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 

June 7, 2007



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 7, 2007

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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



STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Rick Crawford, Edgar Oropeza, Sarah Vellve, Ben Fu, Viktoriya Wise, Matt Snyder, Michael Jacinto, Tina Tam, Glenn Cabreros, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, John Billovits, Kristine Dischinger, 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. 2006.0856CV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

461 BAKER STREET - southwest corner at Grove Street; Lot 001, in Assessor's Block 1199 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 303 to establish a child-care facility for more than 12 children in an annex to an existing preschool, Pacific Primary School, located across the street at 1500 Grove Street, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

NAYES: Sugaya.

1b. 2006.0856CV (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)

461 BAKER STREET - southwest corner at Grove Street; Lot 001, in Assessor's Block 1199 - Request for Variances from the rear yard and parking requirements, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 134 and 151 to allow the construction of a child-care facility, containing four classrooms for up to 75 children, in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will consider these Variances following the public hearing for the Conditional Use application referenced above.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

NAYES: Sugaya.

2a. 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 May 24, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

NAYES: Sugaya.

2b. 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 May 24, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to June 21, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed.

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

NAYES: Sugaya.


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.

3. Consideration of Adoption:

  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 18, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 25, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of February 1, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 10, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of May 24, 2007.
  • Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007.


ACTION: All are approved with a proposed correction to 1/25/07, page 3, Commissioner Moore's comment -  I heard President Peskin suggest&  – she stated that she did not say this. That she would not refer to him as "President."

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

4. 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

- Thanked city attorney, Kate Stacey, for a discussion on a question that I raised in regards to when is it legally permissible to impose fees on projects?

  1. We talked about timelines that involves this process.

Kate Stacey, Deputy City Attorney

  1. The question was how the city applies the law and whether it was applied at the time of application or time of approval.
  2. Without a particular grandfathering clause in the ordinance itself, the city normally applies the law in effect at the time of permit approval.
  3. There have been cases where an ordinance contains a particular effective date which grandfathers in pending applications that have been filed before a certain date.
  4. Unless there is a particular provision in the ordinance, the law is in effect at the time of the approval and not at the time of the application.

Commissioner Olague

  1. I would like to have a report/presentation on how the interim controls have been applied to projects in the Mission since 1999.
  2. I would like to understand what the staff's recommendations were and how the Department followed interim controls.

Commissioner Alexander

  1. It would be important to have that information and see what the policies were and how staff implemented the interim controls on specific projects.

Director Macris

  1. We could do that and it would certainly take a long time to produce that information.

Commissioner Olague

  1. What I want to know is how interim controls were applied to individual projects. How and what staff recommended on those projects.

Zoning Administrator Badiner

  1. My understanding is that we do a chart showing address, zoning, project description and a reference to what policies were taken at that time.

Commissioner Moore

  1. I just want to check with everybody to see if you have received a letter for the Mayor's budget meeting for next Wednesday from 3:30 to 4:45p.m.
  2. It would be interesting to see what the Department recommended and what the Mayor is willing to support.

Commissioner Antonini

  1. I would like to request that you include in the report requested by Commissioner Olague, how much additional tax have all those projects produced?


5. Director's Announcements None

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

AnMarie Rodgers

Board of Supervisors:

1- Transit Development Impact Fee [TDIF] – Legislation sponsor by Supervisor McGoldrick to amend the Administrative Code limiting exceptions and clarifying the scope of it. Forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.

The Planning Department has been working with the Supervisor's Office, MTA and DBI on further revisions to ensure that collection and assessment of these fees require less staff time to review individual project/permit process.

2- Resolution to initiate the designation of First Saint John's Methodist Church at 1601 Larkin Street as a landmark – Article 10 of Planning Code. Adopted.

The Planning Department will prepare a report of the Landmark Board's support for Commission consideration.

- I just want to remind you that there is a possible pending extension to the Medical Cannabis Dispensary [MCD] regulations.

- Currently the Board of Supervisors is considering extending the deadlines for completing the registration process to January 1, 2008.

- This proposed extension would not apply to MCD operators who have not yet begun the application process by July 1, 2007.

- Please be aware that this change has not yet been approved.

- This item has been calendar for the City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee for - Thursday, June 14, 2007.

- The Department supports this extension and it is working actively with the MCD operators to get them through the review process.

  1. Introductions:
    1. Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District – Planning Code Amendments.
    2. Request for a hearing on the proposed amendments to the Planning Code for Productive Distribution and Repair District [PDR].

Zoning Administrator Badiner

Board of Appeals:

  1. 555 Hayes Street Project – Converted illegally to group housing. Approved [+4 –1].
  2. 246 Bush Street Project – Request to merge two units. Upheld disapproval.

7. 943 Church Street - Project Status (Tape IA; IB)


Alex Bash

- I am a neighbor and a retired professional planner.

- My major focus while working at the Planning Department was to administer a fair and open planning/permitting process.

- Unfortunately, we have a very unfair situation because the developer's plans changed after your review last year.

- It was even changed after the Board of Appeal's review from last year.

- These changes are very significant to the neighbors.

- I submitted a petition signed by over 60 neighbors with concerns of height and massiveness.

- The hearings were controversial at this Commission and the Board of Appeals with many hours of testimony

- The neighbors had lost and we were ready to put everything behind us.

- Now that the project is being built, we find out that they are adding a roof deck.

- The roof over hangs on the adjacent properties.

- Two important technical details. First of all, staff did not even review the plans adding the roof deck so it would not be hard to call it back and review it.

- Secondly, the floor over hanging at the rear of the property, [not in the plan you heard in 2006] does not meet the code.


- I live directly adjacent to the new development.

- Our building is mostly affected because of its height. It has taken away the natural light.

- The developer told the Commission that the set back would be to the side [to the north].

- Changes were made to the plan after the hearing causing more shadows and darkness to us.

- The big roof over hanging on the back was not presented at the hearing either.

- Do not let this happen and go back to the original plans.


- I would like to talk about the 3-foot roof.

- There have been changes to the plan.

- In the original plan, there was no access to the roof from the front of the property.

- They built stairs covered with plywood.

- A few days after taking photos to bring it to the Commission, there were more changes done.

- [Shared photos showing different changes made to the construction and the original plans proposed for this project.]

Anne Walker

- Expressed appreciation to the Commission for allowing this time to discuss this matter.

- The neighborhood knew that the developer wanted to add a roof deck.

- The first sketch shown to the neighbors had a roof deck. The second sketch had stairs and a penthouse deck.

- The developer's brief for the discretionary review hearing said that they would have a proposed roof in keeping with the street landscape and roofline pattern.

- A few months later, the developers resurrected the roof deck.

- The deck was not even drawn on the roof plan. It was on the mechanical plan's final page.

- This is a bate and switch by the developer claiming credit for a flat roof.

William Duke

- I live across the street from this project.

- It is so disappointing to see what has happened at this property.

- It is totally illegal. This is not a game.

- These are big time developers. They have developed over 70 projects in the bay area. They know what they are doing.

- They deceived this Commission, neighbors and the Department.

- Over 100 neighbors are opposed to this project.

- There has got to be a way to take care of this.

- Something similar happened in this neighborhood at another property about 20 years ago and the Department said to turn it down and they did.

- We request that you do the same thing.

Sue Hestor

- I just want to clarify that the addition to the building was a little addition and became this much bigger.

- If this Commission allows this to happen, how do we deal with discretionary reviews?

- The Planning Department says that in order to be in conformity with 311, they had to take off the deck and stairway to the roof.

- If a project has been changed with the direction from staff before the 311-notice was issued, staff cannot put changes back after the fact.

- That is not consistent with good practice.

- This is a prescription for multiple hassles. This one is particular outrageous.

Todd Mavis, Owner of the Property

- As usual, there are two sides to every story.

- The reason why we are here is because of neighbor's private views.

- Our neighbors have been upset during all this process and much more because they did not succeed.

- Regarding all these allegations about illegal activities and deceptions are not truth.

- We reviewed plans extensively with staff.

- Our neighbors have filed 7 complaints with the building department [DBI].

- DBI has come out each time on every complaint and found no violation or merit to the allegation / complaint made.

- Neighbors have called various agencies [State and Federal] and even called Immigration to check if the people that work for us are illegal.

