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

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

March 15, 2007

March 15, 2007



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, March 15, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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



STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Edgar Oropeza, Paul Lord, Rana Ahmadi, Michael Smith, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Ben Fu, Cecilia Jaroslawsky, Craig Nikitas, Sophie Middlebrook, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.


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.

1a. 2005.0731CEKV (J. MILLER: at (415) 558-6344)

231 FRANKLIN STREET - southwest corner at Hayes Street, a through lot with additional frontage on Linden Street, Lots 2, 17 and 22 in Assessor's Block 816, in the Hayes Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization for a new 33-unit residential building with ground-floor retail use plus off-street parking. Conditional Use authorization is required for lot size in excess of 9,999 square feet and building bulk. This proposed project is also the subject of a requested Variance for commercial-serving off-street parking.

(Proposed for Continuance to March 22, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Sugaya

1b. 2005.0731CEKV (J. MILLER: at (415) 558-6344)

231 FRANKLIN STREET - southwest corner at Hayes Street, a through lot to Linden Street, Lots 2, 17 and 22 in Assessor's Block 816, in the Hayes-Gough Neighborhood Commercial District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District. OFF-STREET PARKING VARIANCE SOUGHT - The proposal is to construct a new residential building with approximately 33 dwelling units over approximately 6,200 square feet of ground-floor commercial use. Thirty-three underground parking spaces would be provided plus one standard space and two ANA-compliant spaces on the ground floor for a total of 36 spaces to be provided.

(Proposed for Continuance to March 22, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Sugaya

2a. 2004.0072D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2632 CABRILLO STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2003.06.24.7792, proposing to demolish an existing two-story, single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve demolition.

(Proposed for Continuance to April 5, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Sugaya

2b. 2004.0073D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2632 CABRILLO STREET - north side between 27th and 28th Avenues; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 1617 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2003.06.24.7794, proposing to construct a new three-story, two-unit building in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family District) and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to April 5, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

NAYES: Sugaya

3. 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

(Proposed for Continuance to April 19, 2007)


ACTION: Continued to May 3, 2007

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

NAYES: Sugaya

4. 2006.1095C (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

2035 IRVING STREET - south side between 21st and 22nd Avenues, Lot 11B in Assessor's Block 1776 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.44 to legalize a 992 square-foot small, self-service restaurant operated by Wonderful Dessert & Cafe, located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, Irving Street Restaurant and Fast-Food Subdistrict, and a 105-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

NOTE: This case will be re-noticed and reschedule to a latter date.


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.

  1. Consideration of Adoption:
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of March 1, 2007.


ACTION: Approved

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

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of March 1, 2007.


Marilyn Amini

- Objected to the minutes for being inaccurate and requested they be re-worded.

- Specifically the statement on Page 7 under Zoning Administrator Report about rezoning being specific to Market and Octavia and would not apply elsewhere.

  1. Referred to the interpretation of the Zoning Administrator on paragraphs 2, 4, 5 and 6. [Draft proposals and extension applications of other areas of the city when putting them into effect]

- At the hearing of March 8th, City Attorney said that it is not possible to state they would not be applied in the future.

- Letter of City Attorney dated March 15th under subsection 2 says it twice -  may one day be applied.

Commissioner Antonini

- Responded that the minutes should only reflect what was said, not what you want them to say.

ACTION: Approved

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

6. Commission Comments/Questions

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

Commissioner Antonini

- Received memorandum of interpretation about adequate notification on the Market and Octavia Plan from Deputy City Attorneys Susan Cleveland and Kate Stacey.

- When considering adoption of Market and Octavia, discussion should include the need and implementation of new zoning (residential transit oriented and neighborhood commercial transit).

Commissioner Olague

- Requested status of the Day Labor program site.

Commissioner W. Lee

- Following up on a request made for liquor licenses issued and vehicles registered in the city.

Commissioner Alexander

- Requested a map that indicates where the liquor licenses have been issued.

- I would like to know if there is a proposal for a long-term vacant lot at California and Powell Street.

Commissioner Moore

- A member of another committee has been seeking information about the lot on California and Powell Street without success.

- Requested that the Zoning Administrator provide this information.

- As a Commissioner, I received information from the Office of the Mayor about Community Opportunities [COO]. I would like an update and want would it entail if we get involved?

