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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
Public Hearings 
 
May 10, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 10, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:38 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, AnMarie Rodgers, Michelle Glueckert, Edgar Oropeza, Jim Miller, Kate Conner, Michael Smith, Tina Tam, 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. 2004.1245E (R. SCHOHN: (415) 558-5985)
300 Grant Avenue
- Assessor's Block 0287, Lots 013, 014 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 10,500 square-foot project site is located at 300 Grant Avenue (aka 272-290 Sutter Street) on the northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street in the Financial District neighborhood. The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings containing approximately 35,600-square feet of retail space and construction of an approximately 114,354 gross square foot, 12-story, 130-foot tall building containing up to 56 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail space, and 34 to 40 off-street parking spaces. The retail entrance to the proposed project would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street, while the residential lobby entrance would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Harlan Place. Access to the parking garage would be from Harlan Place off Grant Avenue. The site is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail) within an 80-130-F height and bulk district, and the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Steve Atkinson

- We support continuance to June 14.

- We anticipate being ready on that date.

ACTION: Continued to June 14, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

2a. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for review under Planning Code ("Code") Section 309 of the construction of a new, 12-story mixed-use building containing approximately 56 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage, requiring the authorization of exceptions to Code standards for height above 80 feet, building bulk, rear yard, and off-street parking, as well as the granting of Variances of Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to June 14, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

2b. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in conjunction with the construction of a new, 12-story mixed-use building containing approximately 56 dwelling

units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 3, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 2a

ACTION: Continued to June 14, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

3a. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for review by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 309 of a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor) requiring exceptions to Planning Code standards for freight loading and building bulk, in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office – Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to May 24, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

3b. 2006.0616BEKX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

120 HOWARD STREET - northwest corner at Spear Street, Lot 019 in Assessor's Block 3717 - Request for allocation of office space by the Planning Commission under Planning Code Section 321 in conjunction with a four-story addition to an existing eight-story building (with a partial ninth floor). This project requires the allocation of approximately 67,310 square feet of office space. The site is in C-3-O (Downtown Office) and C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office – Special Development) Districts and a 200-S Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 5, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to May 24, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

4. 2006.0070ET (C. NIKITAS: (415) 558-6306)

CONTROLS FOR LOSS OF DWELLING UNITS - a proposed ordinance amending the Planning Code, adding Section 317, requiring a Planning Commission hearing for any project that would eliminate existing legal dwelling and live-work units through mergers, conversions, or demolitions, and making environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. On November 2, 2006, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 17334, an intent to initiate a Planning Code amendment stipulating mandatory discretionary review of or Conditional Use for all residential merger, conversion, demolition and replacement building permit applications.

(Continued indefinitely on January 11, 2007, and re-advertised for this date)

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt Resolution recommending adoption of the proposed amendment.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

5. 2005.0351E (V. WISE: (415) 558-5955)

700 VALENCIA STREET - Lot 001 of Assessor's Block 3588, bounded by Valencia, 19th, Lapidge and 18th Streets - Appeal of Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project would include demolition of an existing building and construction of a five-story, 50-foot-tall mixed-use building totaling approximately 22,662 square feet. The building would include nine dwelling units, nine parking spaces and one commercial unit. Vehicular access to the garage would be via 18th Street. Access to the commercial unit would be at the corner of Valencia and 18th Street and along Valencia Street. The project site in the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial zoning district and is within a 50-X height and bulk district. The project site is in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area and is subject to the Housing/Mixed Use Guidelines.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Julie Ledbetter

  1. We would rather keep this project on hold until the Mission Neighborhood Plan is in place.
  2. If it is going to be continued, we request either June 7 or 14.

Baptist

  1. Project has being continued several times already.
  2. Requested continuance to May 17.

- All paperwork was submitted last week.

John O'Connor, Project Sponsor

- We were prepared to go forward today.

  1. Requested either May 17 or 24 for continuance.
  2. I will not be available in June.

Shawn K.

  1. The process for this project started in 2004.

- It was under Environmental Impact Review for a long time, which was published late in December 2006.

  1. Delays are causing hardships with possible higher unit costs.

Sue Hestor, Discretionary Review Requestor Representative

  1. Neighbors want to meet with developers to mediate concerns.
  2. Requested a continuance to June.
  3. When staff called for continuance, the project sponsor did not request any specific date.

ACTION: Continued to May 17, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

6. 2007.0297D (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

700 Valencia Street - southwest corner of Valencia Street and 18th Street, Lot 001 in Assessor's Block 3588 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.04.14.0087 proposing to construct a new 50-foot tall structure where a small car sales structure currently sits. The new structure would contain nine dwelling units, nine off-street parking spaces and approximately 1,700 square feet of ground floor retail. The property is within the Valencia Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 5

ACTION: Continued to May 17, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

7. 2006.1182Q (D. DIBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

420-428 Vallejo Street - north side between Kearny and Montgomery Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 0133 - Public hearing, under Article 9 of the Subdivision Code, to determine consistency of a proposed five-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

Addendum Item

2006.0074TZ (J. Lau: (415) 558-6383)

Initiation of Planning Code Amendments Establishing PDR Zoning Districts and Initiation of Zoning Map Amendments Applying these Designations to Certain Industrial Portions of Bayview Hunters Point - The Department is proposing a set of Code amendments to establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer District) and a PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair District) in the Planning Code. These zones will permit a wide variety of non-residential uses and will retain space for current and future light industrial activities. The Department is also proposing Zoning Map amendments that would apply these PDR Districts, and a South Basin Design and Development Special Use District, to certain industrial areas in Bayview Hunters Point currently zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) and M-2 (Heavy Industrial). These amendments would implement various objectives from the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, which seeks to retain space for jobs and light industrial activities and to reduce land use conflicts between housing and industry in the Bayview.