- They have tried everything they could to try to slow us in this project.

- The Board of Appeals was fair and requested this Commission to look into this.

- Tina, staff from your Department, reviewed the allegations, discussed with people and went back to the Board of Appeals to report that none of the allegations were correct.

- Requested that the Commission not start protecting public views.

Kevin Cheng, Project Sponsor and Property Owner

- We have detailed analysis here that indicates that the entire process was proper throughout.

- The plan clearly indicates what our intent is.

- The neighbors just want to eliminate the fourth floor.

- The key indication is that they failed to ask at any time during the entire process anything else but the removal of the fourth floor.

- The only concern is their private view.

- I have photos showing what the plan has been as indicated throughout the entire process.

Sherrie Bash

- All we are asking is that the building be built as approved.

- We did not say anything before because we assumed that the construction was going to be the way it was approved.

- We did speak many times with the project sponsor.

- There is a real problem with things slipping through the cracks and I am sure you will look into putting them in the right place.

- The attitude you see on the developer today is consistent with someone who feels entitled and willing to say whatever they need to meet the need of the moment.

- Probably, the adjacent neighbors main concern is their private view. What about the almost one hundred people in the area that signed the petition opposing?

- Requested help to deal with this project.

ACTION: No Action required of the Commission. Project Status Only.


At this time, members of the public may address the Commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission except agenda items. With respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the Commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.


Bob Hamaguchi, Executive Director of Japan Town Task Force

- On behalf of our community, I want to thank you for approving the commencement of the Japan Town Neighborhood Plan.

- Our plan started with a public meeting in March attended by over two hundred people.

- There is a lot of excitement that the neighborhood has for a real chance for community planning for its future.

- We would be working with Mr. Ken Rich and Rosie Dodley.

- We are concerned with seeing the impact of several proposed developments in the area.

- Specially the very significant high-rise market-rate condominium development [1333 Gough Street].

- We are excited about the opportunity for the revitalization of our neighborhood and we want to see it done in a responsible planning process.

- Requested that this Commission monitor the approval of such major projects closely.


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.

8. 2007.0252C (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

2404 & 2406 BRYANT STREET - southwest corner of Bryant and 22nd Streets, Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 4150 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Sections 186, 727.42 and 790.92, to establish a Retail Full-Service Restaurant Use (dba  El Metate ) on a property that has a Limited Commercial Use Designation in the RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District, the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Restricted Use Sub-District, and the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.


ACTION: Approved.

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

MOTION: 17435

9. 2007.0418C (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

675 TOWNSEND STREET (AKA 690 KING STREET)- northwest side of King Street between 7th and Division Streets, Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 3799 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization per Planning Code Section 218.1, to establish a Massage Establishment (dba  Suchada ) of approximately 700 square feet, within the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, the Showplace Square Special Sign District, and a 40-X / 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.


ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17436


10. 2007.0175D (Tape IIA) (E. Oropeza: (415) 558-6381)

33 29th Street - south side between San Jose Avenue and Mission Street; Lot 051 in Assessor's Block 6635 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Code Sections 712.84 and 790.141 requiring review of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries (MCDs), of Building Permit Application 2005.0518.2807, to maintain operation of an existing MCD (d.b.a.  The Bernal Heights Dispensary  ). The property is located within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale) Neighborhood Commercial Use District, The Mission Alcoholic Beverage Restricted Use Sub-district, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


Johnny Batista, Owner

- We have been running this program and helping the people in this neighborhood.

- This is a small club and we have done a lot of outreach to the community.

- We take a lot of patients.

- It is a quite place. We have a compassion program for the neighborhood.

- We provide medicine and help the neighborhood by cleaning the streets and providing food.

Michael Aldrich

- I am not a member of this establishment but have been there several times for the last two years.

- Last time I was there, I was doing a study of the impact that the 1,000-feet from school rule would have on displacement of these dispensaries.

- [Showed a map of the area. On the South side of San Francisco there are only two facilities to provide services.]

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and Approved.

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

NAYES: Antonini.

11. 2005.1134DDDD (Tape IIA; IIB) (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

3424 JACKSON STREET - north side between Laurel and Locust Streets: Lot 003B in Assessor's Block 0971 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.29.1450 proposing to add a three-story horizontal addition (with roof deck) to the rear of the existing ground floor, first and second floors; a deck that will extend beyond the second-floor rear addition; a horizontal addition to the rear of the third floor; and a one story horizontal addition at the front of the existing fourth floor of the single-family home located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


Howard Alman, Attorney for the first Discretionary Review Requestor

- Objected to the proceedings and the use of Categorical Exception.

- This is a house that is admittedly historic.

- Instead of the categorical exception, this should have gone through the Environmental Impact Review process, which would have required public input.

- This process has been possibly modified to deal with the historic aspect of it.

- It has been predicated purely on an erroneous criteria based on the idea that design is what counts.

- One criterion that should have been applied is the significance of this house that has been very important for the people in San Francisco.

Edward Karkar, First Discretionary Review Requestor

- My wife and I live at 3430 Jackson Street, west of the proposed subject project.

- I want to wish Mr. Marwell and his family well and be good neighbors.

- The main issue is the loss of privacy and natural light.

- Accurately, this drawing shows the site lines from the elevated decks intruding into our bedroom and breakfast area, affecting significantly our quality of life.

- The expansion proposed creates series of decks, a high wall three feet away from our home blocking sunlight and intruding on our privacy.

- It is a very aggressive and intrusive project.

Carl Smith, Second Discretionary Review Requestor's Representative

- Ms. Peabody lives to the east of the subject property.

- The concern is the large scale of the decks in the blocking of her sunlight and garden.

- The owner of the property is planning to set back the storage area on the ground floor.

- The only reason that is being planned that way is because of the concern of the impact to the foundation of the property.

- If this is approved, I recommend that the owner bound [bond] my client's house on a couple of issues: foundation, painting and kitchen exhaust from the subject property to go up to the roof.

- Reduce the size of the master bedroom to set back the deck and the master bathroom would be in line with the edge of my client's house.

Jorge de Quezada, Architect

- I have worked with Mr. Karkar to give suggestions on this project.

- The way that this project is presented, it would dominate the entire block and a lot of people are opposed to it.

- My suggestion is to adopt the same guidelines that you apply for zoning in RH2 [Residential House – two family] districts.

- It is very appropriate when you have a project between two buildings with different property lines.

- One condition that we are suggesting is to have a deck on the first floor and eliminate any others above that.

- Hanging decks are not safe and require massive construction in order to be seismic resistance. The material proposed for the extension of the decks is four by four wood.

Alice Barkley, Project Sponsor Representative

- [Showed pictures to put into perspective the location and relationship between the discretionary review requestors' home and the project being proposed today.]

- The height would be in line with other properties including the requestor's.

- In terms of light, air and shadows, I have included in the packet a shadow diagram clearly showing that this project would not have impact on Ms. Peabody's property.

- Mr. Karkar's home would have some extra shadow in June. It would not be significant.

- Regarding privacy concerns - this photograph shows that view to Mr. Karkar's bedroom already exists.

- Many people would not stand on a deck to view someone's bedroom.

- Staff has very carefully evaluated the addition against the Secretary of Interior Guidelines.

- If there is no impact on an existing historic structure, you do not need to go forward with Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

- Regarding the concern from Ms. Peabody about the foundation of her property - the contractor that's hired would ensure that any potential damage would be taken care of.

- As far as the master bedroom - there would be a narrow three-foot deck to provide access to the emergency stairwell.

- The deck is being supported by steel columns and pins to ensure safety for my client's children.

Tracy Leeds, Owner

- I am here to identify the use of the space and why we designed it the way we have.

- We have three children [8, 6 and 2 years old] that attend three different schools in the area.

- Our parents come to visit us periodically and stay with us for a little bit.

- We found this house close to my children's schools and in need of some repairs to accommodate our family.

- The deck is meant to provide play space outside and allow me to be able to supervise them from the kitchen.

- We moved from New York and are in love with San Francisco. We would like to stay in the city and accommodate our family.

Evan Marwell, Owner

- This has been a long and frustrating process.

- Throughout this process, we have abided by the guidelines the Department has given us.

- We have tried to manage reasonable concerns from our neighbors.

