy access and a central location for seniors with modest means.
  6. I have no doubt that it will become a model for other senior services in our community and communities elsewhere.
  7. The Institute of Aging was founded here in San Francisco almost over 20 years ago with a mission of helping seniors maintain their health, dignity, sense of independence, ability to continue to live in their own homes and avoid institutional care in nursing homes.
  8. One of our main programs is to adopt a health center where frail seniors spend the day, get checkups, physical therapy, nutritious meals, join other senior in activities in a safe and supportive environment, and then return home to their families.
  9. Our programs are now in various rented spaces scattered along Geary Boulevard and the Inner Richmond.
  10. About six years ago, the Board of the IOA began searching for more suitable facilities when the 50 year old Coronet Theater located across from 3600 Geary became available.
  11. The Board purchased the property with the idea of constructing a building where the IOA could consolidate and improve all its services, and also provide the kind of supporti8ve housing needed by so many of our clients.
  12. The plans were finally submitted to the Planning Department in April 2003. We are in hopes that the Planning Commission will take favorable action at this meeting today.

Carol Blante, President, BRIDGE Housing Corporation

  1. I am glad to be here today. Bridge has been working on this development for more than four years with the Institute on Aging.
  2. We have spent many hours in meetings and dialogues with neighbors and planning staff.
  3. We are confident that this is a model for San Francisco and that it will be a fine and exemplary facility and neighbor.
  4. We have worked diligently to respond to all the issue raised.
  5. For parking and traffic, the senior housing parking meets all required planning codes for parking and we have provided voluminous information on use of parking from other senior developments in the City to you and the staff.
  6. The IOA space is not a typical office space. Therefore, as the EIR and part of the traffic analysis, this issue was studied and concluded that the demand was for 56 parking spaces and we would provide 67.
  7. There was a suggestion for a second below grade garage. That is simply not needed and would raise the cost to a prohibitive $5 million and more.
  8. The building height is 72 feet at its highest point and it is well bellow the 80-foot height limit allowed for this site and down to 57, 59 feet on Almaden Court.
  9. The variance requested for bulk is to accommodate a better living environment, both for residents and IOA users as well as the surrounding neighbors.
  10. Last, a 50-foot alternative and many alternatives were studied for the EIR and concluded that it is not feasible to achieve both the financial and planning objectives of the development.
  11. The conference center is a meeting room that will hold no more than 100 people. The IOA has agreed to a condition to limit the use of that meeting room to outside visitors after hours during the week and on weekends.

Paula Quidmeyer, Architect for the Project

  1. We are pleased to team with the Institute on Aging and Bridge Housing to design this senior center and housing.
  2. We have approached this project with the idea of creating a complex that will be the pride of the neighborhood.
  3. Bridge takes a unique approach to every building so it will fit into the neighborhood as well as the needs of the users.
  4. The existing context on Geary Boulevard is rear residential and mixed commercial on either side.
  5. The design responds to the urban context and the community process.
  6. The building has a residential appeal and avoids an institutional aesthetic.

Kathy Devencinzi, Laurel Heights Neighborhood Association

  1. We support the housing but we think the project should be scaled down.
  2. Also, I think you need a variance for the parking and all the other exceptions sought by the applicant.
  3. This building would interfere with light and sun. Air would be blocked by the structure and it does not have a tendency to promote the general welfare or prosperity of the community.
  4. I also think it is discriminatory to the property owners on Almaden Court and there is no sufficient evidence of financial infeasibility to support a variance.
  5. They do not need the conference center and all the offices.
  6. These pictures that they showed are misleading. All commercial properties next to them are about three stories in height.

GladstoneLiang

  1. Parking is a big problem in this area and my concern is that 67 parking spaces are totally inadequate.
  2. The second thing I want to mention is that this neighborhood would be destroyed by the massive size of this project by destructing privacy in my neighborhood.
  3. Have you ever visited Laguna Honda? It is large and massive senior housing that is nothing but a large human warehouse.
  4. It dehumanizes and depersonalizes those who work there and also impacts the neighbors equally. Senior housing should be smart enough to be personal, intimate and dignifying.
  5. I will retire in a few years and I certainly hope to utilize this senior resource that is part of my neighborhood and community.
  6. Preservation of family neighborhoods is good for everyone, especially for seniors.

Laurie Rosenthal

  1. This development will tower over all the one to four-story homes and businesses for miles.
  2. Deny the 9 conditional use requests and make the developer build a neighborhood friendly project.
  3. Do you feel confident that you know the real effects of the potential use on traffic, parking, schools, children and the bus line that carries 40,000 people up and down through the area into downtown?
  4. We ask that you make the developer construct the second level of parking to avoid a parking nightmare.

[Aimee Rousseau (name was not clear)]

  1. The IOA and Bridge have lied to us, the residents of Almaden Court, and to the San Francisco Police Department.
  2. The IOA and Bridge has done property damage to us and they have refused to repair the damage or provide insurance information to repair it.
  3. They failed to comply with the San Francisco Police Department's directive regarding maintaining a trash free area and removing graffiti.
  4. They have failed to provide us information in the DEIR.

Paula Romanoffsky

  1. A lot of concessions were mentioned in the presentation by Bridge just now. It is a concern that this is the first time we heard of these.
  2. There is definitely a communication breakdown and to have a good neighborhood relation this really has to be addressed.
  3. Parking simply has to be addressed for environmental reasons and for pedestrian safety.
  4. One of the reasons that the Golden Gate Park has the new underground parking garage is because of the pollution and the accident risk of people circling looking for parking.
  5. Consider fully all of these comments before allowing this important solution for senior housing to be maligned by a short-sighted perspective.