A) Informational Item. Staff will respond to Commissioner questions from the informational hearing held on January 18, 2007 and provide clarifying information.

Preliminary Recommendation: Hold hearing on informational item.

B) 2006.0074T – Initiation of a Planning Code Text Amendment. Consideration of a resolution of intent to initiate an amendment to the Planning Code, including revisions to Sections 121.5, 121.7, 204.3-204.4, 210, 210.6, 210.7, 210.8, 210.9, 213-227, 230, and 249.32. The amendment would establish a PDR-1 Use District (Light Industrial Buffer), a PDR-2 Use District (Production, Distribution, and Repair), and a South Basin Design and Development Special Use District (South Basin SUD), and establish regulations on subdivisions, accessory uses, and the demolition of industrial structures in these districts.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution of intent to initiate the Planning Code amendment.

C) 2006.0074Z – Initiation of a Zoning Map Amendment. Consideration of a resolution of intent to initiate a Zoning Map amendment consisting of revisions to Sectional Maps 8, 9, 10, and 10 SU of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco. This amendment would: 1) reclassify the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Barneveld Avenue, McKinnon Avenue, Evans Avenue, and Third Street from M-2 to PDR-2; 2) reclassify the area generally bounded by Loomis Street, the I-280 Freeway, Oakdale Avenue, and the Caltrain right-of-way from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair); 3) reclassify much of the South Basin District, generally bounded by Bayshore Boulevard, Paul Avenue, Egbert Yosemite Slough, the Hunters Point Shipyard, Thomas Avenue, and Williams Avenue Avenue, from M-1 to PDR-2; 4) establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer) designation over the northern and southern edges of the South Basin District, on the east side of Third Street, roughly along Fitzgerald, Van Dyke, Underwood, and Thomas Avenues – on properties currently zoned M-1; and 5) apply the South Basin SUD (South Basin Design and Development Special Use District) to the area generally bounded by Paul Avenue, Bayshore Boulevard, Phelps Street, Williams Avenue, and Third Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution of intent to initiate the Zoning Map amendment.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to May 17, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

8. Consideration of Adoption –

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 1, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of March 29, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of April 5, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of April 6, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

9. Commission Comments/Questions (Tape IA)

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

Commissioner W. Lee

- I had the opportunity to meet with one of the Housing Authority Commissioners.

- I was able to get a copy of the Housing Authority background history and I think it is applicable to housing we have in the city.

- I would like all commissioners to have a copy of it because the information could be helpful.

Commissioner Antonini

- I received some State Legislation that was passed in 2005 - Senate bill 1880 from Holland Wards.

- It basically says that if a project sponsor is asked to provide a higher level of affordability, under the State Law, the local jurisdiction must give height bonus density

- My question is how we are handling this situation?

- If we are providing bonuses something should be given in return.

- Asked the City Attorney for an interpretation on this law.

Commissioner Moore

- I would like to bring to the attention of the Commission and article about Mission Bay - Rule by Design.

- Encouraged everybody to read the article and engage in a conversation to work closely with the Department to answer challenges proposed by this article.

- As we enter the Eastern Neighborhood Plan, I would like to educate myself on issues surrounding housing design.

- I would like to have a presentation from AIA - local architects to look at current planning code implications on providing infrastructure housing and how to make them more affordable to build.

- Another way is to show examples of mixed-use development in the bay region that integrates design solutions to make contributions to the public realm.

- To show how below market-rate units are integrated into the design.

- How economics work in projects providing affordable units without relying on market-rate and inclusionary housing.

- APA is sponsoring Great Places in America and I would like San Francisco's Octavia Boulevard to be included.

- In a private citizen role, I would like to get background on Octavia Boulevard. Who initiated the project? I'd like to put the package together and submit it.

Commissioner Alexander

- Presentation through AIA would be important.

- We should schedule it on a fifth Thursday to not interrupt our regular hearings.

Commissioner Antonini

- I agree, it would be an interesting presentation.

Commissioner Olague

- I just want to remind you to calendar a discussion of our Rules and Regulations to revamp our system and policies.

Commissioner Alexander

- It is scheduled for May 24.

Commissioner S. Lee

- I would like to request a report to this Commission about a consultant hired last year to help with internal process.

- I would be very interesting to find out how we are doing; to compare our operations to other places.

Commissioner Alexander

- I think it is very important to have a report from that consultant, especially now that we are in the process of next year's budget.

Commissioner Sugaya

- Asked staff to give us an update on Transbay Authority's Transbay Terminal and our own Department's RFP.

- I was reading in Urban Land an issue that was devoted to Chicago.

- There was a short article about employee-assisted housing.

- I would like to know if that program exists in San Francisco. Maybe the Major's Office of Housing could send us information about that.

- Regarding Commissioner Moore's request for an AIA presentation, it would be helpful to have at least one architect from San Diego.

  1. Discussion of the allocation of a $28,000.000 potential surplus for next year's budget.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We understand that the Board of Supervisors allocated this amount to the Mayor's Office of Housing for acquisition/rehabilitation of affordable housing for families, seniors, disables and youth.

- Legislation is before the Mayor and he has not made a decision whether or not to sign it.

Commissioner Antonini

- I would encourage the Mayor to veto this measure.

- First, because when there is extra money it is wise to reserve it.