- We spent four months in mediation with Mr. Karkar's concerns.

- After one year and six different designs trying to mediate concerns of Mr. Karkar, we did not succeed.

- Last November we decided to go for this project with the latest design presented today.

Shawn Fred, Architect

- Our landscape architect has specified that the trees to be planted could go up to 50 feet tall.

- We would trim them below the third story window on the side of the second floor.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved as amended:

-Additional 4-foot set back from side of the property on the 2nd floor deck.

-Additional 4-foot set back on the 3rd floor deck to the brick and glass slide door.

-To remove the railing of the third floor rear extension deck and keep it only as a roof.

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

NAYES: Moore

12a. 2006.1414C (Tape IIB) (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Van Ness Avenue and Washington Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 228.2, 228.3 and 303 of the Planning Code to convert the property's use from a gas station (Shell) within an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District, and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The gas station ceased operation in approximately October of 2004. The subject case will address land use violations on the property. A companion case (Case 2006.0741C) will seek to establish an off-street parking facility (temporary).

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)


Tuia Catalano, Project Sponsor Representative

- The property owner purchased this site in November 2004 with the specific intent of developing a mixed used residential project.

- They are not in the business of gas stations. The station was already discontinued.

- You have three items before you and we would like to concentrate our presentation on the residential case since that would be the permanent use of this site.

- We have worked extensively with staff to collaborate on the design of this project.

- The architect and parking lot attendant are here to respond any questions you may have.

Michael Levitt, Architect

- This area of Van Ness Avenue is graced with many examples of residential and commercial architecture from which we have drawn inspiration.

- Characteristics that we have identified in this area include grand scale of the based of the building, and formal and repetitive middle section or body of the building.

- Openings typically convey a sense of depth of material at building walls.

- Windows are often distinguished through ornamentations.

- In an effort to provide a continuous building wall along both streets, we have configured the building in an  L layout.

- A bulb tower-like corner element kept by a floating canopy structure emphasizes the project's urban design status, as a corner building.

ACTION: Approved with conditions as amended:

-New lighting focusing on the interior of the lot to also point downward.

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

MOTION: 17437

12b. 2006.0741C (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Van Ness Avenue and Washington Streets; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 209.7 and 303 of the Planning Code to establish an off-street parking facility (temporary) within an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District. The surface parking lot will provide approximately 33 parking spaces. A companion case (Case 2006.1414C) will seek to authorize the conversion of a defunct gas station (Shell). The subject case will address land use violations on the property.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 12a

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17438

12c. 2004.0890CV (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Street and Van Ness Avenue and Washington Street; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Sections 253.2 and 303 of the Planning Code to allow the construction of a building which exceeds 40 feet in height, to construct a mixed-use building of 80 feet in height with approximately 3,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, up to 35 dwelling units and 35 below-grade off-street parking spaces within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combine, High Density) Use District, an 80-D Height and Bulk District, and the Van Ness Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 12a

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17439

12d. 2004.0890CV (S.VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

1868 VAN NESS AVENUE - southeast corner of Clay Street and Van Ness Avenue and Washington Street; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0619 - Request for Variances from the rear yard and exposure requirements, pursuant to Sections 135, 243(c)(6), and 307(g) of the Planning Code to allow a modified required rear yard for the project and an exception to the exposure requirement for 14 units. The Zoning Administrator will consider the request following the Planning Commission's consideration of the Conditional Use Authorization.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 24, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 12a

ACTION: Zoning Administrator granted the variance subject to standard conditions of approval.

13. (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTIONof a COMMISSION POLICY for the review of building permits and approvals in the Eastern Neighborhoods prior to the adoption of the Eastern Neighborhoods area plans and code amendments.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2007)

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt policy resolution as proposed.


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 26, 2007

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

NAYES: Sugaya.

14. 2005.0351E (V. WISE: (415) 575-9049)

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 May 17, 2007)


Julie Leadbetter

- We would like a continuance as far out as possible [to August].

  1. I am really pleased that you have started to broaden the discussion about the policies of the Eastern Neighborhoods.

Alice Barkley, Project Sponsor Representative

- This matter has been continued more than once.

- We request that you have a hearing today on the discretionary review and keep the policy issue open/continued [Mitigated Negative Declaration]

  1. I will be out of the city and another attorney will represent the project sponsor.


- This process has been frustrating and many people do not come because projects are continued over and over.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 26, 2007

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

NAYES: Sugaya.

15. 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 May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 14.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 26, 2007.

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

NAYES: Sugaya.

16a. 2005.1062BV (Tape IIB) (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 May 10, 2007)


Harry O'Brian, Project Sponsor Representative

- The sponsor is already legally permitted to rent non-office space to tenants that anywhere else in the city would be consider office usage.

- Section 321 approval is a technicality that would cause no physical change to the existing building or to the tenants that occupy it.

  1. This building was originally approved by this Commission in 1998 as a fashion center.
  2. That use failed and the building went into foreclosure.

- Then it came back for its second time and was approved to be occupied with 270,000 square feet of office space and 375,000 square feet for multimedia/business services.

  1. [Showed photographs of the interior of the building.]

- For every proposed tenant for this building, the sponsor comes to the Zoning Administrator for a determination applying the rules that were in effect in 1999.

- The determinations issued classifies a particular tenant as an office or business service use.

  1. In our opinion, it is not a workable approach.
  2. Our proposal is to come forward and legalize this space as office use and pay the fees.
  3. There would be no change in parking demand or supply.

- We have been working with Supervisor Maxwell's Office and have reached an agreement with community groups represented here today.

Tony Kelly, President of the Potrero Booster Neighborhood Association

  1. Project sponsor has responded to our concerns very creatively.
  2. We support the current application and request approval of it.

- Urged the Department to use its future energy to complete the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning plan.

  1. [Submitted a letter of support for this project to the Commission.]

Joe Boss

  1. Expressed support of the application and encouraged the Commission to approve it.

- Clarifying the use of the building helps reduce the amount off-street parking, and fees would help housing and transportation, which is very much needed in the city.

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17440

16b. 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 May 10, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 16b

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance subject to standard conditions of approval.

Prior to calling item 17, there was a call for public comment on items that had been in a public hearing where public testimony was allowed and the public hearing was closed. There were no speakers.

17. 2004.0588E (Tape IIB) (V. WISE: (415) 575-9049)

255 7th Street - (Westbrook Plaza) Project - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. The existing site (Assessor's Block 3731, Lots 126 and 154) is located at 255 Seventh Street and includes two buildings, which are located in the northwest corner of the project site and front Seventh Street. The rest of the lot is occupied by a surface parking lot. The proposed project would demolish both structures and eliminate the surface parking lot. The proposed project would result in the construction of two new buildings containing, in combination, 49 affordable housing units and a health clinic, the South of Market Health Center (SMHC). A five-story, 50-foot building with three levels of residential above a two-level approximately 19,500-square-foot health center would front Seventh Street (the Seventh Street Building). A four-story, 40-foot residential building would front Moss Street (the Moss Street Building). The two buildings would share a mid-block courtyard. The proposed project would also include a subsurface parking lot, which would accommodate about 45 parking spaces. The project sponsor is proposing to merge lots 126 and 154. Both of the lots have portions within the SLR (Service/Light Industrial/Residential Mixed Use) and RED (Residential Enclave) zoning districts and within the 50-X and 40-X height and bulk districts. The project site is in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan Area and is subject to the Housing/Mixed Use Guidelines.

NOTE:The public hearing on the Draft EIR is closed. The public comment period for the Draft EIR ended on April 5, 2007. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify Environmental Impact Report.


ACTION: Certified

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


MOTION: 17441

18a. 2004.0588CV (Tape IIB; IIIA) (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

255 7th Street - a through lot between Howard Street and Folsom Street that has frontages on both 7th Street and Moss Street, Lots 126 and 156 in Assessor's Block 3731 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow an approximately 20,000 square foot community serving health center (a social service use) under Planning Code Sections 816.21 and 890.50 (a)) in an SLR (Service / Light-Industrial / Residential) District. The social service use would be part of a larger project that would include approximately 49 dwelling units, approximately 45 off-street below grade parking spaces, and a small pharmacy. The subject property is partially within an SLR (Service / Light Industrial / Residential) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and partially within an RED (Residential Enclave District) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.