Commissioner W. Lee

- Community Opportunities is a consolidation of services in the city [jobs, training, education and housing]

- It is a sort of public-private project.

Mr. Ghosh

- We have contacted the Department of Motor Vehicles for registered vehicles in the city.

- The information has not been developed yet.

Mr. Macris, Director

- Regarding the status of the Day Labor program, Mr. Lee's intention is to write a letter to the Commission summarizing the status of it.

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

- I will work on the liquor licenses issued.

- The lot on California and Powell Streets had an appeal, which was upheld for inadequate notice to neighbors.

- I will obtain more information about it.


7. Director's Announcements None

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

Board of Supervisor

- 869 North Point. Continued for one week without hearing.

- 120 Howard Street. Appeal Withdrawn.

- Supervisor McGoldrick requested amendment to Housing Element [related to inclusionary housing] Continued for one week.

- New legislation was introduced requiring conditional use on single occupancy develop for the SOMA District.

- Supervisor Peskin introduced a requirement that amendments affecting the Planning Department should be held for 30-day for the Commission's comments.

Board of Appeals: None


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.


Patricia Vaughey

- Regarding the case on the Apartment Building at Scott and Lombard Street.

- Two weeks after signing off on the project, the Architect made a comment about pricing the apartments high to try to convert it to a hotel.

- Appealed the case to include special restrictions on the deed to remain housing.

Marilyn Amini

- Zoning Administrator arbitrarily determined that you do not have to notice the public on the Market and Octavia rezoning district.

- City has the right to have adequate legal notices.

- It should not wait for proposed projects.

- The rezoning would significantly change district 1 and single dwelling housing.

- Encouraged commissioners to look at the letter of determinations and review it carefully to see if notices should not be implemented for the entire city.

Marc Salomon

- Researched new constructions in the city since 2002 and registered voters for 2002 and 2006.

- 66% of residents living in new constructions were not registered voters in 2002.

- New housing benefits those who live outside of San Francisco while District 6 has families being raised in single room occupancies [SRO]

- The Market and Octavia Plan is creating a big environmental impact with transit and building luxury housing.

- Plans like Market and Octavia should allow residents to have an active role and to have their input included - like the Western SOMA Citizen's Planning Task Force.

- Requested that the Hayes/Valley Neighborhood be exempted from this plan.


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

9. 2007.0110C (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1535-1595 VAN NESS AVENUE - southwest corner of Van Ness Avenue and California Street, Assessor's Block 0647, Lots 001 & 002 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow commercial use above the ground story pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.8 & 303. The proposal is to restore the use of the existing building as an automobile sales showroom. Ford Motor Company plans to occupy the entire building. The project site is in a RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and a 130-V Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17393


10. (P. Lord: (415) 558-6311)

Western SoMa Citizens Planning Task Force Annual Progress Report for 2006 - informational

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 8, 2007)


Jim Meko, Chair of Western SOMA Citizen's Task Force

- Task Force will be in its 2nd year in July of this year, improving the SOMA Neighborhood.

- Two planning students from the University of Berkeley did a financial analysis of mixed-use development on the flower market site.

- Students from San Francisco State completed residential studies on Folsom Street corridor.

- An architectural student is about to start an analysis combining housing and job producing opportunities on both corridors.

- Two new groups of students are about to join the team to do analysis on transportation and redefine residential on both corridors.

- Members of the Task Force have assumed the role of citizen planners.

- This plan will belong to the community.


- Shared the policies and procedures the Task Force has implemented.

Chris Durazo

- West SOMA is a new model for community planning.

- They are able to engage residents of all levels.

- Requested that staff be asked to focus on details needed for this neighborhood when bringing project presentations forward [school, housing for families, transportation].

Jennifer Dhillon, Executive Director of Visitacion Valley Development Corporation

- Interested in following the process on some issues:

- Local hiring and job creation, fees for developers, reduced impact on the community.

Marc Salomon, Western SOMA Citizen's Task Force Vice-Coordinator

- Housing, land use and transportation are being handled for the first time in the history of San Francisco by its citizens

- The Task Force is going to produce a plan that will work with the General Plan.

