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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
May 13, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, May 13, 2004
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael J. Antonini, Shelley Bradford Bell, Kevin Hughes, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Edgar E. Boyd

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:43 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Larry Badiner - Acting Director of Planning; Craig Nikitas - Acting Zoning Administrator; Geoffrey Nelson; David Alumbaugh; Miriam Chion; Paul Maltzer; Susan Exline; Michael Li; Sara Vellve; Lois Scott; Adam Light; Mark Sprick; Nannie Turrell; Rick Cooper, Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

    The Commission will consider a request for continuance to a later date. The Commission may choose to continue the item to the date proposed below, to continue the item to another date, or to hear the item on this calendar.

    0.1 2003.1028E (J.A. KUGLER; 558-5983)

      3150 18TH STREET - Lots 002 and 012 of Assessor's Block 3573, northwestern corner of 18th Street and Treat Avenue - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed project would involve the demolition of a set of two-story light industrial office and warehouse buildings with six off-street parking spaces and construction of a five-story building consisting of approximately 254 units of rental workshops for arts activities, light manufacturing, repair and small business services uses and a single caretaker's unit. The total floor area of the new building would be about 72,592 gsf. The second through fifth floors would be set back between 12 and 16 feet over the 16 foot tall podium of the ground floor. The proposed building would be approximately 50 feet tall. Pedestrian access would be provided from Treat Avenue while vehicular access would be provided from 18th Street to a ground level garage with 50 off-street parking spaces, a single loading space and six bicycle spaces. The project site is in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District, and a 50-X height and bulk district. It is also within the Eastern Neighborhoods study area.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration.

        (Proposed for Continuance to June 24, 2004)

      Item 0.1 was transferred from the Addendum

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 24, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      1. 2004.0058D (D.SIROIS: ( 415) 558-6313)

      1430 43RD AVENUE - east side, between Kirkham & Judah, Lot 038, Assessor's Block 1811 - Request for Discretionary Review of building permit application no. 2003.09.04.3873 seeking to construct a vertical addition and lateral addition on an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve permit with modifications.

        (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 27, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      2a. 2003.0304E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)

      829 FOLSOM STREET - New Construction of 69 Residential Units: Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. The proposed project is new construction of 69 residential units in a nine-story, 80-foot tall, approximately 92,900 gross square-foot building covering a 10,313 square-foot site. A public parking lot currently occupies the project site, which would be demolished. About 63 parking spaces would be located in a basement-parking garage with parking entrances/exits on Shipley Street. There would be about 5,000 sq. ft. of ground floor retail space on Folsom Street. Pedestrian access would be on Shipley and Folsom Streets. The proposed project would require Conditional Use authorization for the project's proposed height above 40 feet. The project site is lot 91 in Assessor's Block 3752, on the south side of Folsom Street with street frontage also on Shipley Street, between Fourth and Fifth Street, within a South of Market Residential/Service District (SOM RSD) and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold the Preliminary Negative Declaration

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

      (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 27, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

    2b. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

      829 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 157, 207.5, 263.11, and 271 to construct an 85-foot-tall, nine-story building exceeding bulk limits, for a mixed-use development with up to 70 dwelling units, up to 5,000 gross square feet of ground floor retail commercial space, and a 62-space parking garage exceeding accessory amounts. A rear yard modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and on a 7th floor setback of 10-15 feet along Shipley Street.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

      (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 27, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

    2c. 2003.0304CV (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

          829 FOLSOM STREET - south side between 4th and 5th Streets, a through lot to Shipley Street; Lot 091 in Assessor's Block 3752 - The proposal is to construct a mixed-use development with up to 70 dwelling units, up to 5,000 gross square feet of ground floor commercial space and a 62-space parking garage. A rear yard modification is sought under Section 134(e) to provide rear yard open space within an inner court and on a 7th floor setback of 10-15 feet along Shipley Street. Variances are sought from the bay window projection limitations of Section 136(c)(2)(B) and from dwelling unit exposure requirements of Section 140(a)(2). The site is within an RSD (Residential/Service) Mixed-Use District, and a 40-X/85-B Height and Bulk District.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

        (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 27, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      3. 2004.0216D (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)

          9 RHODE ISLAND STREET - East side between Southern Heights Avenue and 22nd Streets; Lot 44 in Assessor's Block 4095 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.10.29.8840, proposing to raise the walls and create a gable roof on a dwelling in an RH-2 (House, Two Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve revised building permit application as submitted.

          (Proposed for Continuance to May 27, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to May 27, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

    4 2004.0163D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)

      2244 STEINER STREET - east side between Clay and Sacramento Streets; Lot 025 in Assessor's Block 0630 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of Dwelling Unit Mergers, of Building Permit Application 2004.01.12.3872, proposing to convert a three-family dwelling to a single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

    (Proposed for Continuance to June 3, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 3, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      5 2003.0587HXVLU (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

          938-942 MARKET STREET - north side between Mason and Cyril Magnin Streets (also fronting on the east side of Mason Street between Market and Eddy Streets (the lot and structure are L-shaped)), Lot 5, in Assessor's Block 341 - Request for 1) a Permit to Alter under Article 11 for a substantial increase in height to a Category I Building; 2) a Determination of Compliance under Section 309 of the Planning Code to permit an one-story vertical addition, historic façade rehabilitation, and conversion of existing office space to approximately 34 residential dwelling units, with an exception to the Planning Code rear yard requirements; 3) the granting of residential open space, dwelling unit exposure, and parking variances; 4) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional designation as San Francisco Landmark No. 244; and 5) recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for conditional approval of a conditional Mills Act Contract; all for the subject property, which is in the C-3-G Zoning District and a 110-X Height and

          Bulk District. The Zoning Administrator will hear the variance application concurrently with the Planning Commission.