- Second, issues like this should have come through the Commission for commentaries.

- Third, the City has a responsibility to care for certain things like streets and parks - unlike housing, which is a shared and many people are part of it.

Commissioner Olague

- Where is this money going?

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- We have a list that says:

- $28,000,000 to Mayor's Office of Housing for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation for affordable family housing, housing for seniors and persons with disabilities, persons exiting the system of care.

- $5,000,000 for repair services on public housing developments.

- $2,500,000 for real ownership opportunities for tenant's projects.

- $ 550,000 Major's Office of Community Development for acquisition of specific sites on the Mission-Dolores area.

Commisioner Olague

- It is an honest way to use this money.

- If we want to keep families in the city, we have to think of ways to do so.

- I hope the Mayor does not veto it.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I think the Mayor's Office of Housing would be able to deliver and combined with some other funding.

- Housing is very important for the City as well as streets and parks.

- Fundamental problem in California is that every community is short of money because of Proposition 13.

Commissioner Alexander

- I would urge the Mayor and our own department to allocate money for trainings on Fair Housing Law.

SPEAKERS

Espanola Jackson

- I brought invitations to the Commissioners for our 3rd year Anniversary - Executive Park on Saturday May 19th.

- You have talked about affordable housing and people leaving the city.

- In the Southern area of the City, townhouses would be built and the sell price would be between $400,000 and 700,000.

- These are very good prices.

- Invited the Commission to come and visit the Hunter's Point.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Tape IA; IB)

11. Director's Announcements None

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

AnMarie Rodgers of Department staff reported:

Board of Supervisors

- Ordinance amending Planning Code section 316 to be more consistent with current procedures on consent calendar. Approved.

- Two interim measure addressing single room occupancy developments in Western SOMA.

A)- An urgency ordinance approving an interim moratorium on the Service Light Industry zone [SLI] for 45 days. After expiration, it could be extended for 22 months.

B)- Interim Controls would establish a requirement of a conditional use authorization for these developments for an 18-months period. After expiration, it could be extended for six months.

Interims were introduced by Supervisor Daly intended to give the Western SOMA Citizen Task Force time to consider and possibly recommend permanent controls for this area.

- Introduction to look at Spear's Emergency Response Report. There would be a hearing at the Government Oversight Committee.

- Introduction by Supervisor McGoldrick requesting an extension of the Planning Department review period on inclusionary ordinance from 5 to 2 units. Adopted.

- Supervisor Allioto-Pier introduced a zoning change to modify the definition of liquor stores to remove prohibition on grocery stores and similar uses.

- Supervisor Daly introduced a change to the inclusionary housing program - new alternative to satisfy existing requirements. It would allow project sponsors to pay an in-lieu fee to a qualified non-profit entity that would acquire and rehabilitate units as permanently affordable rental housing if the number of resulting units would be 25-percent higher than the non-providing existing offsite alternative

Responding to Commissioner Sugaya's request about appeals filed on the Market Octavia Project:

- There were three appeals for inadequate review of CEQA filed by Joe Buttler, Marc Hamilton and Mary Miles.

- Reasons include process and timing to review documents was inadequate; historic preservation survey is not completed; and regarding the University of California-Berkeley site.

- It would be heard at the Board of Supervisor on May 22, 2007.

Land Use and Economic Committee

- Resolution endorsing a conceptual framework for the redevelopment of Candlestick Point and Hunter's Point Shipyard. Hearing Only.

- Hearing on the status of the Eastern Neighborhood Plan. Informational only.

Board of Budget and Finance Committee

- Historic property contract for 1080 Hayes Street allowing property tax reduction for qualifying property owners who agree to rehabilitate and preserve their property. Passed to the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator, reported

Board of Appeals

- 662 12th Avenue proposal to do a rear addition. Approved with a revised proposal.

- 145 Steelman Street billboard adjacent to I-80 freeway. Appeal Withdrawn.

- 2055 Green Street Discretionary Review – Upheld the permit and instructed that latticework would be constructed to increase privacy.

- 943 Church Street – Neither this Commission nor the Board of Appeals took Discretionary Review or Action in the past and Project Sponsor was able to add a rooftop without notification to neighborhood, according to code and policies.

There were a lot of concerns from the Commissioners about this case.

President Alexander instructed that 943 Church Street be schedule for discussion on May 31, 2007.

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

Patricia Vaughey

- Octavia-Market Boulevard group started from Hayes Valley.

- I could give some more information and names to Commissioner Moore about Octavia Boulevard.

- I lost an appeal at the Board. The case was about eight nail parlors in one block on Chestnut Street.

- There is no way to appeal it and say that it is not in their purview.

- This Department must follow over saturation measures to preserve existing businesses and jobs.

- We need to pass some rules and codes to clarify these policies.

- For the Affordable Housing Element, you have to consider architecture within the context of existing neighborhoods.

Ann Walker

- I am here to speak about 943 Church Street.

- We went to the Board of Appeals and they set a height limit.

- There is a misalignment with what was agreed to because it is above the height limit.

- I am requesting that you direct your staff to reconsider the action on the permit, suspend it, and disapprove the rooftop deck.

William

- My comment is regarding the 943 Church Street railing and stairway.

- We had a great deal of concern about the height of this project when it was presented to the Commission.

- We hired lawyers, an architect and engineer and met with developers many times. We lost.

- It is fundamentally unfair after a long process to come back to this Department and try to get things that were not approved before.

Mr. P.R. Howard

- The neighborhood East of Potrero Avenue was eliminated from Eastern Neighborhood Plan – Mission District and put into the Potrero Plan.