Barbara Gualco, Director of Housing Development for Mercy Housing - Project Sponsor

- Mercy Housing has deep roots in the city having developed 28 affordable housing projects over the last 30 years.

- We have been working for many years with our development partner - South of Market Health Center represented by Charles Range.

- The result of our joint efforts is a very innovated mixed-use housing development addressing two big needs in San Francisco [affordable housing and health care].

- We are hopeful that you will certify the Environmental Review Report and approve the remaining entitlements.

Charles Range, Director of South of Market Health Center

  1. I had a number of people who want to speak on behalf of our project but were unable to attend today.
  2. They wrote letters of support and I believe you received them.

- I am deeply happy and proud to be involved in this project with Mercy Housing to achieve two objectives in the South of Market.

- The two objectives we are trying to achieve with this project are within the South of Market Plan for the community.

- Medical facilities and affordable housing are needed in the city and this project would meet those goals.

  1. We appreciate any favorable support for this project and hope you approve it.

- The health center would have better access for the public and enhance service to this community.

ACTION: Approved

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


MOTION: 17442

18b. 2004.0588CV (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

255 7th Street - a through lot between Howard Street and Folsom Street that has frontages on both 7th Street and Moss Street, Lots 126 and 156 in Assessor's Block 37 - Request for (1) a rear yard modification to allow the rear yard open space be configured in the middle of the development between the proposed building as opposed to opposite one of the frontages (Planning Code Section 134(e)); (2) a parking variance to allow the project to include 45 independently accessible off-street parking spaces as opposed to 115 that would be required under Planning Code Section 151; and (3) a variance from the height and extension requirements for awnings for the three proposed awnings to allow their height to be approximately 11-feet high and extend out from the property line by six-feet (Planning Code Section 136.1) The subject property is partially within an SLR (Service / Light Industrial / Residential) District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and partially within an RED (Residential Enclave District) and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 18a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance subject to standard conditions of approval.

19. 2004.0603E (Tape IIIA) (M. JACINTO: (415) 575-9033)

601 DUBOCE AVENUE- Lot 3539, Lot 001 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed construction of a four-story medical office building ( MOB ) on a 52,000 square foot portion of two surface parking lots on the northeast corner of the California Pacific Medical Center Davies campus in the Duboce Triangle neighborhood. The 50,100 (46,000 as measured by the Planning Code) gross-square-foot MOB would contain offices, a Neuromuscular and Electroencephalogram Clinic, a pharmacy and admitting station for the existing ambulatory surgery department in the CPMC Hospital North Tower. Patient drop-off would be located adjacent the MOB's third floor, accessible via the existing Duboce Avenue service drive. The MOB would include two pedestrian entries: a southern entrance along Noe Street and a northern entrance located along Duboce Avenue across from the N-Judah MUNI stop. The project would result in removal of 75 onsite surface parking spaces; no new off-street parking spaces would be constructed as part of the project. Pedestrian and streetscape improvements, including a public plaza, landscaping and sidewalk widening along Noe Street would be undertaken as part of the project. The project site is in the RH-3 (Residential House, Three Family) Zoning District and the 65-D Height and Bulk District, and would require Conditional Use authorization for expansion of an institutional use in an RH-3 Zoning District, an amendment CPMC's Planned Unit Development, permits from the Department of Public Works for tree removal and new landscaping, as well as building permits from the Department of Building Inspection.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007)


Sue Hestor, Representative of the Appellant - Noe Neighbors Representative

- This site was called Franklin/Ralph K. Davis Hospital before becoming the California Pacific Medical Center [CPMC].

  1. It got approval in 1991 to be a Medical Office Building [MOB].
  2. What is happening now is that we have one part of a larger facility [CPMC]

- The entire facility needs to be analyzed because it is structured to shift certain uses/function to certain campuses.

- The Master Plan for all the facilities is pending a hearing and this project is going through while an Environmental Impact Review is in progress.

  1. Referring back to the 1991 approval, the report says that is the same thing but it is not.

- It is an addition of neuroscience tied to California Pacific that is not a free standing medical office building created with the Franklin/Ralph K. Davis.

- The saga of the planning consideration of Franklin/Ralph K. Davis had a lot to do with how that facility fits in a residential neighborhood.

- In the past, the Planning Commission carefully buffered the campus in particular because of the height of the site.

- It is indicated on page 36 of the document. It says that the orientation is the most brutally architecture.

- If you bring the development down on Noe Street and have a commercial wall, it is something that is part of an environmental analysis.

- That part is absolutely insufficient in the environmental document. It is one of the reasons why an environmental impact report is necessary.

  1. The city is currently undergoing a historic district preparation all around this site.

- Here we are with no analysis and no mentioning of the historical survey that is going to be incorporated to the east and south of this site.

Theodore Franklin, United Healthcare Workers Union

- We have three concerns we would like to address: parking, air pollution and the failure of due process.

- Regarding parking and traffic - we submitted a carefully considered critique of the city's analysis of parking and traffic to be generated by this project.

  1. We have provided tonight copies of an additional letter by our traffic expert, Dan Smith.

- The city has responded to this report highlighting five key flaws in the traffic and parking analysis.

- The analysis ignores the fact that Duboce Avenue already has impairment traffic conditions.

  1. The city surveyed traffic in the middle of the day instead of the peek/rush hours.
  2. The public was very rarely informed about parking impacts.
  3. This is going to be a large constructions project having a negative impact on air.

- The city analysis is saying that measures would take place set for by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

  1. Those are generic mitigation measures that are tacked on every project.

Tay Via, California Pacific Medical Center Representative

- I sent a letter to the Commission highlighting legal standards that I am sure you are aware of it.

  1. The appellant would need to present substantial evidence for their arguments.
  2. Tonight, the issues are the same staff has addressed in the document.
  3. They have not presented substantial evidence that would support their position.
  4. We did take into account that these would be net new jobs and services.
  5. We agreed with Ms. Hestor that this is not the same project as in 1999.
  6. Residential contents are all contained in the document.

- In terms of Market-Octavia, this project is not in that area and the institutional setting would not impact the eligibility of the district if in the future it is determined to be historic.

  1. In terms of Mr. Franklin's comments - staff addressed all those concerns in the document.

Jonathan Youtt

  1. Expressed support of an Environmental Impact Review [EIR] for this project.

- We spent the past five days informing the community of this project and we have over 450 signatures requesting the review.

  1. All people who signed the petition live in the area and did not know about this project.
  2. The issue of removing so many trees, the shadows and traffic are big concerns.

- We realize that California Environmental Quality Act requires full Environmental Impact Review for any public space that would have a shadow cast by any new development.

Steve Vitka, Noe Duboce Neighbors

  1. There would be 75 less parking spaces when this project is completed.

- In the original Environmental Review, there was a proposal for an underground garage and I wonder why it is not included at this time.

Robert Bush

- Urged the Commission to approve the Planning Department's ruling of concentration in the project itself.

- This project provides an answer to the concerns of patients, physicians and the neighborhood.

- There are adverse problems as it is with any construction like parking, traffic and the impact to residents on Noe Street.

  1. We have worked for many years to mitigate impacts on the neighborhood.

Peter Cohen

  1. This project does have its importance of helping the community.
  2. It is also important to properly mitigate specific issues.

- The idea of high quality medical service is not exclusive to good development on the ground that mitigates and to be sensitive to the neighbors.

- Two of the issues that are of concern to the neighbors are the scale of the building and the attempted impact from that building as well as the traffic.

  1. It was pointed out that this is part of a historic survey area in the Market-Octavia Plan.

- The preliminary survey results shows that most of the Duboce Triangle area probably is going to be eligible as a historic district.

- This is a matter of how the scale impacts would be analyzed given the historic significance of the neighborhood.

- The other issue is traffic. It is about analyzing the situation carefully to understand what it means in real terms and try to mitigate for those things.

- We would like the negative declaration to be used to inform you on specific issues that could be handled quickly.

ACTION: Negative Declaration upheld.