    (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

    (Proposed for Continuance to June 3, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 3, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

    6 2003.0053E (L. KIENKER: (415) 558-5970)

      520 CHESTNUT STREET - Construction of 20-Unit Residential Building: - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration. North side between Powell and Mason Streets, Lot 009 of Assessor's Block 0052. The proposed project is construction of a 57,393-gross-square-foot (gsf), four-story, 20-unit residential building, with 21 basement parking spaces. The project would include the reuse of the existing approximately 21,250-gsf, two-story, warehouse by adding a 27,143-gsf vertical addition, set back from the street. The new building would be approximately 40 feet in height at the roofline. The project would require Conditional Use and Variance authorizations. The site is in the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District zoning district and a 40-X height & bulk district.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

        (Proposed for Continuance to June 17, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 17, 2004

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      7 2003.0946D (D. DiBARTOLO: (415) 558-6291)

          458-460 35th AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Clement Street: Lot 042 in Assessor's Block 1466 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.02.21.8034, proposing to construct a 3' 4" deep, three-level rear horizontal addition with a two-story deck and stairs; and add a new, approximately 830 square foot, partial third floor to a two-story over ground floor structure containing two dwelling units in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 22, 2004)

                DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Discretionary Review Application was Withdrawn

    8 2004.0188T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

      PUBLIC BENEFITS ZONING CONTROLS - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Planning Code by adding section 318 through 318.6 to encourage the development of comprehensive community plans that provide floor area bonus incentives for the provision by housing projects of pertain public benefits for the City, including affordable housing, open space, community serving space, and PDR space, and until the development of plans for specific neighborhoods, to impose a program on housing projects receiving a floor are bonus requiring the provision of public benefits, and amending Section 123 and 207 to except housing projects receiving a floor area bonus under this ordinance from the density limits of the Planning Code, and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

        (Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Without hearing, item was continued indefinitely

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

    B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

    9 Consideration of Adoption - Draft Minutes of April 1 (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004) and April 15, 2004.

    Minutes of April 1, 2003:

    SPEAKER(S): None

    ACTION: Approved

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

    ABSENT: Boyd

    Minutes of April 15, 2004

    SPEAKER(S): None

    ACTION: Approved

    AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee

    EXCUSED: Hughes

          ABSENT: Boyd

          10 Commission Comments/Questions

      Commissioner Hughes: He welcomed Commissioner Bradford Bell back from her vacation.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

    11. Director's Announcements

      - welcomed Commissioner Bradford Bell back.

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

      BOS -

      May 7, 2004 -

      - The first hearing from the Planning Audit Committee was held. This committee was formed to discuss the June 2002 audit performed by the Budget Analyst on operations and procedures of the Planning Department.

      - The members are Supervisor Peskin as president, Supervisor Chris Daly as vice president and Supervisor Amiano as member.

      - It was a two hour hearing. It was an incredibly refreshing and positive experience.

      - There was concern on reporting to the Board of Supervisors on the budget, where is long range planning, department's computers, etc.

      - He thanked the Supervisors individually.

      Full Board of Supervisors - May 11, 2004:

      Re: Large Scale Retail Uses

      - The Board of Supervisors passed it at it's first hearing.

      Re: 2362 Market Street and 2550 Mission Street (The New Mission Theatre).

      - These buildings was landmarked.

      Re: 2599 Lombard Street (Pacific Motor Inn)

      - In a +10-0 vote the Board of Supervisors overturned the Commission's decision.

      Re: Antennas

      - Antennas need to be looked at in a different way.

      - When staff last looked at the WTS guidelines, it was admitted that the revisions were minor and that major revisions more extensive revisions still need to be done.

      - A collaborative process should be done with Planning staff, the Board of Supervisors, the Commission and the Telecommunications Commission.

      - The Board of Supervisors is concerned that much of the information submitted to Planners is not verified because they are not telecommunications experts.

      BOA -

      Re: 2258 Beach Street

      - This permit was a consolidation permit over a four year span.

      - This was the subject of several Discretionary Reviews and appeals.

      - The Commission voted to not take Discretionary Review and grant the permit. The Board of Appeals upheld the Commission's decision unanimously.

      13. Presentation from the Office of the City Attorney on the procedures for hiring and releasing the Director of Planning.

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

      SPEAKER(S):

      Geoffrey Nelson

      - He is a member of the Planning Department.

      - He submitted a letter that was sent to the Mayor.

      - There has been a meeting with the Mayor's office and he realizes that there is an issue of confidentiality about the candidates.

      - The Planning Director needs to put a public face on this process and needs to express that the department adds value to the public's interest.

      Nilka Julio - Local 21

      - She is not sure if all of her questions have been answered but at least it sets the ball rolling.

      - What is the legal action of the committee?

      - Why is the committee looking at local applicants only? A nationwide search needs to be done in order to determine if the candidate is politically connected.

      - The people hare are ready to participate in the newness of this process.

      - There needs to be faith in the next planning director.

      Ken Rich

      - The choice of the next director is critical to the future of the city.

      - Please direct a very detailed search for the next director.

      David Alumbaugh

      - He thanked the Commission for inviting planning staff to attend this meeting.

      - They are excited to have the support of the Mayor in making planning central to his administration.

      - The director needs to have a vision, skills to look inward towards the department, skills to look at the broken planning process, see the technical and physical environment, etc.

      - Do a national or international search to find the very best candidate, have department staff participating in screening criteria, staff involvement in the evaluation of the candidates, etc.

      - None of the requests have been acted on even thought the requests have been made in the most respectful manner.

      Miriam Chion

      - The City has gone through a lot of changes in the last years.

      - The Planning Department is to create better places for every body.

      - This perspective has been lost.

      - This is an opportunity to turn this around by finding a new planning director.

      - If the department can get a director that understands it's people, respects the vision, and to gets the Planning Department together, the Department can do it's job better.

      - The Commission is in the position of a lot of power that can make the decision on all these issues.

      Sue Exline

      - She thanked the Commission for allowing staff to express their comments.

      - She hopes that staff can play a part in this process.