Tony Kelly, Potrero Booster Neighborhood Association

- Western Soma Task Force is a role model for the Eastern Neighborhoods.

- Potrero Hill has tried to work the same way for the last eight years.

- We have asked for improvements, housing, larger, vibrant, and creative neighborhoods.

Jeffrey Leibovitz

- Read a letter by residents of East SOMA.

- South Beach made a big impact on East SOMA.

- It welcomed new developers but did not help the community.

- East SOMA would like to have a Task Force as well.

Skot Kuifer, West SOMA Citizen's Task Force

- Western SOMA has been a home for artist in the community.

- There is no plan for affordable housing.

- Requested that the Commission help preserve art.

Tom Jackson, Coleman Advocates

- This is a big opportunity for affordable housing for the south side of the city.

- Encouraged the Commission to follow the model in South of Market and plan for affordable housing for families to stay in the city.

Rosalind Houff, Coleman Advocates

- Requested that the Commission provide opportunities for low-income families to reside in subsidized housing.

Alvaro Sanchez, Coleman Advocates

- Urged the Commission to take this opportunity to provide affordable housing and keep families in the city.

- The Eastern Neighborhoods should open its doors for people outside of the city as well for families currently living in San Francisco.

Jaron Browne, POWER

- Supported West SOMA work.

- Bay Point has a similar high concentration of industrial usage.

- It is important to make clear how we plan and include biotechnology and digital media.

- Questioned what measures are to be taken to ensure the local, long term, permanent creation of jobs.

Katherine Williams, Visitacion Valley CDC

- Support the work done by West SOMA.

- Asked the Commission to consider transit planning. Study analysis should be considered before the plan happens and not after.

Henry Karnilowicz, Occidental Express

- Satisfied with producing a plan that will benefit the neighborhood with input from it.

Nick Pagalados

- Congratulated the Task Force for putting together this plan and being a model.

- The Mission Neighborhood is in the process of its plan and still there are some concerns.

- Affordability - how zoning would function; and accountability - that the plan will be implemented.

- The real need in the Mission District is affordable rental housing.

Oscar Grande

- Light industry is scattered in the Eastern Districts [Bay View and Mission] and battle for not polluting the area.

- Condominiums and biotechnology are taking over the neighborhood.

- Afraid of biotechnology being present in the community without restrictions.

Erick Quezada

- Recognized the work of SOMA Task Force.

- Every community works in its unique way, although some concerns overlap.

- It is very important to hear all voices - community leaders and leaders of the city - for the future of San Francisco.

Sue Hestor

- Western SOMA Task Force and people are planning seriously.

- We need to have a system that would work on changing areas from industrial to residential.

- Plan ahead and look at the facts before planning and not after.

Tameka Moss

- Supported Western SOMA for completed planning efforts.

- Lack of affordability is polarizing our city. It is classing our society.

- Requested that the Commission keep rental affordable housing to continue the real diversity of the city.

Ken Sharp

- Not everybody is totally happy with this project.

- People have been displaced at 737 Harrison Street, which was to become a garden.

Wendy Sharp

- I've lived and worked in the neighborhood for 24 years.

- This project has displaced 20 people who were given 10 days to move out.

ACTION: Informational only. No action required of the Commission.

11. 2007.0050C (tape IIA; IIB) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

3560 18TH STREET - north side between Dearborn and Guerrero Street, Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 3577 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Sections 186, 726.41 and 726.24, to establish a bar use and roof top seating within the existing full-service restaurant (d.b.a.  Farina ), within the RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District, the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Sub-district and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposed use is not a formula retail use as defined in Section 703.3 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval bar use with conditions. Disapprove proposed outdoor activity area on roof.


Jay Kostelni, Project Sponsor

- This will be an authentic Italian style restaurant, bar and bakery.

- Submitted an alcohol and beverage program.

- The roof top garden will offer an outdoor dining experience with a modest list of Italian wine, beer, and seasonal drinks

- I have worked with neighbors in community meetings and individually on occasions.

Paul Stricklin

- I'm in support of the restaurant. It would be a good addition to the community.

- But the roof garden would negatively impact adjacent residents, including myself.

- Design for sun protection is inadequate.

Doug MacKinnon

  1. It is not really a restaurant ye, but I'm looking forward to have it there.
  2. I'm opposed to rooftop service. It could turn into a nightclub.