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

NAYES: Olague

MOTION: 17443

20. 2004.0603C (Tape IIIA; IIIB; IVA; IVB) (T. Tam (415) 558-6325)

601 DUBOCE AVENUE - southwest corner of Duboce Avenue and Noe Street; Lot 1 in Assessor's Block 3539 - Request for a Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c) and 304 to amend a previously approved CU/PUD authorization (Case No. 1987.847C, Motion No. M13255) and develop a new four-story, 46,000 gross-square-foot (gsf) clinic / medical office building (as measured by the Planning Code; 50,100 gsf without area reductions allowed by Sec. 102.9). The new building would contain a Neuromuscular and Electroencephalogram Clinic, offices, a pharmacy and an admitting station for the existing ambulatory surgery department in the CPMC Hospital North Tower. As a Planned Unit Development, the project is seeking modifications to Planning Code requirements for rear yard and independently accessible parking. The property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 65-D Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of April 12, 2007)


Martin Brotman, President & CEO, Pacific Medical Center - Project Sponsor

- The proposed project is the most important to Davis Campus, neighbors and to the city of San Francisco.

- Bringing the neuroscience to this campus fits the programs and services already provided at this campus.

- We already completed our seismic retrofit at the campus and are upgrading our emergency department.

  1. We are upgrading the middle hospital tower.

- We are building a unique theme park to ensure that our disabled persons have the best rehabilitation care.

- We are also continuing our acute medical surgical and microsurgery services at Davis Campus, already existing and to continue in the new facilities.

- This project would greatly help us hold and attract highly specialized positions in neuroscience.

- It would bring together under one roof two very important linked programs -- neuroscience and rehabilitation.

  1. It would create a much better working environment for physicians, nurses and staff.

- We have worked for several years with the neighborhood task force to ensure that the community's needs are fully understood.

- Our current design creates a very attractive transition between the existing hospital and the community.

  1. We would also be a valuable new resource for the city.

- San Francisco is a leader of health care and Pacific Medical provides one third of the health care in the city.

- This project is a result of a collaborative work between the Medical Center, the Planning Department and the Neighborhood Task Force.

Ralph Marqueza

- Our role was to assist in the development process and to coordinate the objectives of all the diverse community interests.

- Many of this project's features are the result of the partnership with those district's community interests that started five years ago.

- A Neighborhood Task Force was created and met regularly for that period.

- Besides meeting with the task force, we also made regular presentations at large neighborhood meetings and included information in its newsletters.

- We have identified hundreds of supporters of this project including neighbors, family members, patients and medical staff.

- I would like to submit this binder containing the substantial support that we have documented so far.

  1. There would be people not satisfied with the outcome of the planning process.

- We are extremely proud of the quality of the project we were able to produce with the community help.

  1. We have assembled a fully experienced team and they are here to explain the project.

Neal Morrison, Noe Neighbors

  1. Read and submitted a signed petition opposing this project mainly for its impact on casting shadows, construction, landscaping and parking issues.

Jonathan Youtt, Noe Neighbors

- The neighborhood is mostly residential except this particular block with the project in question.

- We spoke with over 450 people and the main concern is the green belt running along Duboce to Noe Street.

- The original construction of the Davis Medical Center, back in the late 60's, there was a condition that construction of four stalls into the interior of the building allowing the green belt to act as a buffer.

- We feel that it is an important aspect for allowing such a huge commercial venture within the residential confines.

  1. We would like this project to be recessed 20 feet.
  2. We had to step in because the task force collapsed. Many members resigned.
  3. We realized there was a need to file an appeal.

- We support the project but we need to mitigate some of those issues and have them built into the conditions of approval.

  1. The Medical Center would have an entrance and drop off zone on Noe Street.

- Our proposal is to make an impenetrable edge between housing and the hospital. They could use the other seven entrances of the hospital.

- The document keeps saying that there are three and four story buildings on Noe Street. There is only one four-story property and there are two three-story properties.

- We are looking for ways to reduce the impact on the neighborhood.

- We have a list with proposed mitigations and we would like a dialogue with the hospital in order to get these taken care of.

- The signatures on the petition are people that live in the neighborhood and would like ways to mitigate our issues.

Mary Lanier, California Pacific Medical Center

  1. I have been a liaison with the neighborhood groups.

- Thanked neighborhood task force and neighbors for all the work and hours invested in this project.

- We have really worked very diligently to have a good relationship with the neighborhood groups.

- We have been responsive on various issues not necessarily related to this building but just for living in the neighborhood together.

- We are sharing our resources with our community like providing parking on weekends for special activities.

- We have been here for over 150 years. We were here during the quake and we intend to provide excellent health care for years to come.

  1. We have very highly recognized specialty care in our campus.

- Our nursing unit and emergency department regularly scores in the top percentile across the country for patient satisfaction.

Leo Chow, Project's Architect

- Looking at the community and the neighborhood, we tried to respond to important characteristics of the site.

- One is the green corridor on Noe Street that connects it from Market Street to Duboce Park.

  1. We are trying to extend that park and continue the green space.

- Residences across the street are recognized for their variety, changes in scale and the fact that they are primarily built of wood.

- Early on, the thought was to create a building that would act as a bridge between two different contexts -- between the residences and the hospital.

- The existing access to the facility has seven vehicle entrances helping Noe Street traffic.

  1. Our proposed project engages the street to provide public access to the facility.

Geoffrey Nelson

  1. We worked with a task force that was established in 2002.
  2. We had thousands of hours in meetings with incredible levels of details.

- When you look at the conditions of approval, there are none that do not have the fingerprints of the members of the Duboce Triangle and the task force.

- We have made as large an effort as possible to try to get the word out. This diagram shows the mailings, walking in the neighborhoods, etc.

  1. In addition, we want a positive solution for Noe Street as well.
  2. We have not been able to find a consensus of what the solution is.

Robert Miller

  1. There have been several factors that have led us to this point.
  2. The fulfillment of a dream for us: neurologist and neurosurgeons jointly providing treatment in our institutions.
  3. We now have new treatments for neurological disease that is just extremely exciting.

- We are honored to be the program chosen to make the move and really invest in neuroscience to help people with neurological diseases.

  1. Urged to approve this program.

Steve Vitka, Noe Duboce Neighbors

  1. This process has taken five years and we would not like to go much longer.

- What we are proposing is some sort of mediated process at this point. We urge you not to approve today and give us time to negotiate the list of issues.

  1. I would also like to address the construction management plan.
  2. We need to address the parking issue during the construction phase.

- We have no commitment here. We would like a better arbitration process and negotiate that as well.

Robert Miller

  1. I am speaking as a patient.
  2. This is a very necessary and important program for the community.

Dennis Richards, President of the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association

  1. We represent about 3,000 homes in the area and about 10,000 residents.
  2. This project sits directly in the middle of our internal blocks.

- This is the largest development that the interior block is going to experience since the hospital itself.

- The task force has narrowed down the issues to three: architectural, traffic and pedestrian affects, size and mass and fourth floor concerns about the roof to reduce shadow impacts on Noe Street.

  1. Our Board deliberated dozens of hours recently on these four items.

- We absolutely support where the Medical Center is going. Unfortunately, we were short on one area and that was the roof.

  1. I hope you approve the project and include the chamfering roof as a condition.

Richard Magary, Buena Vista Neighborhood Association

  1. You have our letter of support for this project in your packet.
  2. I hope you give a favorable consideration.
  3. Page two of our letter has a full description of the Neighborhood Task Force.

- The task force included very well publicized and open community meetings with periodic reports to the neighborhood.

Joseph Sophie

  1. I live two blocks away and have worked at the hospital since 2006.

- I feel that this project is very important for the community for treatment and follow up services at the same facility.

  1. When I started working at the campus, I was advised to use public transportation.

Dee Holden Norris

  1. We provide quality care for and throughout disease treatments.
  2. Our patients would have easy access.

- We have taken it into consideration and the architect has designed an internal driveway to allow drop-off patients at our doors.

  1. We provide financial support for patients and families to park in the garages.

Cathy Kennedy

  1. I work at Davis Campus in rehabilitation.
  2. This new building is going to bring all services together in one place.
  3. People with neurological disorders do take public transportation.
  4. This new building would provide the access that they need.

Jeffrey Phillips, Local 6

  1. [Shared an experience of a coworker's accident that cut off his thumb.]

- He was taken to the General Hospital and doctors said it could be reattached at Davis Medical Center and he was transferred.