      Lois Scott - Vice President of the Planner's Chapter of Local 21

      - She asked the members of local 21 to stand (about 10 stood up).

      - The search for planning director should be local and national. The planners should also be engaged in this process.

      - The department has an internally divided structure.

      - When a permanent director is in place, staff should be allowed to do annual evaluations.

      - The outcome that everyone wants is partnership and mutual respect.

      Paul Maltzer

      - He feels that staff from the Planning Department works for the Commission. A new director should be someone who works for them as well.

      - The Commission should nominate that person and it is the Commission's responsibility to take this very seriously.

      - If the Commission wants a director to work for the Commission, it is their responsibility to pick the person who will do the job.

      Johnny Jaramillo

      - He echoes the concerns that his co-workers have.

      - The search needs to be open and inclusive as much as possible.

      - The issues, which are typically at the forefront of planning and land use decisions, like communities that do not have the strongest possible voices and are sometimes ignored, a Director should be able to speak for those voices because they deserve it.

      - The Commission has a remarkable staff working for them.

      - He thanked the Commission for giving them the opportunity to speak on this issue.

      Joe O'Donoghue

      - Whatever administrator or director is hired, the process needs to be functioning because it is not working.

      - He has been working with the Planning Department for many years and ever since then there has been a division in the department.

      - It is important to look locally. There is no need to look nationally.

      - There was already a director named Gerald Green. The next director, if he lives up to his qualification, everyone will be lucky.

      - There is a violation of the Charter right now and a total disrespect of the process.

      Adam Light

      - He thanked the Commission for the opportunity provided to them to be able to speak on this issue.

      - The Commission has been very diligent and very concerned about Planning issues.

      - The Commission can make the best decisions that are best for San Francisco. Doing a national search is the best thing to do. Anything less is not worthy for San Francisco.

      - A fresh start is needed and this is a critical decision.

D. PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS WHERE THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED

    At this time, members of the public who wish to address the Commission on agenda items that have already been reviewed in a public hearing at which members of the public were allowed to testify and the public hearing has been closed, must do so at this time. Each member of the public may address the Commission for up to three minutes.

    None

E. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

    14. 2002.0914R (D. ARGUMEDO: (415) 558-6308/S. SHOTLAND: (415) 558-6284)

      675 TOWNSEND STREET - south side between 7th and 8th Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor Block 3799. The project is related to Planning Case No. 1998.455C, a mixed use development of 148 dwelling units, approximately 35,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 256 parking spaces in two basement levels. Due to the presence of a Caltrain easement, the originally proposed 7'-6" wide sidewalk along Townsend Street would be reduced to 4'-6" to maintain a minimum distance from an existing rail line in the Townsend Street right-of-way. The reduced sidewalk width is less than the Department of Public Works' minimum 6-foot sidewalk width standard. The subject property (675 Townsend Street) is in an M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District and a 40-X/50-X (Height and Bulk) District.

    Preliminary Recommendation: Find the proposal not in conformity with the General Plan

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of May 6, 2004)

          NOTE: On April 1, 2004, following pubic testimony, the Commission closed public hearing. The Commission entertained a motion to find this project not to be in conformity with General Plan by a vote +3 -2. Commissioners Antonini and Bradford-Bell voted no. Commissioners Boyd and Hughes were absent. The motion failed. The matter was continued to April 8, 2004 by a vote +5 -0 to allow the absent commissioners to participate in the final action. Commissioners Boyd and Hughes were absent.

          NOTE: On April 8, 2004, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve by a vote of +6-1; Commissioner Feldstein voted against. Final Language: April 22, 2004 for final language.

          NOTE: On April 22, 2004, the item was continued to May 6, 2004 without further deliberation.

          NOTE: On May 6, 2004, after Commission deliberation, the item was continued to May 13, 2004 by a vote of +4-0 to receive further information from the project engineer. Commissioners Bradford Bell and S. Lee were absent.

      SPEAKER(S): None

      ACTION: Approved

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      MOTION: 16784

F. REGULAR CALENDAR

    15. 2003.1227C (M. Li: (415) 558-6396)

      549-573 MISSION STREET - south side between 1st and 2nd Streets, Lot 120 (formerly Lots 069, 070, 078, 079, 080, and 081) in Assessor's Block 3721 - Request for conditional use authorization to establish a temporary surface parking lot for up to 150 vehicles within the C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 550-S Height and Bulk District. Pursuant to Section 156(h) of the Planning Code, the proposed use may be authorized for a maximum of two years. Six vacant buildings, four of which are un-reinforced masonry buildings (UMBs), will be demolished as part of the project.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

      SPEAKER(S):

      (+) Andrew Junius - Reuben and Junius

      - There is every intention to move forward with the Tishman and Spier project.

      - Temporary parking is the only option he has.

      - The architect is available to answer questions.

      - In the South of Market area thousands of surface parking lot spaces have been lost.

      (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

      - He does not feel that a parking lot is the best use to construct until the office building is ready to go online.

      - Allowing surface parking lot in a very rich transit district is a bad idea.

      - There will be thousands of cars placed on city streets.

      - There will be additional traffic delays, which will cause public transportation to be delayed. These delays cost MUNI to loose a lot of money.

      - There will definitely be a significant negative impact.

      (-) Paul Vuskovitch

      - He is entranced by Acting Director Badiner's idea of a parking lot where people can park.

      (+) Drew Sullins - Tishman and Spier

      - They did speak to Larry Badiner about other uses on the site.

      - They will be putting some sort of public use on the site.

      - Tishman Spier is very committed to building the neighborhood office building.

      ACTION: Approved with the amendment to add three dedicated spaces for Car Share.