Sylvia Melikian

  1. I am here in support of this project unconditionally.
  2. The Bridge and IOA bent over backwards to accommodate the needs of the community.
  3. Bridge is nationally recognized as the pre-imminent developer of not-for-profit housing.
  4. Senior housing is a critical element in our community and the services that the IOA provides are really not matched by any organization in the City of San Francisco.

Karl Baldauf

  1. It seems that there is a reach but not quite enough to bring together the neighborhood and the project together.
  2. There is a critical lack of parking and I am very concerned about the traffic flow in the area.
  3. I think there is one more reach that Bridge and the IOA needs to make to do a few more things and make the project work for everyone.
  4. Parking and density should be looked at again.

Linda Ash

  1. I have major concerns about the project. I think the size, scope and magnitude of the project is out of scale with the neighborhood
  2. The parking and traffic are quite difficult right now.
  3. I am concerned about the additional loss of parking.
  4. I think the height, bulk and density of the building is out of scale with this single-family home neighborhood.
  5. The conference center will bring more people and cars into the neighborhood and I think we are going to have more problems.
  6. I am not against the housing project but the size, scope and the magnitude of it.

Trey Macphee

  1. The need for senior housing clearly exists and the issue is not about the proposed use but the size of this project. Why does it need to be so big?
  2. The proposed project is twice as large as it should be allowed under the current code.
  3. There is no other similar sized structure anywhere near the site.
  4. Projects of this size should be in neighborhoods of like-size buildings.
  5. Why do you not see any other buildings in the pictures from the Project Sponsor?
  6. I am asking these questions because I believe that you as members of the Planning Commission with your fiduciary duty to enforce the Planning Code should ask and answer these same questions among yourselves.
  7. Exceptions to the Code or the magnitude requested by the developers of this project are essentially a request that you blatantly disregard essential components of the Planning Code that are critical to maintaining neighborhood integrity.

Mike Ina

  1. I believe the senior housing is vital to San Francisco, but the development must be in concert with the community that it is being developed in.
  2. The Institute on Aging has planned to have 67 parking spots for this large development. I think it is very insufficient.
  3. Parking in the area has become very, very difficult since the Indian Consulate moved in.
  4. Every morning they have people that line up and they sit in their car all day waiting for their appointment.
  5. I would like to know if the Planning Commission monitors or who enforces the variances that are allowed so that the conference meetings would not be held during business hours where parking is going to be premium.

Barbara Austin, representing Jordan Park Homeowners Association and San Francisco Heights Homeowners Association.

  1. I am bringing conditions that are very important for us.
  2. The 120 units of Bridge Housing for senior citizens should remain affordable housing if the developer sells the rights to the property.
  3. No double temporary parking of vans waiting for calls on side streets supported by Turk, Euclid, Arguello and Parker.
  4. All Bridge employees are not to drive to work and are to take public transportation to work.
  5. IOA/Bridge will institute a commuter check program for their employees.
  6. IOA/Bridge shall add two-tiered parking in each parking space that will increase parking at each parking space, or IOA/Bridge shall institute some form of parking to increase parking in the under coated parking garage.
  7. No employee or consultant shall apply for a neighborhood parking permit for limited or for limited street parking in the areas bounded by Turk, Euclid, Arguello and Parker.
  8. The project manager shall arrange for off-site parking for construction worker vehicles and provide busing to the site so worker's cars will not impact surrounding businesses and homeowners.
  9. The conference center shall not be rented out or used by other organizations and shall be used by IOA solely for its purposes Monday through Friday.
  10. No person whose primary diagnosis is substance abuse or any psychiatric disorder may be housed in the project including without limitation in the 30 supportive housing units for seniors with special needs.

Libby Benedict

  1. This is a flash media presentation that we have shown once before but I do not think all the Commissioners have seen it.
  2. We admit this is not the updated design but we did not have access to that at the time this was created.
  3. We have views of the Coronet from different angles and certainly we are in the ballpark as far as the size of the building.
  4. We support senior housing but we are protesting the sheer size of this building.
  5. The project is out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood and sets a dangerous precedent for the Geary Corridor.
  6. The cumulative impact of large oversized buildings along Geary will ultimately promote urban canyons with walled off effects and failure to preserve or enhance pedestrian environment by maintenance scale and visual interest.
  7. Until these issues are addressed I respectfully request that the Planning Commission not grant the nine conditional use exceptions.

Nicky Mackenzie

  1. A while back SPUR did an extensive survey to see what factors made people feel like they live in a friendly, welcoming neighborhood.
  2. Two factors completely obliterated that possibility. One was very high-rise buildings that are connected, and the second was a lot of traffic.
  3. About parking, I appreciated Mr. Lee's and Mr. Antonini's questions about that.
  4. The parking problem is real. Where are the parking spaces for all the family members who want to visit, love, and attend their loved ones?

Richard Worner, President of Jordan Park Improvement Association

  1. There are 99 spaces in the lot. I am a CPA. I counted and certified them.
  2. The CPMC has rented 60 spaces out at 16th and Geary, so there are 40 spaces.
  3. Section 303(C) of the conditional use code states the project sponsor must provide any off-street parking needed to satisfy the reasonably anticipated auto usage by residents/visitors to the project.
  4. In a package distributed to you by the developer, the developer states that the 8,200 square foot, $2.9 million conference center and the garage level at the project will generate a demand of 107 spaces per the time, 40 of which can not be accommodated on the site.
  5. They are going to need 40 extra spaces whenever they use the conference center.
  6. On October 2nd of 2001, the developer's geological engineer's report stated that two basement levels of parking can be put on that site.
  7. The Mayor's Office is funding this project for over $14.2 million at 3% for 55 years. Tax credit financing may also be used. Our tax dollars are paying for this project.
  8. Please force the developer to add a second parking level and add some setbacks to make this a project we can all live with.