- Requested the line be redrawn East of Highway 101 instead of Potrero Avenue.

- Our neighborhood is part of the Mission, not Potrero Avenue or Bayshore Boulevard.

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.

None

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

President Alexander re-opened the Public Hearing on item 13.

13. 2006.0734C (Tape IB; IIA) (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

3192 16th Street - north side between Guerrero and Valencia - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 726.48 and 790.38 for Other Entertainment within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial District and within a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The existing bar use, d.b.a.  Double Dutch , formerly known as  Cama , will not change. The new owner is seeking authorization for recorded amplified music and a DJ. Hours of operation will remain 5pm to 2am. No physical expansion or increase in exterior dimensions of the existing building is proposed.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007)

Note: On January 11, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission closed the public hearing and continued this matter to 4/12/07 and required the project sponsor to do a sound study. The public hearing will be reopened if new material/information is put before the Commission for consideration.

NOTE: On April 12, 2007, without a hearing the matter was continued to 5/10/07.

SPEAKERS

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. A Disc Jockey [D.J] permit would control the level of music.
  2. Dancing tends to not encourage consuming alcoholic beverages.

- Noise does not come necessarily from this venue but from people partying in the neighborhood.

- This area has been an entertainment district for a long time and people living there know about it.

  1. This organization has done what this Commission asked them to do.

- Hired a sound engineer who has cleared the use of patio and has worked very diligently to address the noise.

- Calls to the Police Department were regarding the address and they did not find cause to cite.

- Most often calls to the authorities are made because of people making noise on the street.

John Wood

  1. The culture of entertainment requires a DJ nowadays.
  2. Granting an entertainment permit brings extra protection and control of the sound system.

Rob Bailey

- Having a Disc Jockey does not necessarily result in an increase in the volume at all. Rather, it can potentially improve the quality of clientele coming to the venues.

- The environment of San Francisco with minimum wage and house care rules is making it more difficult to operate venues in the city.

Gene

  1. I live above the back area and the level of noise does not disturb me.
  2. My concern is that existing level of noise be maintained.
  3. Requested that the back area be out of bounds.

Nate Valentino

- Granting an entertainment license would enable us to create an additional 24 shifts a week.

- The only difference that would create is to provide additional jobs and security of our business.

Darin Brunson, Owner

  1. I would like to stay in the neighborhood and maintain my integrity.
  2. I have never received a complaint about noise.

- We keep doors closed and post signs asking our patrons to be considerate of our neighbors and keep sound to a minimum.

  1. We do not serve to intoxicated people.
  2. We have made mistakes in the past and we are trying to do our best to rectify them.

Eli Spear

  1. I am here in support of this permit.
  2. The Mission is a very diverse community and one of its components is music.
  3. It is another way to demonstrate art in the city.

Che Hashim

  1. Allowing the entertainment permit would increase value and culture to the Mission District.

Antoine Ruben, DJ

  1. I'm in support of the permit.
  2. Double Dutch is very professional with how it treats its employees and neighbors.

Nat Morse, D.J.

- There are many risks involved when pursuing a Disc Jockey career. It could be very unstable economically.

- This is my livelihood and Double Dutch has provided me with the opportunity to do it on a consistent basis. They are reliable and professional.

Alexander Stricker

  1. I have worked in the Mission District for a long time.

- Double Dutch has been a community center for younger generations to meet and not necessarily to get drunk.

  1. I would like to invite the Commissioners to visit the neighborhood on a weekend

Vincent Sol, DJ

  1. There are fewer venues in San Francisco supporting local artists.

- Taking away one of those venues is very detrimental to the community we are building in San Francisco.

Shanda Hunt

  1. The owners are really good people.
  2. They made mistakes and are working really hard on the Commission's requests.
  3. They bring something larger to the community. They do a lot of charity work.

Rafi Mamalian, The Onion Newspaper and San Francisco Weekly Guardian

  1. We have done work with Double Dutch and they are very reliable.
  2. The Media supports them and we would like the permit to be approved.

Patricia Vaughey

- The owner of this establishment has two other businesses in the Chestnut Street corridor.

  1. They have been able to control noise and we have not had problems with them.

B. Huston

- I'm a business owner on 17th and Harrison Streets supporting Double Dutch and the community.

David

- I had the opportunity to work with Double Dutch supporting various student organizations at University of San Francisco - Law School.

  1. Double Dutch is a meeting point for artists and young professionals.

Ricardo

  1. Supporting Double Dutch.

- Diversity in existing places is very important for my clients visiting the Mission from all over this county.

- Having a Disc Jockey is part of an international culture and could have an impact in the success or downfall of a business in an entertainment district.

Doug

  1. I support Double Dutch for being a great asset to the community on Geary Boulevard.

Karly

  1. Owner has put his heart and soul into the Neighborhood and the Community.
  2. Their way of going beyond in their business is absolutely incredible and welcoming.

ACTION: Passed a Motion of Intent to approve as amended with final action on May 31, 2007:

-Required a 6 and 12 months review/report to the Director of Planning who will report to the Commission.

-There is to be no use of the backyard area.

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

G. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

Item 14 was taken off the Consent Calendar and heard as part of the Regular Calendar

14. 2007.0084D (Tape IIA; IIB) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

75 FOLSOM STREET - south side between Spear and Steuart Streets; Lots 021, 022 & 023 (units no. 905, 906 & 907) in Assessor's Block 3744,  Hill Plaza - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, for Building Permit Application no. 2007.0116.1750. The merger would reduce the number of legal dwelling units from 67 to 65. The property is located within the RH-DTR (Rincon Hill Residential Mixed Use) District and an 80 / 200-R Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. There are very few family size units of this portion in the City.
  2. This project provides the ability for them to stay together and function as a family.