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

      ABSENT: Boyd

      MOTION: 16785

16. 2003.1015E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)

        1905 MISSION STREET - Assessor's Block 3553, Lots 27, 28, 29, and 30 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed project involves the construction of an approximately 34,369-gross-square-foot (gsf), 24-unit, five-story, residential building, which would contain about 26,900 gsf of residential use, 2,600 gsf of retail use, and 5,000-gsf of garage with 24 parking spaces. The proposed project would also include the demolition of three existing commercial buildings. Two of these buildings with a total square footage of 4,431 gsf are located at 1911 Mission Street. The third building, consisting of 1,320 square feet is located at 1581 15th Street. The approximately 8,670-square-foot project site is located at the southeast corner of Mission and 15th Streets in the Mission District. The site is in the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, and is in an 80-B height and bulk district.

      Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 15, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) My Do

        - The impact to the event center needs to be taken into consideration.

        - This project will not house the people that are going to live in the neighborhood.

        - There is a loss of PDR jobs associated with this project.

        - The loss of these jobs should be mitigated.

        - The developer has some advise for commercial space, which will bring jobs to the area, but they do not pay as well.

        - The Negative Declaration should be appealed because this project will not provide community benefits.

        (+) Warner Smals - Project Architect

        - All of the projects are very consistent.

        - The claim that there is a cumulative impact is surprising.

        - This argument cannot be sustained at all.

        - If there are goals to be achieved, they should be consistently applied to all the districts in the City.

        - They have been very beneficial in this regard.

        (-) Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - He is here to speak about parking.

        - This project is located near the second busiest MUNI line--the 14 Mission--and it is also located near a Car Share pod.

        - There should also be one-to-one bicycle parking.

        - The garage entrance as proposed was going to be 24 feet wide. He spoke to the project sponsor and was told that this was going to be reduced.

        - There are also bike network lanes in the area.

        (-) Charlie Sciammas - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - One of the things he would like to point out is that the community planning process is planning to do something progressive.

        - This project could be improved and he mentioned this to the project sponsor.

        - He requests that the Commission and the project sponsor revise the project with the following ideas: consider having all three of the larger apartments be the below market rate apartments, consider requesting Section 8 vouchers to make the apartments more affordable. PDR jobs are being lost with this project, so he requested that there be living wage jobs.

        (-) Luis Granados - Mission Anti Displacement Coalition

        - The 14th Street corridor is an important corridor for blue-collar jobs.

        - The importance of these uses for the neighborhood is very high.

        - These services provide jobs to the neighborhood.

        - If this project is approved, it will create a slow erosion of the neighborhood.

        - The needs of the community are not being met.

        - The developer should come back and add more affordable units.

        - The commercial use should be dedicated to light industrial use.

        (+) Mark Nelson - Project Sponsor

        - He has made an effort to meet with many of the neighbors where the property will be located.

        - Much of the concern is that there have been a lot of encampments in the area and people have had to consistently call the Police Department.

        - Marshall School is delighted to have this project in the neighborhood.

        - Many neighbors would like to have the commercial space dedicated to a food service.

        - The roofing company, which was located at the site, wants to move further south on the peninsula.

        (-) Cristina Ologie

        - They are concerned that this project does not reflect what people of the Mission want.

        - After serving hundreds of residents, there is a strong need to see more affordable housing built in the area.

        - There are many jobs that are being lost.

        - She hopes that the Commission will take into consideration all the work that they have been doing regarding getting a survey of what the people in the Mission really want.

        ACTION: Hearing Held. Public Hearing Closed. Item continued to May 27, 2004

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

      17a. 2003.1214D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        120 MAYNARD STREET - south side between Craut and Congdon Streets; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 5894 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, pursuant to the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2002.11.22.2105, proposing to demolish a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (House, One-Family) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 8, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        (-) Camila Curry

        - She represents many of the homeowners and residents of Maynard Street.

        - The demolition and proposed buildings are not in character with the neighborhood.

        - The existing house is sound although in fragile condition.

        - Much of the work can be done concurrently with the adjacent building.

        - This neighborhood has a large source of affordable housing.

        - She recommends that the Commission not demolish the existing house.

        (-) Yuen Sun Yu

        - She lives on Maynard Street.

        - There are a total of five windows at her house.

        - The project will be much higher than her building so she is concerned with diminished light and air.

        - She displayed photographs of the interior of her home showing how much light comes in.

        (-) Maya Rattiner

        - She lives on Maynard Street.

        - She feels that the house should not be demolished.

        - She really likes the charm of the house that is currently there.

        - The new construction will block sunlight to her home.

        (+) Patrick Buskavich - Project Engineer

        - The house has a lot of problems.

        - It was originally a very small cottage.

        - The middle section of the house has no permits.

        - The quality of construction is very bad.

        - The floor does not bounce but the quality of the house does not meet soundness.

        - The retaining wall is leaning over and eventually will fall.

        - Qualitatively, this building is a loss.

        (+) Julie Lee

        - One of the tenants that lives in the back cottage wanted to have the building demolished but now that she has a baby, she changed her mind.

        - The lady that lives across the street, does not want to see any new houses built across the street but when we presented the project to her, she thought it was a good idea.

        - She received a letter from one of the tenants that agreed to drop the Discretionary Review and she is not sure why she is here now opposing the project.

        (+) Mr. Lau

        - He moved to San Francisco in 2002.

        - He lived on Maynard Street for a few months but left because the building is in very bad condition.

        - He has found a new place to live.

        (+) James Lasco - Arborlogic Consulting Arborists

        - There are some very old trees that will not likely survive any sort of construction.

        - The trees are not a desirable species and could be a hazard if allowed to be left there.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the demolition

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

      17b. 2003.1215D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        120 MAYNARD STREET - south side between Craut and Congdon Streets; Lot 039 in Assessor's Block 5894 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application 2002.11.22.2107, proposing to construct a two-story over ground/garage, single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (House, One-Family) Zoning District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the new construction.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 8, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 17a.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and disapproved the new construction.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

      17c. 2003.1216D (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

        122 MAYNARD STREET - south side between Craut and Congdon Streets; Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 5894 - Staff initiated and public Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application 2002.11.22.2101, to construct a new two-story over ground/garage, single-family dwelling located in an RH-1 (House, One-Family) District, and a 40-X Height/Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

        (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 8, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 17a.

        ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with modification:

            1) The depth of the proposed project at the two levels over the garage shall be reduced by approximately nine (9) feet, measured from the front property line to match the rear building wall of the adjacent structure at 126 Maynard Street.

            2) The half bath (toilet and sink) in the garage/ground floor shall be removed.

            3) The garage door shall be reduced to a width of ten (10) feet with a three (3) foot recess from the front building wall.

            4) The permit applicant shall work with Department staff to improve the interior layout and room uses, and fully integrate/configure the living areas to be more indicative of a single-family dwelling.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

      18. 2003.1217D (J. IONIN: (415) 558-6309)

        342 21ST AVENUE - east side between Geary and Clement Streets; Lot 033 in Assessor's Block 1452 - Request for Discretionary Review of Permit Application No. 2003.08.07.1409, proposing to add two units to the existing single-family dwelling by constructing new third and fourth floors, and a rear addition in an RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

        Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve with modifications.

      (Continued from Regular Meeting of March 25, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S): None

        ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 17, 2004.

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

    4:00 P.M.

        19. 2000.465E (R. COOPER: (415) 558-5974)

        HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN - Appeal of the Preliminary Negative Declaration for the proposed revision of the Housing Element of the San Francisco General Plan, which is an update of the 1990 Residence Element of the San Francisco General Plan. The Housing Element is a public policy document that comprehensively addresses issues of housing needs for San Francisco residents and households. Included in the Housing Element is San Francisco population, employment and housing data analysis. Eight new policies are proposed to be added to the 63 policies and 11 objectives that have been modified or retained from the 1990 Residence Element.

          Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Negative Declaration

          (Continued from Regular Meeting of April 8, 2004)

        Re: Continuance

        Patricia Voughey

        - She just received the revisions yesterday. It is not fair to have to study the changes in such short notice.

        - She would like to see all the issues [in plenty of time] before the hearing.

        Petrie - St. Francis Woods

        - She requested a continuance because she just received the amendments and has not had time to review them.

        Kathy Devincenzi - Laurel Heights

        - She asked for a continuance of this project because the notice is legally deficient under state law. State law requires that the Planning Commission give notice of a public hearing of a general plan amendment that would affect the intensity of uses of real property or the permitted uses and a display advertisement of at least 1/8 of a page in at least one newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days before the hearing.

        Rosalind Tolsom - Francisco Heights

        - She asks for a continuances so that they can read the amendments recently submitted.

        - She is against the project for various reasons.

        Zachary Toldson - Francisco Heights

        - He also would like to request a continuance so that he can read the amendments recently submitted.

        - This is a very important issue because San Francisco is the second most populated city in the nation.

        Richard Werner - Jordan Park Improvement Association

        - He asked for a continuance so that he can read the amendments and because the hearing was not duly noticed.

        Adina Rosemarin - Lake Shore Acres Improvement Club

        - She requested that this item be continued on the basis of due process grounds.

        - The document prepared for adoption by the Commission references some amendments and this "11th hour" notice does not allow the public to review the amendments.

        - The amendments are for which copy of the element--the red one or the green one?

        - The result is a project that lacks a quorum and is incoherent.

        Sara Keropian - Francisco Heights Association

        - She is asking for a continuance so that she can read the amendments.

        - She objects to the stated goals of the document in this, the second most densely populated city in the nation.

        Rosemarie Junker - Franciscan Heights

        - She requested a continuance because it is a very complicated document.

        - If the Commission needs intelligent comments from the public, staff and the Commission need to provide the public with an adequate amount of time.

        Libby Benedict

        - She requested a continuance so that she has time to study the amendments and provide a comment.

        Jennifer Chou-Green - Francisco Heights Neighborhood Association

        - She requested a continuance because there has not been adequate notice regarding the amendments.

        Barbara Austin - Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

        - She is concerned because there was a lack of notice.

        - The amendments would make substantial changes to the document.

        Mary Burns - Greater West Portal Homeowners Association

        - She is concerned about the amendments and about the way the information was transmitted to the public.

        - Violations of due process will not be tolerated.

        Jeff Hagen - Francisco Heights Homeowner Association

        - He requested a continuance because the amendments were not noticed properly.

        - Hearing the Housing Element pre supposes the approval of the EIR and this is a violation of due process.

        John Bardis - Inner Sunset Action Committee

        - There is a notice that went out today that the item was not listed.

        - It is very erroneous to speak on both these items.

        Kathryn Hecht - Francisco Heights

        - There is a need for a legally allocated time period to read the amendments.

        Emeric Kalman

        - The Planning Department has not met the Sunshine requirements.

        - Section 67.7-1 "Public Notice Requirements" - The notice should inform the residents of the proposal of planning activity on how the new project is affecting their properties and this was not done.

        John Stewart

        - More time is needed to consider the amendments which were recently submitted.

        Cynthia Coleman - Presidio Heights

        - She is in agreement with the continuance so that the Board can properly evaluate the amendments.

        Eileen Boken

        - The amendments are substantial and time is needed to evaluate them.

        Catherine Stefani - Cow Hollow Association

        - The substantial amendments were recently release so she needs time to absorb these and provide an analysis.

        Greg Scott - Pacific Heights Residents Association

        - The association is very insistent that this item be continued because the amendments were not properly submitted.

        - It is important to have neighborhood input.

        Rocky Papale - Francisco Heights

        - The Resident Element will impact the residents of the City. This is why he requested a continuance. There is a need to review the amendments.

        Paula Romanovsky - Francisco Heights Residents Association

        - The association has spent a lot of time on the Housing Element. Something other than a continuance would be disrespectful to the time they have spent.

        Robert Bardell - Golden Gate Valley Homeowners Association

        - He requested a continuance. Six days is not enough time to read the amendments recently issued.

        Marilyn Amini

        - She requested continuance for the appeal and the project.

        - Materials were not made available in a timely manner.