Matt Wilson

- 18th Street is a residential street and this is not compatible within the area.

- The rooftop bar is going to increase traffic and noise.

- There is no guarantee that it would be limited to 30 seats. Once the permit is granted, it would be hard to monitor it.

- The owner has not been a good neighbor.

Carlton Johnson

- Opposed to the bar and rooftop service.

- It would drastically affect the neighborhood with an increase of transit.

Martin Economon

- Opposed to the service on the roof and sale of alcohol for being in a residential area.

- Owner has been there for 2 years and has not shown interest in being a good neighbor.

- Urged the Commissioner to visit the neighborhood. It is a quite area.

Helen Wilde

- I'm in favor of the restaurant.

- It would be nice to enjoy the sun and entertainment with family and friends.

Emily Berg

- Supported Farina in its endeavors.

- This type of business is what makes the Mission Neighborhood fun.

Monica Viarengo, Farina's part owner

  1. We're trying to get green space on the rooftop related to Dolores and Linda Park.
  2. It is not a nightclub. The structure does not allow more than 30 people on the rooftop.
  3. A wall would be constructed along Dearborn Street that would prevent noise.
  4. We conducted an acoustics study and noise would not be significantly increased.
  5. The outdoor rooftop service would be limited to last seating by 8pm.
  6. The intent is to create a dream space for clients to enjoy with aromatic plants.

Sherrie Olson

- Supports Farina. It would create 30 jobs.

- It would enhance the neighborhood by creating a safe environment.

- It would provide a parking valet service.

- A #47alcohol license has been requested and employees are well trained on alcohol awareness.

- This would be a family restaurant.

Marie Mosher

- I'm the resident right across from the restaurant.

- Rooftop would intrude on residents' privacy in the front building.

- Asked to minimize disturbances for the neighbors. This has been a quite street.

Lotta Garrity

- Opposes the rooftop.

- It would increase traffic, destroying Dearborn Park green.

Michael Toy, Charles Salter Associates

- Conducted acoustic analysis of rooftop.

- Noise would not exceed what already exists.

Tony Pantilioni

- Supports the rooftop garden.

- There is already a lot of noise existing.

- The Mission has the best weather in San Francisco and it invites outdoor service.

ACTION: Approved as amended

-To build soundproof barrier on the other side of the rooftop.

-Monitor valet parking and decrease it depending on study results.

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

NAYES: S. Lee, Olague and Sugaya.

MOTION: 17394

12. 2005.0859C (tape IIB) (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6322)

1606 NORIEGA STREET - north side between 23rd and 24th Avenues, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 2026 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.54 to permit massage as a primary use within a ground floor commercial space operated by Kangle Health Care, located in a NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


Zequan, Owner and Project Sponsor

Francis, Translator for Project Sponsor

- I have been serving the neighborhood for seven years.

- Serves approximately 8 to 10 clients per day.

- Located in a mixed residential and commercial use.

- Employees are neighborhood residents with massage license.

- Support job employment within the neighborhood and feel part of the community.

ACTION: Approved as amended

-Conditions provided by Staff

-Not to install a gate in front of establishment.

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

NAYES: S. Lee, Moore and Olague.

MOTION: 17395

13. 2006.0882A (tape IIB; IIIA) (SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

1306-1310 MCALLISTER STREET - north side between Steiner and Pierce Streets; Assessor's Block 775, Lot 004A - Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a portion of the ground floor bay and construct a new garage opening. The building is a contributory-altered building to the Alamo Square Historic District under Article 10. It is located within an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) Zoning District and 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board heard this case at the September 6, 2006, public hearing and recommended disapproval.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 18, 2007)


Rachel Abraham, Project Sponsor

- Process before included having authorization from Planning Staff and obtain approval from Department of Public Work [DPW].

- We have not had any opposition from neighbors.

- We have decided to submit the whole package at one time due to new planning code and policy.

Daniel, Architect

- We have brought in this project because we believe and are assured that it is sensitive and can be achieved.

  1. This project is located in the highest historic district in San Francisco.
  2. There is no opposition from neighbors.
  3. We have worked with Alamo and McAllister Neighborhood Associations and they support this project.