- The thumb was reattached and he recovered 80 percent of the original strength in a few months.

- Davis Center has been that kind of resource for us in the building trades and for the city generally.

Walter Menzel, Patient

  1. [Shared experience of brain surgery and a stroke.]
  2. The Medical center has helped me to be a fully productive and functioning citizen
  3. I hope you support this project and approve it.

Michael Steadman

  1. The plaza drop off would be directly across from my residence.
  2. We are asking that the drop off take place in a turnaround of one of the existing exits off 14th Street.
  3. It could be designed in a way that the cars would enter, drop off and exit allowing access to the exact same area.
  4. The reason we are asking this is because of the potential for double parking increasing the traffic congestion in the area.

Wendy Baker

  1. Opposes this project mainly because it would be out of neighborhood character.

- The hospital currently hides behind tall trees and acts as a major landscape buffer against Noe Street's light and glare.

  1. It needs to remain that way. All entrances and exits should remain the way it is now.
  2. There should be no curbside drop off on Noe Street.

Leslie Uptain, Director of The Muscular Dystrophy Association

  1. Supports this project for being an asset to our city.

- It is a leader in the world of neuroscience. This particular clinic is known as one of the top three across the nation and most certainly the best.

- It is very important to have a place that patients would feel comfortable in - a peaceful place where they can get hope.

Wendy Coffee

- I would like to say that I am not against the construction or the service that would be provided to citizens.

- I am concerned about the impact of this project on our historic and residential neighborhood.

  1. Pedestrian safety and traffic have not been adequately addressed by the current plan.

- To help mitigate the impacts of the increased traffic, The Medical Center should keep entrances to its Davis Campus on 14th Street and Duboce Avenue.

- There should be no curbside drop off on Noe Street. Instead, they should create a continuously landscaped edge to separate it from the sidewalk.

Jackie Phan, Clinical Specialty for Stroke

- I have had the opportunity to work with physician, nurses and other staff to develop, maintain and improve several neuroscience programs.

- Emergent and aggressive treatment of patients in acute stroke can reduce disability and improve patient recovery if implemented in an extremely quick time frame.

  1. Time loss is brain loss. Every minute counts.
  2. It is vital to have the stroke team physically connected to Davis Hospital.

Ann Bedenk, Stroke Coordinator for California Pacific Medical Center

  1. On a daily basis I deal with stroke patients and their family.
  2. The common response from them is that we have given back their lives today.
  3. One of the concerns is that we do not have all of our care centralized in one location.

- We are extraordinarily lucky to have our stroke neurologist and neurosurgeons on 24 hours - 7days basis.

- [Shared experience of husband that suffered a stroke and was attended at Pacific Medical Center.]

Gerry Crowley, Neighborhood Network

  1. We support this project. I have been a patient of Pacific Medical Center.
  2. The neighbors' needs are very modest.
  3. Given more time for mediation is a good idea, the two sides could come together.

- There are two things missing here: No Institutional Master Plan and Institutional Design Guidelines.

Rebecca Symmons, Manager for the Davis Campus - Emergency Department

- This Emergency Department has been consistently in the top ten percentile for patient's satisfaction of care.

- The neuroscience center would help support the emergency department to continue to provide excellent care.

Paul Wermer

  1. I hear that many issues can be solved.

- The Pacific Medical Center has a great deal of respect from neighbors. The Medical Center knows how to address the facility's issues but not the neighborhood impacts.

- Urged as a condition of use for this facility two things: a prohibition of passenger/loading zone along Noe Street and requirement for the Medical Center to take steps to inhabit patients on Noe Street.

Carol Brownson

  1. I live near a similar Pacific Medical Center office building on Webster Street.
  2. The neighbors on Webster Street do not get to use that street that much anymore.
  3. There is a lovely access to the street and the painting does not show the Victorian neighborhood.

Jim Meko, Neighborhood Network

  1. We have taken the position of support of the Noe Street neighbors.

- The requests are so simple: widen sidewalks, safer crosswalks, better landscaping, mitigating shadow impacts and traffic.

  1. It is disappointing that the project sponsor has not respond to these requests.
  2. The neighbors deserve the courtesy of your consideration and support.

Jim Salinas Sr., Carpenters Local Union 22

  1. We are supporting this project sponsor.
  2. For the last year and half, they reached out to the labor community.

- I am very confident that the representatives from California Pacific Medical Center have made a great effort to work with the community and neighbors.

Karen Apena

  1. Urged the Commission to consider the 13 minimal requests from neighbors.
  2. I hope you will not approve unless we have some agreement on those issues.

Gregg Wilcox

- We spent a lot of time with Pacific Medical Center and they compromised with the task force.

- On the architecture, they agreed that this building fit very well in the neighborhood character.

- On the issue of the drop off spot - this was a compromise we made because we do not want double parking on the streets.

Linda de Mello

  1. I live directly across from the Pacific Medical Center on Webster Street.

- I appreciate the needs of residents in the accommodation for people living near a medical facility.

  1. I wish to address the significance of this project from two perspectives.

- First one is personal. Many people in this room are at risk of heart attacks and strokes. It is a privilege to have access to quality care.

  1. Second is my role as a director of the alias chapter in this area.

- There is an extraordinary need to be able to leverage the international research capacities of neuroscience specialists.

- It is critical that the Davis project allow our specialists to collaborate and leverage their expertise for all people.

Paula Lykins, Manager of Community Relations of California Pacific Medical Center

  1. I would like to tell you a little bit about my work with the Medical Center.

- In my role, I interface with the public on a wide range of topics from sponsorship, tours of the hospital and any impact that might confront the community.

  1. We sponsored the Scott Street laberince with friends of Duboce Park.

- I communicate often with our neighbors via email or direct mail to their homes about impacts that might arise relating to the remodel of the Davis Campus.

Peter Weber

  1. I am a native San Franciscan and a neurologist.
  2. I believe in this neuroscience institute. It would improve patient's care.
  3. We have exciting, significant and marvelous new treatments.

- I did surgery on a patient with epilepsy. I cannot do this alone. It is a team approach by bringing all people together in a neuroscience center like this.

Greg Monardo, Former President/CEO of Medical Center

  1. I was the leader of getting the approval on the project in 1991.
  2. This project is similar to the one proposed in 1991.
  3. This is a very needed project that would fulfill a lot of things for the Medical Center.

- The drop off point on Noe Street used to be the main entrance to the facilities prior to the construction in 1965

Ken Howard, Project Manager for Davis Campus

  1. The streetscape -- we are improving the sidewalk.
  2. Landscaping is currently a 15-foot wide sidewalk and it would be 22 feet.
  3. Massing -- we have set back the upper floor to reduce shadows and the height of the building.
  4. On traffic mitigation -- we are adding no new curb cuts to the street along the campus.
  5. There would be no new curb cuts along Noe Street.

Peter Cohen, Duboce Triangle Association

  1. I was the only member of the task force that was neighbor of the project.

- You can see that the Duboce Triangle is essentially a Victorian small-scale neighborhood.

- The California Pacific Medical Campus is a giant square in the middle. The small square is the Medical Office building.

- It might seem small in the context of San Francisco but is big in terms of the neighborhood.

  1. One of the criteria for granting conditional use is that it is necessary or desirable and compatible with the neighborhood character.
  2. The older project remained within the campus confines behind trees and had internal circulation.

- All of the issues raised are very minor and they have to do with the fact that this building comes off from the campus.

Sue Hestor, Attorney for Noe Neighbors

- The staff report does not really give you guidance on the issues that the neighbors are here talking about.

- The noise, glare and scale were a very important part of the analysis from prior Planning Commissions.

- They do not discuss the historic survey under way right now. That is a major omission because it does not matter that this project is outside the boundaries.

  1. Its relationship to the fine scale Victorians should be part of the staff analysis.
  2. There is no analysis of the traffic coming on Duboce Triangle.

- What the neighbors are asking is for traffic calming and adding a street wall down to Noe Street with no buffering.

  1. We need some relief from traffic.
  2. Your staff should have guided you through this analysis.

- If you are not ready to impose these mitigations today, continue it and make the staff be the mediator.

  1. Things have fallen apart and they need your resolution.

Tay Via

- There is no consensus in the neighborhood and that has put CPMC [California Pacific Medical Center] in a difficult position.