        - She submitted a packet of information for the Commissioners which includes: proposal for adoption, staff recommendations, Mr. Badiner's memos, the 12 page amendments, etc.

        - The negotiation began on March 21, [but] no member of the public or organization knew about this until last night.

        Kate White

        - She is not in agreement with the continuance because this document has been four years in the making.

        Bernard Choden

        - He is going on vacation and would like to read his statements regarding the project.

        Jim Chappell

        - There is no reason to continue this. He was able to read 12 pages in the last few days.

        - It is time to move on.

        Jeremy Nelson

        - He is not in favor of continuing this item.

        - There are people who are trapped because there is no affordable housing.

        - The people who want a continuance are homeowners and this is not fair for others.

        RESULT: Failing to receive a motion to continue, the item will be heard.

        Re: Merits of the Project

        SPEAKER(S):

        Susan Brant-Hawley - Representing the Appellants

        - She is representing about 15 neighborhood organizations.

        - The Commission should carefully look at the facts and expert opinions.

        - This project is the exact project that CEQA is designed to review.

        - Can the Commission say that there is no possibility that this document will not have significant environmental impacts?

        - Even if one cannot predict what the impacts will be, it should not be excused from environmental review.

        Patricia Voughey

        - What is interesting about this is that every time she goes to a small business area, everyone wants parking. Certain neighborhoods have tourist problems. There are too many greedy landlords. Many people are coming from out of state. There are problems with people who park on sidewalks. It is not possible to change the buying power of Americans and this document does not state any information about that.

        Jeremy Nelson - Transportation for a Livable City

        - He urges the Commission to support the language of putting more affordable housing options in good transit oriented neighborhoods.

        - He requested that the Commission deny the appeal to the Negative Declaration.

        Luis Granados - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - The Negative Declaration does not include the amendments recently issued by the Acting Director.

        - According to the Director, there is no evidence that the amendments will not create any negative impacts.

        - He asked that the Commission deny the appeal.

        Bernie Choden

        - The Housing Element by state law requires a work program, not general guidelines.

        - Any planner knows how to do statistical analysis.

        - Planners don't speculate they estimate.

        - It is important to do a work program that is legal and this Housing Element is not legal.

        Kate White

        - She urged the Commission to reject the appeal and move forward with the Housing Element.

        Kathy Devincenzi - Laurel Heights Improvement Association

        - It is a certainty that an EIR is required for this document.

        - There are ways to protect citywide impacts.

        - If parking were eliminated on transit lines it would be a disaster.

        - Reducing parking could cause impacts on noise and pollution.

        - There is a good reason to require an EIR because it is a legal analysis.

        Barbara Austin - Save Our Neighborhood

        - The document is years late. Yet during all that time there was no neighborhood participation.

        - The proposed Housing Element does produce serious concerns about polices and housing for people in this City.

        - This caused the neighbors to file an appeal.

        - She supports an EIR and the rejection of the Housing Element.

        John Bardis - Inner Sunset Action Committee

        - It is important that an EIR be prepared.

        - It is important to also check the procedures of this process since this causes the City a lot of money.

        Mary Beth Starzell

        - It is important to have a sure sound sense of what is going on.

        - Honesty and Respect have been victims of this process.

        - The Commission has the power to correct this and give the community the integrity that it deserves.

        Bob Starzell

        - He is astounded about what he has been hearing.

        - Staff seems to want to have an impact with this.

        - Words are being said and are given different meanings.

        - He has sat on Commissions and knows what confusion the public has.

        Joe Ventresca - SPEAK

        - He is president of SPEAK.

        - The SPEAK Board voted unanimously to uphold this appeal and to urge the Commission to do a full environmental review.

        - SPEAK has submitted substantial evidence on the negative impacts of this Housing Element.

        - The Planning Commission should require an EIR.

        Petree Knighton - St. Francis Homes Association

        - She supports the appeal of the Negative Declaration.

        - St. Francis Woods has experiences heavy traffic all because of a poorly planned ramp.

        - The policy was adopted and the neighborhood was promised that there would not be any traffic impacts.

        - This is something that should have been reviewed by an EIR.

        Adena Rosmarin - Lakeshore Acres Improvement Club

        - There are two errors with this project.

        - Planning has chosen an invalid baseline which in effect makes nonsense of its conclusion.

        - Planning takes the 1990 policy as its baseline instead of its 2003 physical environment.

        - Planning argues that EIR analysis should be differed until specific projects are proposed. Yet California courts have consistently rejected this referral argument.

        Richard Werner - Jordan Park Improvement Club

        - The Commission is being asked to approve something that will have an impact on sewer, parking, traffic, pollution, etc.

        - This is the reason why it is important to do an EIR.

        Jeff Hagan - Francisco Heights Civic Association

        - He has grave concerns about the environmental impacts of the proposed Housing Element and therefore supports the appeal of the Negative Declaration. He urges the Commission to compel the Department to prepare a full EIR.

        Joan Girardot - Marina

        - She supports the appeal of the Negative Declaration.

        - An EIR is a decision-making tool for decision makers.

        - CEQA should assume the maximum build outs that are being proposed.

        - This document is a blue print for densification.

        - The only way that an analysis can be done on utilities infrastructure is to do an EIR.

        Emeric Kalman

        - He would like to see the environmental review done on the actual, physical as built conditions of the City.

        - Document Number four of the Housing Element is incorrect and is misleading.

        - He would like to know how much money was spent on the Housing Element version four?

        Greg Scott - Pacific Heights Residents Association

        - The Association requests to do a full EIR.

        - He carpools his children to school.

        - This is the second densest City in the country.

        - He could not live without a car.

        - This past rainy season, there were many businesses that had sewer damage.

        - The City cannot handle what it has now. It cannot handle more.

        Paul Wermer

        - He has red the Negative Declaration. He has read many other Negative Declarations and has agreed that there is no need to go further--yet this one he hesitates to approve.