- The Homeowner Association raised issues that are related to semantics about different language between  CC&R and the dwelling unit merger policy

  1. This project is not in conflict with your policies.
  2. The staff report has been well drafted and I hope the project will be approved.

Reed Bement, Member of Hill Plaza Residential Owner's Association Board

- There is a disconnection between what the applicant wants to do and what the notices imply.

  1. Requested that the Commission not act on this matter until the  CC&R issue has been resolved.

- The Association Board had no notice of the applicant's intention to merge unit 905 until notice appear in the lobby of the building.

  1. It has never been done before and we think it is inappropriate.

- She has no authority to request consolidation of those units because the Association owns the demising walls.

ACTION: Public Hearing Closed and Continued to May 31, 2007. Commissioner Bill Lee asked the Zoning Administrator to check with DBI and find out why they approved the prior merger.

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

NAYES: Antonini

  • H.REGULAR CALENDAR

15. 2007.0256C (Tape IIB) (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1800 POLK STREET - northeast corner at Washington Street, Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0597 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to add live entertainment to an existing retail coffee store (dba  It's A Grind ) of approximately 1,900 square feet in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. The live entertainment will consist of book and poetry readings, magic acts, musical performances, etc. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17425

16. 2006.0766EX (Tape IIB) (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

345 STOCKTON STREET - west side between Post and Sutter Streets, Lot 16 in Assessor's Block 295, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) Zoning District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Review under Planning Code Section 309 of the renovation of an existing building (Grand Hyatt Hotel) involving a reconfiguration of the lobby and outdoor public plaza area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jim Ruben, Project Sponsor

  1. Two issues on last week were money and design.

- On the design issue we would be okay to use bricks or stone.

  1. We prefer to use grass and we are available to talk about other surfaces.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

Requiring the re-use and new brick to match the existent brick.

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

MOTION: 17426

17a. 2005.1062BV (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

650 TOWNSEND STREET - north side of Townsend Street between 7th Street and 8th Street, Lot 009 in Assessor's Block 3783 - Request for office allocation pursuant to Planning Code Section 321 to authorize 375,151 square feet of office space. The proposal is to convert approximately 269,680 square feet of business service and approximately 105,471 square feet of exhibition space to office space within the existing building. The existing 269,680 square feet of office space and 30,730 square feet of retail space would remain. No new construction is proposed. The project site is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, and 65-X/100-X Height & Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Harry O'Brien, Project Sponsor Representative

- We agreed for a four-week continuance with Supervisor Maxwell's Office.

- If it is possible, it should be continued to June 7.

Katherine Higgins, Supervisor Maxwell's Office

- All parties agreed to a four-weeks continuance [June 7th]

- We have met and Supervisor Maxwell's Office has facilitated those meetings.

- We are close to reaching an agreement on this project.

Tony Kelly

- Agreed to a continuance to June 7th

- We know what the concern is and we want to bring it to the Commission without a drama.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 7, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

17b. 2005.1062BV (M. GLUECKERT (415) 558-6543)

650 TOWNSEND STREET - north side of Townsend Street between 7th and 8th Streets, Lot 009 in Assessors Block 3783 - Off-Street Parking Variance Sought - The building would contain 644,831 square feet of office space and 30,730 square feet of retail space. The proposed use would require a total of 1,373 parking spaces on the site. Currently, the site provides up to 971 parking spaces, via on-site parking and through the use of a valet parking system. A variance is required for the parking deficit of 402 spaces. The project site is within an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District, and 65-X/100-X Height & Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 17a

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to June 7, 2007

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

18. 2006.1340D (Tape IIB) (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

2219 BRYANT STREET - east side between 20th and 21st Streets, Assessor's Block 4087, Lot 037 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.25.9790, proposing a vertical addition to an existing two-story single-family dwelling, adding one dwelling unit and one additional off-street parking space, located in a RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 19, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Indelisa, Discretionary Review Requestor

- This project is going to block sunlight on the second floor, especially in my daughter's bedroom.

Jesse Gongora

  1. Main concern is blockage of sunlight and air.
  2. Shared photos.

Caridad

  1. I live next door of the project and sunlight would be blocked.
  2. Being a senior, it is hard to move around with little light.

David Silverman, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. We are in full support and agreement with staff's recommendation.
  2. The requestor and supporting parties have a three-story house.
  3. The addition is entirely consistent with neighborhood character.
  4. My client is including large light wells on the second floor to mediate the sunlight issue.
  5. There are no grounds for the discretionary review request.

Darling

  1. I live next door to the proposed building.

- I had two strokes and suffer from debilitating migraines. Noise would affect me in a negative way.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as modified:

-Set back 3-feet on each side to match light wells.

-Require architectural articulation on the second floor front façade. Do not duplicate or leave flat.

-Simplify the garage treatment.

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

19. 2007.0192D (Tape IIB) (M.GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

1933 MISSION STREET - east side of Mission Street between 15th Street and 16th Street, Lot 023 in Assessor's Block 3553 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of building Permit Application No. 2007.02.06.3532 to maintain operation of an existing Medical Cannabis Dispensary (d.b.a.  Patients and Caregivers ). The subject building is a four-story building with ten residential units and one commercial space on the ground floor within a NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and an 80-B Height & Bulk District. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed.