Unclear name

  1. I am just going to limit my talk to comment on the effects the proposed new construction will have on traffic in the area.
  2. Traffic on Geary Boulevard is at maximum including Saturdays and Sundays.
  3. Stanyan Street that ends at Geary is also very heavily traveled in both directions.
  4. It is one of the few streets that continued on through Golden Gate Park to St. Mary's Hospital emergency that is on Stanyan Street.
  5. This street is a direct route also from our area to the UC Hospital.
  6. Permitting the Bridge Housing to go ahead will increase the traffic on Stanyan Street considerably to the point that it will be unsafe.
  7. The plans must be modified to conform to the area.

William Goodson

  1. The developer said that there were modifications to the plan and those are basically window dressing. There is no substantive change in what they presented.
  2. Secondly, I believe it was stated that the additional cost of digging an additional parking space [level] underneath would be $5 million.
  3. I would point out that $5 million over the lifetime of this building is a negligible amount of money and totally irrelevant to what will be the budget of that building probably even within five years.
  4. I think the real issue is everybody's quality of life and stability.
  5. The Planning Code is in place so that everybody will be able to count on the stability in the City of everybody following the same rules.
  6. No where has anybody said that the seniors in this building would not be allowed to have a car.

Rocky Papale

  1. As it is currently proposed, this building is unfittingly grandiose and monumental with its belligerent imposing design and scale that bullies its neighbors into submission.
  2. Like David to Goliath, we remain proud and determined to knock down the height, bulk and density of this structure philistine.
  3. This is an outlaw building seeking special treatment form the Planning Commission in the form of nine conditional use exemptions.
  4. I am here today because I believe this is about the notion that San Francisco is not divided into developers and neighborhoods.

Natalie Tarnopolsky

  1. The height of the building and the density of the building, parking, and the fact that it would change the character of the neighborhood are very high concerns.
  2. I work really hard to keep my family afloat and to live in San Francisco. How do we keep young families in the City?
  3. One the main things we did after a long day is to come home and try to find parking and with the current plan underway there is no way we would find parking.

Rozanne Junker

  1. If your sole purpose today is to build senior housing, then support this project.
  2. But if your purpose is also to keep families in San Francisco and maintain the integrity of neighborhoods you can not approve these nine exceptions.
  3. I also want to just take a moment to take exception to what was said by one of the earlier speakers saying that this project would become the pride of the neighborhood.
  4. I was really insulted by that.
  5. I live in this neighborhood and the pride of my neighborhood is the community and the people not the buildings, certainly not about this building.

Katherine Simmonds, Member of the San Francisco Heights Neighborhood Association

  1. I am particularly cognizant of the growing need for senior friendly housing and neighborhood health care and City services for all seniors whether they are rich of poor.
  2. Planning for seniors is a difficult task but it does not mean you should construct facilities in the quickest and cheapest way possible without regard to the impacts on the quality of life for those who live here.
  3. I am sure you should agree planning for seniors should be much more than this.
  4. It is important that they be functional and create a safe and livable environment for the neighborhoods around them.
  5. I see in the City that there are indeed many examples of senior housing facilities that you have approved which seem to fit well into the character of the neighborhood.

Vera Poon

  1. Many of those before me have expressed my sentiments better than I can myself.
  2. The buses for the senior citizens double park and make driving hazardous on the corner. The parents from Rosevelt Park High School double park.
  3. There is a vicious competition among the neighbors who live there for parking space on weekdays, weekends and evenings as well.

Elenor Coffman

  1. I just want to reiterate what so many of the residents of Jordan Park and San Francisco Heights have said already. This is a vital project.
  2. The Commission needs to reconsider the traffic and parking needs of the community and deny the 9 conditional requests of the developers and provide a neighborhood friendly project.

Ken Passameneck

  1. I think most of the points about parking and things have been covered.
  2. I would say that I think the plan to off load people off-street is a good idea but that corner of Geary and Arguello is already congested with a small bus stop with many buses and people trying to exit the garage.
  3. Unless some plan is made to move the bus stop or possibly have the entrance of the building further to the east, it is going to create a terrible traffic
  4. Professionally, I was the medical director for a community mental health facility for the City of San Francisco and I have spent my professional life working with seniors.
  5. When the IOA says they will use their conference center or meeting center for in-house activities, does it mean only for in-house activities or activities that would attract people like Community Mental Health, Catholic Charities, Jewish Family Services, etc.?
  6. Those types of conferences create a terrific amount of traffic.
  7. Another concern is the visual impact that this building would create with its bulk and density.

Sarah Karlisnky, Policy Director for the San Francisco Planning Urban Research Association.

  1. SPUR have moved to strongly endorse this project.
  2. The project sponsors have worked hard to maximize the number of diverse affordable housing units - a precious resource to the neighborhood and to the community.
  3. Further, we feel that the project will fulfill the IOA's and Bridge's goal of allowing seniors to age in place while remaining integrated into a vibrant neighborhood.
  4. The second reason has to do with the public realm interface and the promotion of a pedestrian oriented environment.

Mathew Weinberg.

  1. There is no question that the IOA will build on this site with their supporter's help.
  2. It is all a question of whether that site is going to be built soon or be delayed in litigation and how it will happen.
  3. Do not get fooled by economic feasibility.
  4. Get something that fits the neighborhood makes everybody happy.

Tom Ross

  1. The project is too big for its site as well as the amount of parking they have allowed.
  2. Is the Planning Commission going to be content if they just put in 40 parking spaces, is that appropriate?
  3. How many of their own vehicles are going to be parking at that facility, much less the employees, much less any of the visitors that come, or the volunteers?
  4. The conditional use needs to be looked at more carefully.