        - The sewage system is inadequate and backs up.

        - Traffic congestion is an impact to the residents of this city.

        David Bisho

        - He requests an Environmental Impact Report on this document.

        - This has the appearance of a scam on a huge scale.

        - Many of the recreation activities that used to be all over the place are now closed because there is not a sufficient population of young people.

        - This document is not suitable for families.

        - This housing plan will affect everyone's housing property.

        Mary Burns - Greater West Portal Neighborhood Association

        - The Association requests that the Commission uphold the appeal of the negative declaration.

        - There will be many small shops and businesses that will be destroyed with so much density.

        - Such a major element of the General Plan should not go forward without an EIR.

        Catherine Stefani - Cow Hollow Association

        - An environmental Impact Report should be issued.

        - This document does not comply with state law.

        - The document is controversial because for the prior amendments.

        - The document does not address impacts on traffic, utilities, etc.

        - She urged the Commission to request a EIR.

        Francisco Centurion - Design Zoning Committee of the Russian Hill Neighbors

        - He is here to support an EIR.

        - Because of land use items that will make so many changes, there is a need for an EIR.

        Beverly McCallister

        - She brings about 200 requests for the Commission to find the Negative Declaration invalid.

        - San Franciscans require a full and intelligent growth.

        - The neighborhoods have not recovered from bad policy implementations.

        - Placing high density and tall buildings threatens San Francisco's integrity.

        - An EIR is imperative.

        Cynthia Coleman - Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors

        - She is representing 600 households in the Presidio area.

        - She requests an EIR.

        - She is concerned about the long-term affects to the character of the neighborhoods.

        Penelope Clark - Russian Hill Neighbors

        - The Housing Element remains a flawed document.

        - Increasing housing density without allowing a 1-for-1 parking will be disastrous.

        - The majority of households own cars which they will not give up.

        - The proposed policy will create housing that is less affordable. At the same time, it will lower the quality of life for San Francisco residents.

        Judy Junghans - President of Russian Hill Neighbors

        - She has lived in this neighborhood over 20 years.

        - If more housing is put on Van Ness it would cause a major impact.

        - None is against more housing, yet it should be placed

        Robert Bardell - President of the Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association

        - The association is against the Housing Element.

        - What is currently a neighborhood defined by one and two family dwelling will become defined by four unit condominium boxes as developers lusting after density bonuses outbid families hoping to move into existing housing.

        - This will destroy the character of Golden Gate Valley.

        - More density without off street parking will create more parking on sidewalks.

        Serena Bardell

        - The battle is actually for the survival of the City.

        - Urban planners seem to be able to get people out of their cars.

        - Should the negative declaration stand, sidewalks will be blocked by cars.

        Babette Drefke

        - She is in favor of the amendments that the San Francisco Coalition of Neighbors have proposed.

        Calvin Welsh - Council of Community Housing Organizations

        - He owns a car and lives in the Height Asbury. He parks on the street and not on the sidewalk.

        - This is a bit of a civic tragedy.

        - Everyone in this room possibly supported the reform that created this Commission. Yet he does not feel ill served by the Commission. The problem is the Planning Department.

        - The proposal is not even "10 percent" different from the 1990 element.

        Jim Chappel

        - He urges the Commission to deny the appeal of the Housing Element.

        - There are no impacts.

        Hiroshi Fukuda

        - He is here to support the appeal of the negative declaration.

        - An EIR is necessary and mandatory.

        - The Commission can be replaced with just cause. Deciding on this issue would be a good way to test it.

        - Maybe there are some deals or agreements that would cast aside the amendments.

        - There are many things that are being ignored.

        Sherry Laporte

        - She supports the appeal of the negative declaration and requests that the Commission direct the Planning Department to issue an EIR.

        - The community was not extensively involved in the Housing Element.

        - Many community projects need to have an EIR covering them.

        - This would prevent neighborhoods from getting major negative impacts.

        Elise Ravel

        - She supports the appeal of the negative declaration and feels an EIR is required.

        - If there is no adequate infrastructure it will result in negative impacts to the City.

        - Many people are concerned with emergency response time.

        - Although these might seem minor, for a person with health concerns or children, it is extremely important.

        Julie Browne - POWER

        - She urged the Commission to oppose the appeal of the negative declaration.

        - People from Eastern Neighborhoods who support the Housing Element are calling for affordable housing.

        - The process should not be stalled.

        - She urges that the Commission not delay this document any more.

        Eileen Boken

        - She is opposed to the negative declaration.

        - Travel by automobile is becoming most significant.

        - Transit in the future fails to close performance gaps.

        - She requests to have an EIR because it is necessary to solve these inconsistencies.

        Ben Cheatham

        - He lives in Glen Park.

        - He has witnessed a massive increase in traffic.

        - There is no way for people to stop driving their cars.

        - If the density is increased in this neighborhood, it will be difficult for fire engines to get to certain places.

        - There are already sewage problems associated with the creek located there.

        Jennifer Chou-Green

        - She requests that the Housing Element be subject to an Environmental Impact Review.

        - The Housing Element represents a plan for legislation, which would have dramatic implications for the present and future citizens of San Francisco. It would forever change the nature of this wonderful City.

        Rocky Papale

        - It seems like there is a consensus here.

        - What is happening here this evening is that everyone who is here represents the best of San Francisco. They are homeowners who pay property taxes, hard working San Franciscans who sacrifice daily, who work for their children and their communities.

        - He is here to request that the Planning Commission reject the preliminary negative declaration and that the Planning Department reconsider doing an environmental impact report.

        Libby Benedict

        - She has grave concerns about the environmental impacts of the Housing Element.

        - There are already dense neighborhood commercial districts.

        - There will be a general decline of neighborhood character and quality of life.

        - There is wisdom in what everyone is saying tonight.

        Rosalind Tolson - Francisco Heights Homeowner's Association

        - Many years ago, one could find parking. It was better when there was less.

        - She supports the appeal of the negative declaration and urges the Commission to request a full EIR.