Johanna Street

  1. It does not meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards.
  2. Front of the house is like the front of my face. Cutting out a bay window would impact significantly the historic character of the neighborhood.
  3. Main concern of this project is historic preservation not parking.

Bob, Owner of building

  1. Have lived in the neighborhood for ten years.
  2. Requested to take into consideration we were in the middle of the process when changes in the policy came.
  3. There are no objections from neighbors.


- Requested to take into consideration that in the city every construction needs parking.

- A lot of buildings in this area have garages.

- It would not negatively impact the historic preservation.


- Urged support of the project.

- A considerable amount of money has been invested.

- There is precedence from this Project Sponsor to other works in the city.

- There are no noticeable objections from neighbors.


- Urged the approval of this project.

- Project Sponsor is open, honest and has followed all the rules.


- Supports the project.

- Project Sponsor has built 17 garages in the area and has set a good precedence.

- It would help to address parking issues in the city.

Carry Buchanan

- Garage is an asset when being part of a house.

- As a realtor, my expertise says that a property without a garage has half of potential buyers.

- Project would not impact historic value of the property.

Mr. Boscovich

- Got interested in this case while investigations the new code on garages.

- Most of historic fabric has already been removed. Therefore it would not impact significantly.

- There is no opposition from neighbors.

William Nute

- Supports the project. It will be a more acceptable home.

- No neighbor opposes the project.

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Alexander, Moore and Sugaya.

MOTION: 17396

14. 2007.0101X (tape IIA; IIIB) (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

45 Lansing Street - south side of Lansing Street on a through lot that also fronts Harrison Street, between First and Essex Streets, Lot 059 in Assessor's Block 3749 - Request under Planning Code Sections 309.1 and 827 for the amendment of previous approval for Determinations of Compliance, and exceptions to allow greater than one parking space for every two units, to provide off-site open space in lieu of on-site, and for dwelling unit exposure. The subject property is located within the RH DTR (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use) District with a 65-X/400-R Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


Michael Burk, Project Sponsor Representative

  1. Two years ago the Commission approved Rincon Hill.
  2. We are seeking modification to the existing approval to reduce the allowed units from 265 to 227.
  3. Everything would remain the same.
  4. It would increase the multi-bedroom units from 40% to 50%.
  5. As the Commission suggested last year, we have worked with Planning Staff to enhance the design and improve the west façade.

John Tornis

  1. Supports the project.
  2. Previously had concerns it would impact traffic, parking, and outside open space.
  3. The Commission should take into consideration the changes would positively impact the area.


- The proposed project would reduce the number of studios; increase the number of bedrooms and lower the number of parking.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17397

15. 2006.1147D (tape IIB) (C. JAROSLAWSKY: (415) 558-6348)

67 MADRONE AVENUE - east side between Taraval and Ulloa Streets; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 2919A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.10.06.4439, to extend the rear two levels, approximately 15 feet into the rear yard and add a partial third level onto a single-family dwelling, one story over garage structure 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 as the project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of February 1, 2007)


Kathleen Walsh, DR Requestor

- There was no meeting with the architect or project sponsor as instructed at the last hearing.

- Changes were not discussed with neighbors.

Terry Gaynor

- Commissioners were ready to disapprove this project at the last hearing but suggested we try to have communication between neighbors and project sponsor.

- We just received a phone call last night that the project was reduced by one foot.

Mary Volkov

  1. I'm opposed to the construction of the third floor addition.
  2. West Portal Neighborhood is very unified and it would change the character of the neighborhood.

- Shared photos -- most homes have converted the basement to achieve a third floor.

Lisa Walsh

  1. Several people raised the issue of character of the neighborhood at last hearing.
  2. Suggestions were made to build horizontally rather vertically.
  3. The Commission has mentioned that decisions should take into consideration what it is like in that particular neighborhood.

Tony Pantilioni, Project Architect

- At last hearing we were asked to show that other houses have three stories.

- Neighbors do not want a 3-story building and so we did not make an attempt to call them.

- Shared photo of other buildings in the area to show 2 and 3 story buildings.

Kevin Salomon

- I'm a contractor that has done a few projects in the area.

- The proposed addition is small and it would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood.

- Currently working on two projects in the area similar to the one proposed.

Mary Kate Salomon

- Project is within the guidelines and the sponsor could have had a larger addition.