Patricia Vaughey

  1. I firmly believe that you should send this back to the drawing board.
  2. SPUR's speech just really disturbed me. They do not represent the neighborhood.
  3. They have been advocates for high-rise throughout the inner city for years.
  4. I am just interjecting what I have heard at this deal. This is an exceptional use for so many facilities near this corner that there should be a compromise.
  5. They don't need the convention room.
  6. I really want to make sure that if you approve this to be senior housing that you insure you have minorities in there.

Jean Lynch

  1. There are many of us here today who reside in the immediate area and are in strong support of this project.
  2. We need to focus not only on our small five square blocks but how the many programs contributed by the Institute on Aging have improved the quality of life for seniors in the area.
  3. Throughout the Richmond District, there is a shortage of low-income housing and services for the frail and elderly.
  4. We look forward to this state of the art building and the continuance of the service that we already have.
  5. You also need to know that all of the supporters of this project were unable to fit into this room, but came here to be counted in support of the Institute on Aging and Bridge Housing.
  6. I also want to mention that many of the people that are in opposition of this building were many of the people that opposed senior housing that we now have on Arguello Boulevard and Euclid.

Timothy Mason

  1. I am here today to speak on behalf of the project. As a resident in the area, I have seen how this project has been amended and scaled back.
  2. The graphics have been improved to reflect some of the concerns, a majority of the concerns raised by the speakers today.
  3. I look forward to the fact this development will be completed and will become a permanent part of our landscape and part of the landscape which is accepted and enjoyed.

Gloria Yaros

  1. I would like to address three issues: parking, traffic and the idea that this would be the pride of our neighborhood.
  2. We can all assume we are all approaching seniorhood at the same very fast rate and it is obvious that no one is against this project.
  3. I do hope that if I have to move into a residence that it will be a building that has certain humanity to it. This looks like a prison.
  4. There are not enough spaces for people to park and I urge you to not accept this plan as it is.

Greg Hylton, Co-President of the Jordan Park Improvement Association

  1. I would like to take issue with the statement earlier by representatives of Bridge that they have made many concessions on this building. They have done absolutely nothing.
  2. The façade originally was proposed and it looked like 850 Bryant Street, and the neighborhood were up in arms over that. They changed it and it is a very pleasing looking project.
  3. We have attempted many times to meet with Bridge and to get them to make the concessions on this project that would make it a livable environment for our neighborhood and they refused.
  4. We want the senior project in our neighborhood but we are simply trying to have it reduced.

Cindy Kaufman, Vice-president of Adult Day Services Institute on Aging

  1. The IOA has many programs currently serving well over a thousand seniors. One of these programs is directly across the street from the proposed project.
  2. This program, as well a many of our other programs, serves people with physical and mental disabilities as well as people with mild, moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease.
  3. Our programs were created to meet a growing need in the community. We do not warehouse people.
  4. Our programs include clinical health services, day programs, case management and mental health services.
  5. This project would allow us to consolidate our programs into one location to work together more effectively to serve our aging population.

Irwin Gibbs, Chairman of the Institute of Aging Building Committee

  1. I have become very aware of the need to consolidate our program and services under one roof.
  2. Owning the property will allow the IOA the financial security to continue to perform services to needy seniors and the frail elderly.
  3. The project has been before the Planning Commission for a very long time and it is critical to get approval as soon as possible so the IOA can move ahead.

Bob Socholoff, Chairman of the Institute on Aging

  1. We've been hearing about the services the agency provides, affordable housing and affordable health care.
  2. This project will be replicated in cities all around the country because it will be a bench mark and a model of how to take care of our elderly citizens.
  3. I urge you to support this project.

Jim Salinas, Carpenters Local 22

  1. We work in an environment and we expect our members to be allowed to work with dignity, and as they age, we ask that they also be allowed to retire in dignity.
  2. We are here asking for your support for what we believe to be a great project that allows our senior citizens to be given the respect that they so diligently deserve.
  3. Carpenters Local 22 asks for your support for a great project that is well deserving for our seniors.

Katherine Hecht

  1. I am on the Board of San Francisco Heights. When I first read about it I immediately called IOA.
  2. I talked with senior executives to invite them to our meeting to hear about their plans. All of us are very positive about senior housing.
  3. We were put off until Bridge was able to make a presentation. We were very concerned about some of the building plans.
  4. We have tried to voice these concerns anywhere venues are possible to us, inviting and trying to have friendly discussions, trying to get a mediator before coming to you.
  5. The modifications they have made are very minor. They don't address the issues.

Sue Wong, Chief Financial Officer of On Lok Senior Health Services.

  1. On Lok provides total care for the elderly. We serve almost a thousand frail seniors in San Francisco.
  2. For 30 years our goal has been to keep them at home, in the community for as long as possible. Together On Loc and IOA take care of over 230 frail seniors from the Western Addition and Richmond District.
  3. This project is important because we need more affordable senior housing in San Francisco.
  4. We know that accessible affordable on-site care will help seniors as they age in place maintain their health and quality of life and enable them to stay in the community longer.

Geraldine Earp

  1. I bring to you this afternoon a vote of approval and affirmation from Dr. James McCray Jr., the pastor at Jones United Methodist Church and the congregation.
  2. My dedication to this project has its foundation form the OMI Neighbors in Action and the Senior Action Network as well as my employment at the Department of Social Services, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, San Francisco Home Health Agency, Laguna Honda Hospital, and finally the Mount Zion Home Care Department.