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

SPEAKERS

Unidentified

- The dispensary has been in the area since 1998 and has been a great asset for the community.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved

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

20. 2007.0125D (Tape IIB; IIIA) (K.CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

270 OCEAN AVENUE - north side between Meda Avenue and Delano Avenue; Lot 010A in Assessor's Block 3211 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.07.18.6852, proposing construction of a new four-story six-unit residential building on a vacant lot in a NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial Cluster) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 26, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Robert Buchbinder, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Most neighbors disapprove of this project. This map shows who supports it and who does not.
  2. Six units would impact the existing parking congestion.
  3. Sunlight and air would be blocked as well.
  4. The City's plan is to maximize housing keep the character of the neighborhood. This project is out of character.

Maureen and David Costello

- We are opposed to a four-story building on Ocean Avenue to stand between two-story six-unit buildings.

  1. The quality of life for adjacent tenants is going to change drastically by blocking their sunlight.

- Take discretionary review to modify the design plans and consider the character of other properties in the immediate area.

Carmella della Santina

  1. Presented a petition from 29 neighbors unable to attend – all opposing this proposal.
  2. The project is going to invade our privacy and block sunlight.

David Hooper

  1. Objected to the fourth floor of this plan.
  2. This building is in the middle of the block and out of context.

Alfonso Vijil

  1. The proposed building would block sunlight, privacy and view.
  2. The size would impact every resident in the area.
  3. Modify it to a three-story building. Make it the model of the neighborhood.

Lynn Pearson

  1. We would loose privacy, sunlight, air and parking.

- It would be larger than a four-story building because of the stairwell box on top of the roof.

Jerry, Project Sponsor

- We need good housing in the neighborhood and throughout the city. This project provides six dwelling units for families.

  1. We are including light wells to mediate shadows.
  2. No one is going to be displaced because of this construction.

- It would cover 75 percent of the lot; provide six units and six parking spaces - all conforming to the Planning Code.

- We met with the Neighborhood Association and eight members out of 22 voted against this project.

  1. We have worked with Supervisor Sandoval's Office to mediate concerns.
  2. The project has been modified and Supervisor Sandoval supports it.

David Stungburg

  1. We have worked hard with everybody involved to come up with the proposed project.

- Modifications have been made to accommodate requests.

Jeremy Paul

  1. Jerry built a house two doors from my house and he has done a great job there.
  2. Project complies with guidelines and it should be approved.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as modified:

Remove front stair penthouse, parapet and require a rear setback.

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

21. 2007.0041DD (Tape IIIA) (K. DURANDET: (415) 575-6816)

1369 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 9th and 10th and Streets; Lot 068 in Assessor's Block 3519 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.1025.6052, proposing to convert an existing ground floor commercial dance studio in an existing three-story two-family dwelling over commercial space. The project is in a SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application with conditions.

SPEAKERS

Damian Ochoa, First Discretionary Review Requestor

- I have come to an agreement with the Project Sponsor.

- I ask that you take DR and approve based on that agreement. [Staff read the agreement into the record.]

Jeremy Paul, Project Sponsor Representative

- We agreed with conditions and revisions requested by 1st discretionary review requestor.

  1. The other requestor has not been willing to work with us.
  2. I hope we will be able to finalize this project next week.

ACTION: First Requestor: The Commission passed a motion of intent to take Discretionary Review and approve imposing the conditions agreed on by the Requestor and Project Sponsor. Final action will be considered on 5/17/07.

Second Requestor: Continued to May 17, 2007.

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

22. 2006.0949DDDDDDD (Tape IIIA; IIIB; IVA) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

376 EUREKA SREET - west side between 20th and 21st Streets, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 2749 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.30.1650, proposing to raise the building two-feet to construct a ground floor garage and construct a two-story horizontal addition at the rear, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Joseph Butler, Discretionary Review Requestor Representative

  1. We modeled five adjacent parcels to show the shading impacts.

- The Cottage was built on an up sloping lot in a block that is characterized by shorter houses.

- We took the model to a Pacific Gas & Electricity Center to perform shade studies on an earlier scheme proposed.

  1. With this project, shadows would be higher and deeper in the adjacent properties.

- Three-dimensional drawings and models were not provided before today; we did our own model and drawings to show the impact of this project.

  1. The Categorical Exception was not done until two weeks ago.

Jeffrey Levine

  1. I am an adjacent neighbor to the North of the proposed project.
  2. Proposed addition would block sunlight in the morning for the entire year.

Priscilla Botsford

- I am an adjacent neighbor to the South of the proposed project.

  1. Neighbors have tried to compromise with the sponsor.

- What we are asking is a reduction of 12 feet on the second floor. That would help significantly to minimize the impact.

Roger Jeanson

  1. Opposed to the project.
  2. This project would significantly block sunlight on adjacent neighbors.
  3. It would have an impact on the middle block open and green space.

- If approved, it would become a new standard in the neighborhood.

Leslie Terriaznmarkofe

  1. Property owner two lots to the South of proposed project.
  2. I am concerned with the impact on the open space for depth and height.
  3. Submitted a petition from neighbors to take discretionary review.

David Leash

  1. Property owner on the uphill to the West of the proposed development.

- We are very concerned that changes to the environment should be compatible to the area.

  1. Some changes have been made per staff's request. It is still a big construction.
  2. Requested the Commission to preserve the height limit on Eureka Street to 55 feet.

Rochelle Gottlieb

  1. It is very important for the urban area to have open and green space.
  2. Developers should listen to community concerns and compromise.