- There was no communication from either side involving this project.

- Changes have being made to please neighbors.

- Urged approval. The house would still be smaller on the block after the addition.

ACTION: Continued indefinitely. The project is not to come back until there is a meeting with neighbors and the third floor is removed.

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

NAYES: Antonini

16. 2006.1488DDDD (tape IIIB, IVA; IVB) (S. MIDDLEBROOK: (415) 558-6372)

1911 FUNSTON AVENUE - west side between Rockridge Drive and Aerial Way; Lot 050 in Assessor's Block 2121A - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.0609.3616, proposing construction of a four-story horizontal addition to the rear of the subject dwelling in an 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.


Sue Hestor, Representing Discretionary Review Requestors

  1. This is a very unusual block. The houses have very strange configurations.
  2. Houses are identical -- front and back.
  3. They have absolute straight lines in the front.
  4. No fence on the back because of a deep hill that seems to belong to everybody.
  5. Light is a very important issue for all neighbors.
  6. The house on the north looses natural light and there was no analysis to show it.

Ada Vacalin Steve

  1. Opposed to project.
  2. Elevation is great and provides view of the city from many angles.
  3. The structure would eliminate nature views and people's enjoyment of the area.


- Opposed to this project. It would eliminate natural light.

William Saraco

- Light, tranquility and views are important issues for me.

  1. This project would have a significant negative impact on my working space at home.

Ms. Grant

- Had many concerns to the proposed project.

  1. The source of PG&E lies on the back of both properties [mine and proposed project], and it is old.
  2. This source broke in 1982 and damaged my home. I fear that excavation would provoke damage of it again.

Kevin Ong

- Showed a model representation the rear of 6 houses.

- Natural light comes from the rear of the houses.

- The proposed project would obstruct nature's beauty and natural light for everybody.

Dean Pakamana

- Deck would intrude into my privacy and obstruct light.

Ivy Ong

-- Concern about massiveness of the project impacting privacy and light.

- It would be setting precedence of upscale housing in this neighborhood.

- In April of 2006, experienced soil displacement and the concrete piers holding deck were falling.

Ingo Orlamunder

- Construction on the rear of the houses on deep hills is very dangerous.

- There are cases in the newspaper about serious damage of houses, including from the 1989 earthquake.

  1. Serious considerations should be taken to minimize damage to structures on deep hills.

Louis Victor

- Concerned about maintaining the character of the neighborhood.

- Shared photos of the back of the house to show the view of nature and atmosphere.

- It is a communal space for all neighbors on the block.


- Project is out of character.

- The scene from the back yard is unique with natural beauty and s view of the ocean.

- Questioned if Commissioners would allow this to be constructed in their back yard.


- Preserve natural beauty and home for migrating birds.

- Green space is a city treasure. This project would breach it.

  1. Every member of the community has equal access to sunlight, nature and privacy.
  2. This project would change and negatively impact neighbors in the block.

James Zau, Structural Engineer for the Discretionary Review Requestors

- Available for any questions regarding structure report.

Elizabeth Tippin, Representing Project Sponsor

- 27 out of 32 households in the neighborhood signed a petition supporting this project.

  1. I have met with neighbors and the Golden Gate Haight Neighborhood Association.
  2. 78% of this project is below level from the living areas of other houses. We are trying to be sensitive to neighbors.

Robert Colyer, Architect

- Design goal for this project is to accommodate our growing family and minimize impact to adjacent neighbors.

- City does not allow vertical constructions so we opted to go horizontally with less than allowable by code.

  1. The project would set a positive precedence for future developments.
  2. Work will be done under my direct supervision.
  3. It would include an energy efficient, geotechnical investigated, water drain to prevent saturated soil.

Debra Bowles, Owner

- I've been a resident of the neighborhood for 18 years ago.

- This project would allow accommodation of family and a home-based office.

- The hill does not allow space for child to play in the backyard.

- 2 years ago we started to meet with neighbors and have not gotten any viable response.

- We have changed the plans many times to address concerns from neighbors.

Nancy Stafford

- Neighbors are against any changes.

- Owner made an effort to please everybody.

- This project would help accommodate the family and allow them to stay in San Francisco.

Pat Lachey

- This project would create jobs for workers in the city.