- Buena Vista and Duboce Triangle had one outstanding issue and now they are bringing a list of 13 issues.

- The difficulty is that in some cases they are mutually exclusive.

- Some of the things proposed as simple solutions, actually undue understandings that have been negotiated over the years.

- The traffic drop off is the perfect example. Many people agreed to it and others in the near vicinity have disagreed.

- At this point, CPMC is really asking you to rule on the project and to rely in large part on livable street which would address almost everyone's issues raised tonight.

  1. If there were anything simple, there would be an agreement.

ACTION: Approved as amended: Planning Department staff to continue working with neighbors, neighborhood organization and project sponsor to address concerns about streetscape improvements, livable streets, traffic calming measures and parking issues.

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

NAYES: Sugaya

MOTION: 17444

21. 2007.0319L (Tape IVB; VA) (T. Sullivan-Lenane: 558-6257)

U.C. Extension Center at 55 Laguna Street - formerly San Francisco State Teacher's College, blocks bounded by Buchanan, Hermann, Haight, and Laguna Streets; Lots 001, 001A in Assessor's Block 0857 and Lots 001, 002, 003 in Assessor's Block 0870 - Request for the Planning Commission to adopt a Resolution to recommend or not recommend the designation of the U.C. Extension Campus at 55 Laguna Street, formerly San Francisco State Teacher's College as a San Francisco landmark under Article 10 of the Planning Code. Block 0857, lot 001 & 001A, and Block 0870 lot 003, are zoned P (Public Use) and are in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Block 0870, lot 001 & 002 are zoned P (Public Use) and are in an 80-B Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Not to recommend designation as a San Francisco landmark.


Gerry Crowley

- I have many fun memories of going to Grandparent's Day at the French American School. Both of my granddaughters attended there.

- I really support this landmark designation and hope you will too.

Alan Martinez, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board

  1. The Board voted nearly unanimously for this domination based on the material in the letter and events associated with it.
  2. We felt that there is a good argument that has not been made based on the association with Frederick Burke.
  3. We also felt that a good case to be made on the design of the building that Anderson Holland makes is particular fine.
  4. I think that the richness is quite masterful as it blends in Spanish and Art Deco architecture with beautiful detail.
  5. Even though the developer has agreed to retain most of the building, they have already mentioned changes they want to make.
  6. I just think that the design of the new buildings is not appropriate.
  7. The landmark intent is not to stop projects.
  8. We support the new use of this building but we strongly feel that any adopted reuse of this building needs continuous city oversight especially because the use is being changed from educational to residential, which means a lot of changes.
  9. Because of the importance of this building, it really needs continuous scrutiny on how thing are going to be done.

Jim Chappell, SPUR

  1. We are in support of this new development as designed.
  2. We believe that it should not be landmarked.
  3. Housing in San Francisco is the most important need.
  4. There are no other prospective uses for this site.
  5. Landmarking any part of the site only means that it would sit empty for many years.

- I have taught history and theory of urban design in those very buildings for about 20 years.

- During that time, neighbors frequently complaint about this institutional use in a residential neighborhood.

  1. Those buildings are not very friendly. The parking lot and blank walls are a source of danger.

Roberta Achtenberg

  1. I support this project and endorsed the remarks of John Chappell.
  2. There is no finer expert on urban planning and architecture than him.

Rob Bregoff, Lower Haight Organization

  1. I am representing a 300-member group.
  2. I made a survey in the neighborhood about two months ago.

- Overwhelmingly, the neighbors support the reuse of the building. The main concern in the Lower Haight is crime and safety.

- We support the preservation of the building. But landmark at this time would tie the hands of any project sponsor.

- We would like to see the Haight Street side with windows and with good urban planning.

- The site has the potential to be a very good addition and centerpiece in the Lower Haight.

Marilyn Isabell

- I am here as a potential consumer/resident of this site.

- Some of the proposed housing there would be for seniors, gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual.

  1. There is no housing for us. If it is not going to be there, where is it going to be?
  2. Two things you cannot find in San Francisco is parking and housing.

Frederick Knaff

  1. Urged not to open the landmark nomination.
  2. Article 10 in the Planning Code is the wrong code for this site.
  3. The history does not meet the eligibility requirements of article 10.
  4. Landmarking at this time is the wrong use of the planning process.
  5. As you heard from the Landmark Board, it is intrinsically tide to an opinion bow.

- The article 10 is appropriate for a completed site that you want to see remain in its current form.

  1. The site no longer looks the way it did when San Francisco State was there.

- Making something landmark two years after presented to the Board is not appropriate. It is too late to start that process.

Marcy Adelman, Open House

  1. If you landmark this site, some really good solid contributions to the city would not happen.
  2. The new community center with programs for the neighborhood, new rental and affordable housing, a new park open to the public, LGBT [Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] friendly senior housing would not happen.
  3. These are great gifts to the city that we need now.

John Phillips

  1. I am San Francisco landmark number 164.
  2. I am here to urge you to not approve the landmark designation.

- It is time to make good use of the six-acre parcel by developing housing that is sorely needed for our community.

Leslie Miessner

  1. I am here to very much encourage you to deny the landmark designation.
  2. Landmarking this site would do nothing to help the residents of San Francisco.
  3. The buildings that have been sitting vacant will continue to be vacant.

- Also, I am speaking on behalf of Elaine Adamson. [Read and submitted her letter opposing to the landmark designation.]

Robie Robinson

  1. I am very much in favor of this project that proposes to provide housing.
  2. I ask that you not landmark this site so housing can be built.

Joan Hull

  1. I live in a landmarked Victorian property.
  2. The plan for opening up and providing housing is so very important.
  3. I urge you not to landmark this site.


- I am going to read a letter from Lisa because she needed to leave.

  1. [Read and submitted a letter from Lisa Zahner opposing the landmark designation.]

Ruth Herring

  1. I think this project should go forward because it meets so many community needs.

- The center would be for the positive side of life and would reach out to so many people in the city.

  1. Housing is so urgently needed.

- The landmarking of the site would take us to a continuous dead end.

Moli Steinhert, Executive Director of Open House

- We are working to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and seniors have access to safe housing and ageing support services in San Francisco.

  1. 55 Laguna Street represents our first step to do this important work.

- We feel we can make a vital contribution to the community if we are allowed to build at this site.

  1. By landmarking this site, it would exclude us from being able to take this first step.

Hadley Hall

  1. Thanked the Commission for the time, respect and attention to all points of view.
  2. I oppose the landmark designation.
  3. Currently, the proposal is that it would be for rental housing.
  4. I know that outside of 8th and Market, this is the only rental project being proposed.
  5. The property sits there empty. With this development, we would have some tax revenue for the city.
  6. There would be some employment opportunities as well.

Matt Fance

  1. I drive by this site almost daily.
  2. For thirteen years that I have lived there, it has always been dark and there is graffiti.
  3. It is not welcoming. I urge you to support the project.

- This development would be rental. Sixty five percent of people that live in San Francisco are renters.

Elisabeth Gunther, University of California – Project Sponsor

  1. We do not support the landmark designation of the site.
  2. Our reasons have been laid out in the letter that we sent to you dated June 4th.

- First, you have been told that we only own two blocks of the site. A substantial portion is used for the University's Dental Clinic.

  1. That portion of the site is not involved in the AF Evans proposal.

- The dental clinic is an existing public use and the University intents to continue that use.

- With respect to our lack of support for the designation - we do not think the site as a whole has historic associational value.

- We do acknowledge that there are historic resources on site and fully support the attempt to preserve those resources.

- We do not think that its current condition, broken up as it is by the parking lot and the dental clinic, is historic.

Ruthy Bennett, AF Evans

- One of our goals for this site was to preserve and reuse the existing building as much as we can.

- We worked with the community and Heritage to find a solution that would be viable financially, economically and in terms of preservation.

- [Submitted a letter from Heritage endorsing the project.] We worked long and hard in terms of which building to save and what parts of the building to save.

- Our goal with this project is to take this building and help them be an important and effective part of the community.

  1. The development would be at no cost to the city and will benefit the public.
  2. If this site is landmarked, we would not be able to develop on this site.