Betty Angerine

  1. 23 years ago both of my parents became physically disabled.
  2. It was hard to know what resources were available while working full time. As a nurse, you would think I had all that information at my fingertips, but I did not.
  3. They were not many day care centers for seniors at that time. I hired a daytime caregiver for two years.
  4. It made me realize caregivers face many problems: isolation, feeling overwhelmed, and hopelessness.
  5. Having this type of facility would have helped me with support for my parents and provide more services than I could have on my own.
  6. The IOA will provide a sense of independence with community access to the health facility and other services, and also to those who are caregivers.

Ginny Jordan

  1. I live at 190 Coleridge and am very happy living there. Bridge Housing manages the place and I like the way they do it.
  2. It is very diverse and it represents all of the nationalities that live in San Francisco.
  3. I came here today to speak to get the housing for other people because I would like to see other people have the privilege that I have.

Tim Colen - Action Housing Coalition

  1. With our 50 members we ask you to support this project without reservations.
  2. It is an appropriate use of the land at this location. It adds density in an appropriate way on a major transit corridor in San Francisco.
  3. There is a desperate shortage of housing for seniors, in particular for low-income seniors.
  4. The bad news is that it is about to start to get a whole lot worse because we are not preparing for it. We are not building housing for our seniors.
  5. A project like this could be jeopardized around an issue like parking. This is a population of very low usage of cars.

Ken Donnelly, Executive Vice-President of the Institute on Aging

  1. As you know from the EIR and an independent transportation study a parking count of 56 spaces was supported. IOA and Bridge subsequently designed an underground parking garage for 67 spaces.
  2. This is a 20% increase from the recommendation made by the transport experts.
  3. IOA continues to participate in the commuter check program and has done so for many years and the vast majority of its employees take public transit to work.
  4. The parking structure will only be made available for employees and for building residents.
  5. Visitors coming to the meeting facilities would be permitted into the parking garage only after business hours on weekdays and also on weekends since no employees would be there.
  6. I want to reiterate that all clients coming to this site for health services are brought to the site by a van service.
  7. These vans are stored offsite and they will not be stored in the underground parking structure.
  8. In fact, our transportation provider currently provides van services in addition to the IOA to the City's transit system and has a very good reputation.
  9. I urge you to approve the PUD proposed and recommended by the Planning Department.

[Unclear name]

  1. When I heard and found out that there was affordable housing for seniors; I was delighted.
  2. I thought this was a wonderful location for senior citizenship apartments because most of them are in the downtown.
  3. I am very hopeful that all these things are going to be built out and do not get delayed.
  4. There have been many changes in the neighborhood and I think we can not stop it because it is something we need to do to have more housing for seniors also in neighborhoods.

Tom Radulovich, Executive Director for Transportation for a Livable City

  1. We are here to speak in support of this project although we have a few caveats.
  2. First of all, transit accessible affordable housing for seniors: We need much more of this in our City. This is a great project.
  3. We like the mix of uses. We like the uses of ground floor and housing above.
  4. This is going to do a lot more for Geary Boulevard in creating a continuous street and less of a street mall.
  5. We do not like the parking entrance on Geary because we think it is going to interfere with the transit line carrying 50,000 people a day. It should be on one of the other frontages.
  6. Ground floor uses: I am concerned that is all office for a block. In the future if we can add retail and lighten that block at some point, you should ask the sponsor to look at that.
  7. To require more parking in an affordable senior project would mean that we are going to have less senior housing. We need more housing for seniors and less parking.

No name

  1. Thanked staff and the Commission for getting this finally to a place that might get a vote.
  2. Thanked Supervisor McGoldrick for being in our meeting the other day. He said that he will support this project if it comes to an appeal at the Board of Supervisors.
  3. He promised to persuade his fellow supervisors to be in favor of the project.

Lorene Feehan

  1. [Read a letter from Mary Ann Duke expressing support and sharing a personal experience of living on social security disability and economically burdened on housing costs.]
  2. I had financially contributed to San Francisco for 32 years.
  3. Now I would like San Francisco to contribute to my needs by approving senior housing at 3575 Geary Boulevard.

Nicole

  1. The intriguing balance of nature and urban architecture invites you to stroll on the sidewalk to appreciate it. There are several policies in place to protect this balance.
  2.  The valleys and the planes are as important as the hills for they define their own districts and give the hills their visual meaning. Tall slender buildings at the top of hills and low buildings on the slopes and in the valleys accentuate the form of the hills
  3. The IOA and Bridge are fulfilling one of the priority policies of the City's plan by enhancing the supply of affordable housing. However, their current proposal violates five other priority policies.

Sarah Nolan, San Francisco Organizing Project

  1. Last week, we gathered 80 people that supported this housing site in its entirety.
  2. We believe this site meets all the requirements and we would like it to start as soon as possible.

Steve Vettel on behalf of IOA and Bridge

  1. I want to talk about the EIR analysis and a number of issues that will come up today.
  2. In particular, there was a very extensive study done on parking demands that would be created by this very unique land use.
  3. The IOA is relocating existing services into this building so I know exactly what will be happening in this building as far as employee and visitor demand for parking.
  4. This is the City's consultant study. It looked at other senior housing, particularly low-income senior housing in the City, where the parking demand is .16 space per unit.
  5. We have .2 spaces per unit so we are exceeding that demand.
  6. I did want to pass to you the parking study because it is probably not in your packet and the pages that detail this parking demand and how it was determined.
  7. The total demand is 56 spaces. 56 total for both IOA employees, visitors and the housing. We are providing 67 parking spaces.
  8. The only time there is excess demand that we would not be meeting is on the occasions on weekends and evenings when the meeting room is in use by non-IOA functions.
  9. The demand then would be a maximum of 40 spaces.
  10. There are occasions when there may be street parking because of off-site meetings in the facility.
  11. Four times a month is their estimate of how often that will occur. Normally during the day, the demand is 56 and in the evenings it is 30. We are providing 67 parking spaces.
  12. There was a suggestion to add a second floor of parking that would double the parking supply.
  13. Adding a second floor of parking would cost about $5 million dollars that is not in the budget and that would come out of additional low income senior housing.