  1. The view would not be obstructed and neither would the wildlife.
  2. It would improve the neighborhood.

ACTION: Continued to April 26, 2007 with public hearing open. The Commission required a peer review and a geotechnical report.

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

17. 2006.0070ET (tape IVB) (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.



- Requested a continuance for not longer than one week.

- Staff has done incredible work.

Mr. Boskovich

- Requested that a specific time is set for public participation.

ACTION: Continued to March 22, 2007

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

On considering a request for continuance for item 18, comments were taken under category "A" of the calendar.

18. 2003.0773E (R. AHMADI: (415) 558-5966)

55 Laguna Mixed Use Project - Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Report -The project site is located at 55 Laguna Street in the Hayes Valley neighborhood of San Francisco on the two city blocks bounded by Haight Street to the north, Laguna Street to the east, Hermann Street to the south, and Buchanan Street to the west. The proposed project would include new construction as well as renovation of most of the vacant buildings on the former University of California Berkeley Extension Campus to provide residential, community facility, retail space, open space and parking. The project site currently contains four buildings that were formerly occupied by educational uses, including Woods Hall, Woods Hall Annex, Richardson Hall and Middle Hall. The project site also contains the UCSF dental clinic that is currently in use. The project would renovate Woods Hall, Woods Hall Annex, and most of Richardson Hall to be used for residential and community facility space. Middle Hall would be demolished, as would the Richardson Hall Administration wing, a small single-story portion of Richardson Hall located at the north end of the building. New infill construction would include the development of seven new residential buildings ranging in height between three and eight stories. The tallest building, at a maximum height of 85 feet, would be built by an organization called open-house, specifically for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender seniors (hereinafter referred to as the open-house building). The proposed project would accommodate up to 450 residential units including approximately 85 units in the open-house building, approximately 10,000 sq. ft. of community facility space, and up to 5,000 occupied sq. ft. of retail space. The project would provide a variety of open spaces, including a privately owned, publicly accessible park, which would be located along the Waller Street alignment. The project would provide approximately 352 on-site parking spaces, including 51 spaces for the dental clinic and up to 10 spaces for a car share organization primarily within four below ground garages, and a small amount of above-ground parking. The project would require a change in the zoning district from P (Public) to RTO (Residential-Transit Oriented) and NCT-3 (Neighborhood Commercial Transit Moderate Scale Mixed-Use), new zoning classifications proposed for Market and Octavia Area Plan, or a mixed-used Special Use District. The dental clinic would remain in a P zoning district. The project would also require an adjustment in the height and bulk designations of the site from 40 X and 80-B to 40-X, 50-X and 85-X. The proposed project would also require an amendment to the San Francisco General Plan to allow the change from a public/institutional use designation to residential mixed-use designations, and to allow an increase in building heights.

Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2007.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of March 8, 2007)


Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi

  1. We have been having an on-going constructive and collaborative discussion with the project sponsor, developers and community organizations.
  2. We would like it to continue at the beginning of April, if at all possible.
  3. It is understandable if your calendar does not permit.
  4. We definitely need more time to have a thorough discussion and better understanding of what should be in the area for the benefit of the community.
  5. It would help to focus on the elements based in the Market and Octavia Plan.
  6. A slight reversal of order to consider the Market-Octavia Plan before 55 Laguna Street is a proper one.

Cynthia Servetnick

- The hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report would be the only time for public input before adoption of it.

- Requested a set time for interested parties to be able to attend.

Steven Vettel

- Requested that the continuance date be a firm one.

Tamara Colby

- It is important to set a hearing time.

- It is the only time the public would be involved in this process.

S Danniels

- Hearings are constantly being continued. This is a careless attitude from the City.

- Many people took the day off and will not have an opportunity to speak on the case today.

- A lot of people are against this project.

Paul Olsen

- A continuance is very appropriate.

- It is unclear for the public the difference between approving the Draft Environmental Impact Report from accepting the plan.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to April 19, 2007

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

NAYES: Sugaya


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))


Richard Johnson

- Came to the hearing wanting to participate in the Environmental Impact Review for University of California on Laguna Street.

- Suggested that you announce to the public when regular calendar items are continued.

Adjournment: 10:14 P.M.



ACTION: Approved

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