Judith Hoyem

  1. Project is too high and deep.

- Project Sponsor could achieve the goal of a three-bedroom and two-bathroom project by expanding their cottage.

  1. Constructing a garage would destroy the integrity of the cottage.

Larry Alegre

  1. I live in the adjacent property of the proposed project.
  2. It would have a negative impact on my life by blocking sunlight at all times.
  3. We need to preserve green space in the City.

Michael Hofman

- We are very concerned with the impact to the open space that this project would have.

Sue Hestor

  1. The neighbors did the models, shadow studies and three-dimensional designs.

- Project Sponsor has two projects in different quadrants at the same time and both were filed for discretionary review.

- They activated a homeowner exception on December 9, 2004. The application says to not fill it out unless you live there.

  1. They moved in eight months later in July. They lived there for only six weeks.

- Notices went out to the neighbors for a meeting because they wanted to remodel their home.

- They moved out the next day after the neighborhood meeting. The following day they moved out from the second property they have.

Kristine, Project Sponsor

  1. We have met with neighbors trying to minimize the impact to them.
  2. Many reductions have been made to accommodate neighbor's concerns.
  3. We are preserving the cottage because of its potential historic value.
  4. The space behind is the only space available for the addition.
  5. Mid-block open space would not be negatively impacted.

- Our house would be consistent with other structures in the area and in compliance with the Residential Guidelines.

Brent McDonald, Architect

  1. Shadow study from the requestor was done at 10a.m. and 1p.m.
  2. Typically, it is done at noon and 3p.m. to show shadow impacts.
  3. Trellis structure covered with ivy is the one that produces shadows in the afternoon.
  4. The design provides a three-foot set back
  5. My clients have taken steps to address the concerns of the neighbors.
  6. There are no variances requested.

Andrew Junius

- In November, the neighbors put in writing that they were not negotiating anymore and wanted this Commission to decide.

  1. They refused to go to Community Boards.
  2. This is a code compliant project.
  3. Project Sponsor has revised and reduced the project at least two times.

Chris Baker

- There have been false accusations that we are building condominiums and that we have filed for home affidavits for many properties.

- Requestors have disclosed information about our personal lives and this process should be about the merits of the project.

Phil Mathews

  1. The proposed project is within planning code.
  2. Front set back is five feet - within the limit.
  3. Project cannot be built vertically because of the cottage being potentially historic.

Augusto Syjuco

  1. Read a letter from a neighbor supporting the proposed project but unable to attend.

Chris Wright

  1. I live in the City with my family and it is very difficult to purchase a family dwelling unit.
  2. Approve this project to keep families in the City.

- Read letters from neighbors [George Scappato and D.J. Doren, and Treid Chancellor and Michael] supporting this project but unable to attend.

Virginia Lewis

  1. As a mother, I support the project for a single family home.
  2. Read a letter from a neighbor [Evelyn] supporting this project but unable to attend.

Bethany Jackson

- I am here to support this project and to read a letter from a neighbor [Mike Burns] supporting it as well.

Kevin Clarke

  1. Former owner of the house supporting the proposed project.
  2. Addition and repairs are needed.

Ed Graziani

  1. I support the project because the addition is modest and within character of the neighborhood.
  2. Some neighbors just tried to change the project to their own will.

Motion: To take Discretionary Review and approve requiring a further rear setback of 12-feet on the second level.

AYES: Olague and Moore.

NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, S. Lee, W. Lee and Sugaya.

Motion Failed

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion, the project is approved as proposed.

23. 2006.0922I (Tape IVA; IVB) (T. Tam: (415) 558-6325)

1001 POTRERO AVENUE- east side between 22nd and 23rd Streets; Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 4151 - Public Hearing on the proposed Update to the 1987 Institutional Master Plan (IMP) for the San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center (SFGHMC). Since 1987, there have been several developments on the SFGHMC campus including but not limited to construction of two new floors for the Statewide AIDS Research Laboratory on the Pathology Building in 1990, construction of the 98,000 square-foot San Francisco Behavior Health Facility on the northern end of the campus in 1992, and the construction of the 5,500 square-foot Avon Comprehensive Breast Care Center adjacent of 22nd Street in 2004. More recently, SFGHMC proposes to construct and operate a medical helipad on the rooftop of the existing Main Hospital building and to build a new acute care hospital in compliance with California Senate Bill (SB) 1953 on the campus. SB 1953 mandates that all acute care buildings meet established seismic standards by 2013. A full IMP that reflects the proposed new acute care hospital development and its impacts will be prepared in the near future and be submitted separately from this update. This item is for receipt of public testimony only; no action is required. The property is in the P (Public) Use District and a 105-E Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 22, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Gina O'Connel, CEO of San Francisco Medical Center

  1. San Francisco Hospital has provided care to residents for over 150 years
  2. It has the only Trauma Center - Level one in the City.

- We serve over 20 percent of its capacity in the city and 85 percent receive some kind of subsidy [Medicare or Medical]

  1. We provide a third of all Medical training for the University and provide research.

- There are 639 hospital beds. 403 are for general care, 106 for psychiatry and 130 for skilled nursing.

- The Master Plan would come back to this Commission with more detail on three projects undertaken for the San Francisco General Hospital.

Kathy Young, Associate Administrator at San Francisco General Hospital

- The medical helipad would mitigate patient's care and transport vulnerability identified in the trauma system plan.

  1. The Department completed a helipad need and feasibility study in March 2003.
  2. It concluded that it is structurally feasible to put a helipad on the existing hospital.

- We filed an Environmental Impact Report in 2004. The initial study was completed in 2005.