John Stewart

  1. I am here to speak fully in support of the work that Bridge does. I have more familiarity with IOA and am very much in support of their work.
  2. I do not think you would be having these kinds of conflicts if indeed the organizations had been more responsive.

Debbie Baptiste

  1. I am for senior housing but I just want to go along with what the neighbors have said about the parking problem.
  2. It is just so overcrowded with the hospitals, schools and all other things that have been mentioned already. It is really quite a problem.

Judy Berkowitz

  1. People are in support of the units but the bulk of the building and other things is what is not supported.
  2. The plan is inconsistent with several priority policies in regard to conformance with neighborhood character.
  3. I urge you to approve a plan that has been redesigned so that the 150 units fit within the 50-foot height limit.
  4. As to parking, I think that this is a little foggy. It seems that some of the parking plans have been quoted that is sufficient for a senior housing project but this is so much more than that.
  5. As I understand it, the parking lot is used for a lot of other things and no one knows where those cars are going to be parking when this goes in.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-To provide no less than 90 parking spaces.

-After two years of occupancy, the project sponsor is to have a parking demand study done. If it is demonstrated that excess parking above 67 spaces is not required or being utilized, the Zoning Administrator may reduce it.

-Such report should be made available to neighborhood associations.

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

MOTION: 17219

12. 2006.0088C (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

594 Chestnut Street - northeast corner at Mason Street (a.k.a. 2200 Mason Street), Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0052 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to establish a small self-service restaurant (d.b.a.  Café Capri ) of approximately 645 square feet. The proposed use is not formula retail as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code. The proposed use would occupy existing vacant ground-floor commercial space that was previously occupied by a retail use (d.b.a.  Sundance Floral Design ). There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space. The site is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Lisa -- Project Sponsor

- The purpose is to bring a Mediterranean feel and style to the community.

- We will be serving coffee and pastries, cold sandwiches, salads, beer and wine upon approval.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17220

13. 2005.0804C (Tape IIIB) (S. MENDRIN; (415) 558-6625)

2155 WEBSTER STREET - northwest corner at the intersection of Webster Street and Sacramento Street; Lots 016, 017, 018, 034, 037 and 038, in Assessor's Block 0629 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Section 209.6 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) antennas and related equipment cabinets on the roof and penthouse of an existing 112-foot tall commercial structure, known as the University of the Pacific Building, as part of T-Mobile's wireless telecommunications network within an RM-1 (Residential-Mixed) District and a 160-F Height and Bulk District. Per the City and County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 1 as it is a school, which is a publicly used structure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Alex - T-Mobile Representative

- T-Mobile is proposing to install six antennas and three equipment cabinets on the rooftop.

- All the antennas will be flush mounted to a mechanical penthouse. The antennas will be screened and painted to match the penthouse.

- The building was chosen as a primary candidate in this area because it provides adequate height to meet the proper objectives and the installation could be designed to be visually unobtrusive.

- This proposed installation would enhance T-Mobile's ability to provide its customers with consistent and reliable coverage along commercial streets.

- The report produced for this site concludes that under the admission guidelines of the SCC and the San Francisco Department of Health, exposure levels would be less than one percent at ground level and on any of the adjacent rooftops.

- A community meeting was held at Newcomer High School on March 15 at 7p.m. 800 notices were sent out to residents, property owners and community groups. One person attended that meeting.

Don Schaefer

  1. I have done a little research on the reception and I do not think there is a need for this. They have chosen the worst spot to put it in.
  2. On health issues I've found that there is a list of diseases or conditions produced in the body and there is a correlation between radiation from antenna base stations and these diseases.

ACTION: Approved with amendment to require their five-year plan or DBI is to revoke the permit.

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

NAYES: Bradford-Bell, Olague

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17221

14. 2005.0740C (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

988-992 Howard Street - at the northwest corner of Howard and Sixth Streets; Lot 025, Assessor's Block 3725 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 815.72 and 890.80 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three panel antennas and related equipment. The antennas and equipment are proposed in Location Preference 4 (Preferred Location - Industrial or Commercial Structures) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Siting Guidelines, as part of Sprint PCS's Wireless telecommunications network within a RSD (Residential/Service Mixed Use) Zoning District, SOMA Quake Recovery District, and a 85-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 27, 2006

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

15a. 2005.1056CV (Tape IIIB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

590 CASTRO STREET northwest corner at 19th Street, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 2695 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 161(j) to allow for the addition of two dwelling units to a mixed-use building without providing the requisite two additional off-street parking spaces, located in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Van Lee - Project Architect

  1. The project owner is here in case you have any questions. The project as presented by the staff was clear and brief.

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Alexander

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17222

15b. 2005.1056CV (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

590 CASTRO STREET northwest corner at 19th Street, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 2695 - Request for an Open Space Variance pursuant to Planning Code Section 135 to allow for the addition of two dwelling units to a mixed-use building without providing the requisite usable open space, located in the Castro Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 15a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance.

16. 2006.0076D (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

538 LAIDLEY SREET- west side between Castro and Roanoke Streets, Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 6728 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.14.3283, to construct a two-story over garage single-family dwelling on a vacant lot, located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications.