Neil Sims, Open House

  1. I am speaking in opposition to the landmarking proposal.
  2. I am a believer in the mission of the Open House.
  3. This is a unique and very important project that I would not want to see delayed, deferred or not able to occur.
  4. This landmark issue stands in the way of the success of that project.

- The public park to be built and managed in perpetuity by the developer on behalf of the city with open access to the public is very phenomenal.

Lavon Tabback, Save the UC Laguna Street Campus Group

- The majority of people that I spoke to are very much in favor of the city preserving this vital historic resource.

- A lot of us live in San Francisco for very good reasons and among them is the rich architectural and artistic heritage that the city provides us.

  1. This campus is one aspect of that.

- One of the reasons that I got involved in the project was because of the beautiful mural in Richardson Hall that takes almost the entire wall.

  1. It has been used as educational facility for many years.
  2. It has the right to be nominated and landmarked as a treasure of this great city.
  3. I urge support for the landmark designation.

Elyze Stewart

  1. I had taken classes there when it was UC extension.
  2. I have seen the neighborhood changed dramatically over time.

- I am in support of the landmark designation. The buildings are so special because they provide historic value to the city.

- Also, there is going to be a lot of developments in our neighborhood along Market Street.

Vincent March, Member of Friends of 1800

  1. The campus does qualify as a landmark site.

- I urge the Commission to consider the merits of the nomination as a landmark within the boundaries contained on the site.

- Consider the adapted reuse of and rehabilitation and new construction at a further point in time until the certificate of appropriateness is processed.

Paul Olsen, President of Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association

  1. We have not taken any specific stand on the landmark of the building.

- HVNA [Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association] is on record of supporting the list of the buildings on the National Registrar of Historic Places and for its preservation.

- HVNA is also on record as supporting adaptive reuse of the campus and thus would be opposed to any measure that affectively precludes that.

Cynthia Servetnick, Save the UC Laguna Street Campus Group

- Later this summer you would have an opportunity to vote whether to approve the AF Evans Open House project or not.

- At that time, if landmarked, you could approve it taking overriding considerations under the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] and by approving a certificate of appropriateness in accordance with Article 10.

- Tonight, we are here to discuss whether this campus merits landmarking. It is at risk.

- The Planning Department, The Landmark Preservation Advisory Board and The State Historic Preservation Officer have agreed that it is eligible for the California register.

- I urge you to support your own Landmark Preservation Advisory Board that has advised you to landmark the campus.

  1. [Shared photos of halls and interiors of the site.]

Anson Snyder

- I have no conflict of interest with this project on a private or any public side. I am speaking as a resident.

  1. Asked for support of the landmark designation. This is an educational use.

- Support the landmark and you could still put it for other uses and open it up for community use.

  1. We can do better. Please consider your decision by making this a landmark.

David Dupree, Chairman of The Corless Foundation

- I urge you to not approve this site for landmark status but to approve the four buildings sitting on the property.

  1. They have good use for the community with historical significance.
  2. By landmarking, it would make everything more difficult to develop.

- The developer is very confident and able to move rapidly. They should be allowed to do so with modifications.

Mark Paez, Chair of Friends 1800

- Charles Chase from San Francisco Heritage has worked very closely with my organization on the National register nominations as well as the landmark nominations.

  1. Heritage is very much in support of this landmark designation.
  2. They do not see a conflict between landmark designation and a project at this site.
  3. This recognition of the resource has been in the works for several years.

- The landmark is fairly new in the course of events but the recognition of resources has always been stated up front.

  1. We met with project sponsors and the university many times.

- We spent about $14,000 so far with much of the money donated. This is a really truly community based effort.

- When we met with project sponsor, we tried to encourage them to use the Federal Rehabilitation Credit.

  1. We asked them to sponsor with us the landmark designation.


  1. I strongly support the project and oppose to the landmark designation.
  2. I have been involved in almost all meetings held to save the UC Laguna Campus.
  3. It is unconceivable that there is a proposal to landmark this site.


  1. I urge you to vote against the landmark proposal.
  2. The project cannot go forward if the site is landmarked.

- We will not have an opportunity to introduce housing into the old buildings and do it adequately in a way that reflects the current use.

- We will not be able to introduce the public parks, community garden and the mix of rental housing.

  1. Many of the features would be preserved as part of the current project proposal.

- Fully, eighty three percent of the existing square footage on the site would be preserved.

Judy, Member of Friends 1800

- Support the landmark designation.

- I worked at that building for many years and I am familiar with the beauty of the buildings.

- Also, the landmark historic resource done and the nomination do not include the dental clinic and the parking lot.

  1. The issue here is whether or not this site should be designated as a landmark.
  2. There is no quarrel about the historic nature of this building on the site.

- Landmarking the site does not preclude any project to be built there. It would only require oversight.

Steve Vettel

  1. I just want to make clear that there is a lot of oversight already built in this project.

- The project requires a conditional use, rezoning, overriding findings under the Environmental Impact Report and imposes mitigation measures.

- Unfortunately, article 10 of the Planning Code is not designed to accommodate over adaptive reuse.

- It is designed to honor existing buildings that want to remain in their current use and stage.

  1. No one in the community wants this campus to remain in its current stage and use.

- Adaptive reuse is the way to go with this property and you have plenty of opportunities to oversee how the use is done and being sensitive to the historic nature of this building.

  1. Changes for the property would not be approved if the site were landmarked.

ACTION: Disapproved landmark designation.

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya.


Items 22a & b were taken out of order and followed item 20

22a. 2004.0072D (Tape IVB) (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: Take Discretionary Review and Disapprove demolition.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2007)


Tony Pantaleoni, Project Sponsor

  1. We are proposing to do a three-story two-unit building.

- The first floor consists of two off street parking spaces and a small studio in-law unit for the father of the project sponsor.

- The second floor is the traditional living/dining/kitchen room layout with a family living room.

- The third floor is for the bedrooms and a study room.

- The side section of the property is up sloping and we would be excavating into the existing hill for the project.

  1. The project façade would be articulated to set back fifty percent for a south facing deck.

- We also provide a recessed entry at the street level for automobile and pedestrians as well as a third-floor recessed archway balcony.

- The exterior material would be cement, plaster, painted wood trim, and iron artwork. For potted plants there would be terracotta tile and a recessed aluminum for windows.

- The project keeps the neighborhood character and we feel we would be using proper materials.

Keltin Finley, Sound Engineer

  1. We wrote the soundness report for this project.

- We have evaluated the soundness of this building based on the Planning Department's policy and we found it to be unsound.

- Specifically, we applied the policy as it applies to structure upgrades that address structure hazard.

  1. We added new language to the report that clarifies how we identified structure hazard.

- Our goal was not to bring the building into compliance with the current code but rather to address what we consider to be structural hazard.

- We feel that any member that is unable to support the anticipated loads that it is to carry would unquestionably be a structural hazard.

Mike, The Owner

  1. This property has gone through three soundness reports, which two of them passed.
  2. A neighbor in the area had applied to have it a landmark area.
  3. The plan has been sitting for the last year.

- I designed the house for my father to live in the lower part of the house with an elevator to have access to the top floors.

- Before I bought this building, it had not been lived in for fifteen years. It has been vacant for about twenty years at this point.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and denied demolition.

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

NAYES: Antonini and W. Lee.

ABSENT: Alexander

22b. 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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 17, 2007)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 22a.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and denied new construction.

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

NAYES: Antonini, W. Lee and Sugaya.

23. 2003.0347T (Tape VA) (K. DISCHINGER: (415) 558-6284)

Consider adopting a Resolution of Intention to Initiate an amendment to the Planning Code to dedicate a portion of the Van ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure program to affordable housing and scheduling a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed amendment. The Planning Department, in coordination with our consulting team, has completed an analysis of the potential for an increased affordable housing contribution within the plan area. The amendments before the Planning Commission offers a substitute ordinance for section 249.33 adopted by the Planning Commission on April 5th. The proposed amendments would dedicate a portion of the Van Ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure Program to affordable housing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


ACTION: Initiated

Commission Vice-president will work with staff to schedule public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed amendment.

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

NAYES: Olague, S. Lee and Moore.

MOTION: 17446


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))


Adjournment: 1:15 A.M. Friday, June 8, 2007



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 10:00:28 PM