- We are proposing to replace our steam turban generator capacity in case of an electricity power emergency.

Ron Alameda, Project Manager

- We are challenged with a schedule to accomplish in less than six years a process that normally takes ten.

  1. It has been in process since 2002.
  2. Six studies/reports have been generated including safety, hospital data, feasibility and some more.

Pete Howes, Chief of EMS Division for the San Francisco Fire Department

  1. I am here to voice my support for the Trauma Center at General Hospital.
  2. Out of 55,000 transports in the city, 17,000 go to San Francisco General.
  3. A lot of residents do not have health care.
  4. The helipad is vital for transporting patients to the Hospital.

Annabrooke Temple

  1. I live in Potrero Hill and am opposed to the helipad.
  2. It is not necessary and would be an undue burden on the surrounding neighborhood.

- There is already a helipad approved for the new University of California at Mission Bay Hospital

Thomas Cassey

  1. This project would make our neighborhood unlivable with the noise and vibration.
  2. There are other alternatives like the helipad approved for the Mission Bay Hospital.
  3. I am opposed to the helipad at San Francisco General.

Kevin Lee

  1. I do not support this project.
  2. It would not keep the characteristics of the neighborhood.
  3. I do not want helicopters coming down three times per day in my neighborhood.

Robert C. Mackersie, Trauma Medical Center

  1. I support this project.
  2. It is the only trauma center serving in San Francisco.
  3. The Helipad would allow the City to participate in a larger regional structure to assist in emergency care.

Karen Cliffe

  1. Submitted a letter from 11 neighbors unable to attend.
  2. Although I support the rebuild of the Hospital, I oppose the helipad.
  3. The trauma center is for children and adults and takes priority over any other case.
  4. The hospital already is overflowing and bringing in more patients would make it worse.
  5. Money should be used to improve the hospital and not build a helipad.
  6. Helicopters would interrupt the quiet ambiance of our neighborhood.

Karyn Campbell

- Most residents in the neighborhood support the trauma center and rebuilding of the hospital.

- We oppose the helipad mainly because there is one already approved for the Mission Bay Hospital.

  1. Noise would negatively impact the neighborhood, schools and children.
  2. There are over 30 schools within a three-mile radius of the Hospital.

Christopher Sabre

- Helipads are very dangerous. Recently there has being an increase in helicopter accidents.

  1. Many accidents have occurred on hospital helipads.
  2. Foggy conditions at night around General Hospital would diminish visibility.
  3. It is unsafe to build it on an earthquake propensity area.

Lynne Eggers

  1. Helicopters would seldom transport trauma clients from San Francisco.
  2. Ambulances provide better service.

- University of California Hospital at Mission Bay is approved to have a helipad and it is within a mile away from General Hospital.

  1. There are many helipads in the Bay area.

Bridget O'Rourke

  1. The construction of a helipad is an unconceivable fabrication.

- March 2007 – Disaster Report Community Update recommends bus and ferries to be much more reliable then helicopters in case of an emergency.

- The Police, Fire and City Leadership would have the need for a helicopter to assess damages in case of an emergency.

  1. In case of a disaster, the city plan already has identified 29 helicopter landing sites.

- 62 percent of hospitals in San Francisco are at significant risk to collapse after an earthquake, compared to 29 percent in the country.

Laura Parker

  1. I oppose the helipad construction.
  2. Money would be much better spent on services and more clinics at the hospital.
  3. The need is to provide better service to San Franciscans first.

Del Greger

  1. We are opposed to the helipad construction.
  2. Read an article from the Wall Street Journal: Air ambulances are under Fire.

- Observers of the industry say that medical air transportation causes accidents more than ten times than ground ambulances.

  1. The General Hospital is already over flowing. I question bringing more patients with helipad service.

Peter Rudolfi

  1. Opposing the helipad for the noise it would cause.
  2. The World Health Organization has done studies on noise.
  3. Noise could become either annoying or anxiety provoking.

M. P. R. Howard

  1. Construction of a helipad would not increase the existing noise.
  2. Ground ambulance is more disruptive than helicopters.
  3. My concern is the rebuild of the hospital.
  4. There will be impacts on the whole neighborhood regarding parking, dust and noise.

Chet Roaman

- How can the hospital assure that any building would stand a quake and provide interrupted services in the time of an earthquake?

- 62 percent of hospitals in San Francisco are in risk to collapse after a major quake compared to 37 percent nationwide.

- The recommendation in case of an emergency is to differ to physical buses and ferries, not to helicopters.

Kathryn Podgornoff

- I am very concern about the noise and the possibility of a helicopter crashing in the neighborhood.

Judy Burkey, Mission Improvement Association

  1. We have followed this process for some time.
  2. Recently, we found out that the helicopters are based in Concord.

- Trauma Center is to serve San Franciscans and the hospital is overwhelmed already without bringing more patients.

  1. A resolution was unanimously passed by our Association opposing the helipad construction.

ACTION: No action required of the Commission. Public Hearing Only

I. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKERS

Chris

- There was a question of other cities using helipads.

- New York city does not have medical helicopters landing in the city.

- They land on water or use ground transportation to transfer patients.

M. P. R. Howard

- Trying to answer Commissioner Lee's concern about differences on sound between ground and air transportation.

- Ambulances and police car sirens have higher piercing sounds than helicopters.

- Frequency is what you feel the most than the actual volume.

Tom Casey

- We are all very reasonable and would like answers to questions and concerns presented today.

Adjournment: 11:17 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, June 7, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and 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 10:00:27 PM