SPEAKERS:

Ian Hado, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. I am the owner of 536 Laidley Street. It consists of a front house and a nonconforming cottage at the rear. It was built before the current code was instated.
  2. The Planning Code codifies creation of a mid-block open space, existing structures with regard to placement, height and length, and provision for privacy and access to light.
  3. I am concerned about minimizing light and maximizing privacy in the house.
  4. I am asking that this conform to the height as recommended by the planner -- that is two feet shorter than what has been proposed by the sponsor -- and that the rear wall be no further from the street than 47 feet.
  5. Exhibit A in your packages: $4,015 worth of damages was sustained to my property in the course of demolishing the 538 Laidley structure that was damaged by a fire and was at the rear of the property.
  6. Exhibit B refers to a trash demolition that was a completely separate structure and a permit was not obtained prior to it being done.
  7. Exhibit C is an item signed by two neighbors that after consideration of the addition they reconsider their support of the project.
  8. We, the people, do not reinforce deceptive and unethical practices.

No name

  1. There is substantial mid-block open space intrusion.
  2. I have a problem with the idea of enhancing buildings that are already non-conforming buildings in order to build bigger than what is in the neighborhood.
  3. The houses in the neighborhood are essentially one floor of living space over garages.
  4. The bulk in character of the proposed building is 2 to 3 times the square feet of what exists.

Martin Kirkwood

  1. Regarding the petition signed by neighbors supporting this project, they signed the revised project and that was never submitted to the Planning Department; at least 2 to 3 people have withdrawn their names from that petition.
  2. I do support the modifications that have been made by the planner and would probably make a couple more modifications.

Ursula Arvand

  1. I'm oppose to the project because I believe that Mr. Kaneel has been deceiving the neighbors by showing different plans and having people sign petitions without giving them a copy of what they are signing.
  2. I wish that they can have more respect with privacy to their neighbors and access to sunlight.

Lu Blazej - Project Sponsor Representative

  1. We do support that you take discretionary review for the purpose of accepting a revised design.
  2. There is support for this project as you can see from the petition. Neighbors supported it and they were given plans.
  3. I don't think you should take discretionary review or make someone that has a property they are building to code or make them cut their building out more to benefit an over built property that has existing nonconforming conditions.

Drake Gardner - Project Designer

  1. I would like to focus on the revised plans that we submitted and the details.
  2. We met with the neighbors and proposed this project and approximately 20 people attended. By the end of the meeting they were willing to approve this revised plan and signed a petition.
  3. Ian seemed to think that it was okay. He was asking for was a shadow study and we indicated a willingness to do.
  4. We have done everything we could to cooperate with the group.
  5. We are willing to reduce the depth 15 feet.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with a two foot height reduction and a 20 foot depth reduction from the original proposal.

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

ABSENT: Antonini

17. 2006.0218D (C. JAROSLAWSKY (415) 558-6348)

33 FARNUM STREET- east side between Addition and Moffitt Streets; Lot 004 in Assessor's Block 7545 - Staff Initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.21.3491, to expand the first level at rear and add a third level onto a single-family structure 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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 27, 2006

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

18. 2006.0384B (Tape IIIB) (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306 & P. ARCE: (415) 749-2416)

409 & 499 ILLINOIS STREET, AKA 201 SIXTEENTH STREET - southeast corner, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3940 (aka Mission Bay South Block X-4) - Request for design approval and project authorization to construct a six-story, 90-foot tall building requesting 430,000 square feet of office space and also containing approximately 14,312 square feet of retail space and up to 630 off-street parking spaces. The project would occupy a now-vacant lot that was previously occupied by retail, restaurant and parking uses. The site is within the Mission Bay South Redevelopment Area, in a Commercial-Industrial-Retail Zoning District, and an HZ-5 Height District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Corinne Woods, Chairman, Mission Bay Advisory Committee

  1. The project was submitted to the Mission Bay PAC at our last meeting. We like it better than the original plan, which was an office building.
  2. It does fit within the guidelines of the Mission Bay Redevelopment Plan.
  3. We are particularly happy that they lowered the profile of the plaza to 12.5 feet from 21 feet.
  4. We would like to have them consolidate the mechanical equipment on the roof and screen it. This is a big issue for Potrero Hill residents.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Antonini

MOTION: 17223

19. 2006.0093ET (Tape IIIB; IVA; IVB) (E. FORBES: (415) 558-6417)

general advertising signs Ordinance- Board File No. 052021 - Amendments relating to the relocation of general advertising signs Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Peskin amending sections of the Administrative and Planning Codes in order to establish procedures, criteria, fees, and other requirements relating to the relocation of general advertising signs.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 23, 2006)

SPEAKERS

John Becker – President, Teamsters Local 853

- Behind me are my brothers at Clear Channel and CBS Outdoor, Local 853, Labors Local 261 and 304, and The Saint Peter Local 150.

- We support the proposed proposition G with the amendments before you.

- In order to protect union jobs and worker's safety, the Teamsters request that the following previsions be included in the legislation:

a) Assure that non-compliant structures that are completely removed cannot be replaced to prevent non-union companies/landlords from taking over union operated signs.

b) Allow for corrections to signs that have minor deviations from their permits.

c) The routine maintenance on signs be allowed to protect worker's safety.

Jared Eigerman, Reuben and Junius - representing Clear Channel Outdoor

  1. There are nine items in the staff report. Eight of them are fine.
  2. What we are asking for tonight are additional amendments. You heard staff ask for policy guidance, and that is what we need.
  3. The case-by-case basis that has ruled these years is not working. It is chaotic and there needs to be clear rules.
  4. The only objection to the staff issues is the fee of $560 for each sign. Instead, we think the focus should be on the amendments to deal with rules and codes.
  5. I will be submitting comments in writing to go section by section.

Michael Colbruno, Clear Channel Outdoor

- What you are looking at tonight are very important options to protect working people.

  1. Companies do not want to be able to fix and repair signs.
  2. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to put working people up on signs that are unsafe.
  3. You have heard a couple of proposals put forth before you to allow signs to go back to their originally permitted dimensions.
  4. I think that under the current proposed legislation probably there would be 100 signs to be removed out of the City and I would like the legal non-conforming signs to stay up for people to have a job in this town.

Dee Dee Workman, San Francisco Beautiful

  1. We helped craft this ordinance and it has taken four years to finally get to you.
  2. The legislation includes three important components:
  3. All sign companies must submit complete inventories.
  4. No Billboard relocation can take place until these inventories have been verified and the signs can only be relocated if the relocation meets specific criteria.
  5. In addition, the ordinance ensures that billboard companies cannot do business with the City if they own illegal signs.
  6. We do defer from Planning staff on one item in the report and that is the recommendation that the Board of Appeals hear appeals related to the penalties that are incurred when the billboard companies do not submit their complete inventories.
  7. With all do respect, we have found that the Board of Appeals have sometimes approved billboards related to appeals even if they do not conform to the Planning Code simply because they like the billboard.
  8. We recommend that an administrative law judge be appointed to hear those appeals instead.

Bill Hopper, President of Clear Channel Outdoor

  1. Our industry has changed technologically over the years like most companies and industries in the Bay Area.
  2. We have standardized our signs to be more uniform with national standards.
  3. We have blueprints that we believe prove that they are allowed to be the dimensions that they are, yet the face of the application may not be consistent with it.
  4. We have provided staff with that documentation and we believe that a certain amount of grandfathering needs to take place.
  5. Worker's safety is very important.
  6. I urge you to support the amendments before you and get good policies in place to control those designs.

Anthony Leonis. CBS Outdoor

  1. We do not oppose the staff report other than on the issue of fees. As spelled out, they are a bit too high.
  2. However, I want to emphasize one important point in the legislation and that is the replacement of completely removed nonconforming sign structures.
  3. This legislation does not address permit ownership. What it does address is a nonconforming sign structure and once that sign structure is removed, it cannot be replaced.
  4. It is actually codified currently in section 6.48 of the Planning Code, which provides that nonconforming signs may not be replaced, altered, reconstructed, relocated, intensified or expanded in an area or any dimension.
  5. Therefore this legislation would only be confirming the existing law.

Patricia Vaughey

  1. There is no protection of the small business owner from the big corporation and small property owners are not being protected by this legislation.
  2. I am appalled at Aaron Peskin's Office, that the small people are not being protected by this legislation.
  3. Small property owners did not have enough time because I asked repeatedly from them to be heard by Supervisor Peskin and they were never heard.
  4. You should make some points that they got to be some protections for threats; figure out a way to protect those people and this does not do it.

Mark Mosher, Clear Channel Outdoors

  1. We have worked with Patricia Vaughey in the past and have great respect for her. But, I think the legislation does address the particular points she references.
  2. If you are going to relocate a sing under this legislation, you need to get written permission from the existing property owner.
  3. You need to make it clear that if a sign is taken down and is a nonconforming use, people cannot put it back up.
  4. You need to make provisions for signs to be maintained and kept up so they do not hurt people.
  5. Charge reasonable fees

Debra Stein

  1. I want to just reinforce, or ensure that the language retains the definition that the general advertising sing company does not have to be this huge multinational corporation.
  2. It in fact can be a small property owner who owns the structure itself.
  3. I have to say that we feel the interests of the small property owners are being adequately protected.
  4. This legislation does not allow a hostage situation to be created where a corporation could unilaterally eliminate property owner's rights for signs unless the property owner agrees to below market rates on the renewal. The legislation does require consent.
  5. This simply preserves an even playing field when it comes time to renegotiate the terms.

Mark Pope

  1. I like the new fee structure. It seems to be appropriate to place the fee on the number of signs primarily.
  2. What happens to historic signs that are basically antiques that just happen to still be on buildings? Is it going to be preserved?
  3. The second issue regarding historic properties is that I read somewhere in this long document that you are automatically discouraging sings on historic properties.
  4. My concern is that when signs are moved from historic properties would that eliminate the one thing that keeps it from being torn down?

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Index the fees and hold a separate hearing to decide the criteria for the legality.

-Include maintenance language for mechanical and structural integrity.

-Concurrently accept the relocation and CU application at the same time.

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

ABSENT: Antonini and Olague

MOTION: 17224

(J. Ionin: (415) 558-6309)

20. Dwelling Unit Merger Policy - Mandatory Discretionary Review Policy for Dwelling Unit Mergers. Planning Department presentation of new guidelines, policy objectives, and implementation alternatives for Planning Commission consideration.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 26, 2006)

NOTE: On January 26, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter, by a vote +5 –0. Commissioner Hughes and Lee were absent. Public hearing remains open to address any new information presented.

SPEAKERS

Patricia Vaughey

  1. I support the continuance of items 19 and 20 mainly because of the senior citizens. Many of them were too tired to stay much longer.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to May 3, 2006.

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

H. PUBLIC COMMENT

At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting with one exception. When the agenda item has already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the Commission has closed the public hearing, your opportunity to address the Commission must be exercised during the Public Comment portion of the Calendar. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

The Brown Act forbids a commission from taking action or discussing any item not appearing on the posted agenda, including those items raised at public comment. In response to public comment, the commission is limited to:

(1) responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public; or

(2) requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting; or

(3) directing staff to place the item on a future agenda. (Government Code Section 54954.2(a))

SPEAKERS: None

Adjournment: 10:04 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, September 6, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

ABSENT: None

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 any 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 10:00:24 PM