        Zachary Tolson - Francisco Heights Homeowner's Association

        - It does not take anything to see that this will have an negative impact.

        - Many MUNI lines are already running at full capacity.

        - More density will have an impact on the infrastructure of San Francisco.

        - Every single issue that has been spoken here is very valid.

        Rel Woodard

        - She has great concerns about the environmental impact that this document will have on her neighborhood.

        - A full EIR should be issued.

        - There is no safety for pedestrians, accidents, etc.

        John Stewart - Francisco Heights Civic Association

        - He does not understand why Planning staff stating that there is no need for an EIR.

        Kathryn Hecht - Francisco Heights Civic Association

        - She is against moving forward without an EIR.

        - The environmental impact of the Housing Element related to the data on which it was based is out of date.

        - Many things need to be re-examined.

        Julie Marcus

        - Everyone who has spoken feels that there is a need for an EIR.

        - All the public needs is to have proof that there is no need for an EIR.

        Rose Hillson - Jordan Park Improvement Association

        - She supports the appeal of the negative declaration.

        - She does not trust the document right now.

        Patrick Phillips - Laurel Heights Association

        - This document will ruin the beauty of San Francisco.

        - There is no more capacity for more density.

        - Any proposed plan should be halted until an EIR is done.

        - The congestion problem will only get worse if this is approved.

        Alice Piccus - PHRA

        - Four years ago she moved to San Francisco because she liked the lifestyle here.

        - She used to live in Shanghai where there is so much density that people cannot even get to work and there is a lot of pollution.

        - About 98 percent of the people here wanted a continuance. She thought that this was a democracy.

        Ramona Albright - CSFN, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, Inc.

        - She is concerned with air in San Francisco.

        - There is no question that everything will get worse.

        - Members of the Coalition passed unanimously to oppose any change to the Planning Code including the Housing Element.

        Marilyn Amini

        - She respectfully requests that the negative declaration not be upheld because it is inadequate, inaccurate, insufficient, etc.

        - Much money has been spent on plans.

        - The 1990 EIR checks "yes" for all the impacts that can occur.

        ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld

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

        ABSENT: Boyd

        MOTION: 16786

      20. 2000.465M (T. OJEDA: (415) 588-6251)

        HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. The Commission will consider a resolution to adopt proposed amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan under the provisions of Sections 340 and 306.3(b)(3) of the Planning Code. Proposed revisions will update the Residence Element adopted in 1990 and include an assessment of housing needs and new policies to increase housing production in higher residential density areas near downtown and along transit served neighborhood commercial districts; reconsider residential parking requirements; and support construction of new family housing. The Proposal for Adoption of the Housing Element of the General Plan incorporates comments received by the City Planning Department at public hearings conducted on March 27, 2003; May 1, 2003; June 5, 2003; July 21, 2003; and October 9, 2003. Copies of the Proposal for Adoption of the Housing Element are available and can be picked up free of charge at the Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, 5th Floor on April 26, 2004. Please call Teresa Ojeda, 558-6251, regarding the Proposal for Adoption of the Housing Element if you have any questions.

        (Continued from Cancelled Meeting of April 29, 2004)

        SPEAKER(S):

        Patricia Voughey - Cow Hollow Neighbors In Action and Planning Association for Divisadero

        - This was almost word for word in what was presented in the late 80's, but it was rejected.

        - This document call more for market rate housing instead of affordable housing.

        - The addendum does help a lot to balance it out some.

        - By just having a negative declaration, if a variance is requested it will be issued. There should not be a Housing Element anyway.

        - If staff continues to work this way and write things so badly, there will not be any tourism or any people living here anymore.

        Barbara Meskunas - CSFN -- The Coalition for San Francisco Neighbors.

        - Much of their problem with the Housing Element is the lack of involvement.

        - They are glad that their concerns were included in the document.

        - She requested that the Commission pass the document with the amendments.

        Ramona Albright

        - The 40 city wide member coalition voted to withdraw their request for the legal proceedings for an EIR.

        - An EIR is going to cost about 1 or 2 million.

        - The compromises are terrific and keeps things more status quo.

        Judy Berkowitz - CSFN

        - Density should be aimed at places where it can be taken.

        - The amendments retain the language of the policy of the 1990 Residence Element with a few "tweaks and touchups".

        My Do - MEDA

        - A lack of affordable housing is a citywide problem. So there should be a citywide solution.

        - Every neighborhood should do their share to solve this problem.

        - She learned tonight that San Francisco is the second most populated city in the nation.

        - She urges the Commission to adopt the Housing Element before the amendments.

        Joaquin Turner - MEDA

        - He submitted MEDA's recommendations for the Housing Element. He submitted these a few months ago and they have not been taken into consideration.

        - More affordable rental housing is needed in San Francisco.

        - Inclusionary housing targets 100 or 120 AMI. If one falls below 100, there will not be access to affordable housing.

        - He hopes that the Commission will read the recommendations and include them in the Housing Element.

        Bernie Chodin

        - The Housing Element is a well written document.

        - It is a good beginning but it is not a work program.

        - This is a new Commission and a new administration so they need to do the right thing.

        - This staff needs to get financial [help].

        - The Housing Element must explore for the Mayor, the alternative means of underwriting his affordable housing efforts.

        Calvin Welsh

        - He asked for an amendment for policy one on page 133. He asked that objective one be returned to the 1990 wording: "identify and maximize opportunities to increase the supply of housing particularly permanently affordable housing in appropriate locations citywide."

        - He was assured that this language would be included and it is not.

        - He hopes that with this amendment, everyone can go forward with the Housing Element.

        Jim Chappell - SPUR

        - SPUR is in agreement with the amendments recently presented. Far too much time has been wasted on something where there isn't community consensus.

        - SPUR will continue to advocate for density in transit corridors, etc.

        - It is important to move forward on the Transbay and Mid Market Redevelopment projects. The Housing Element needs to be adopted tonight.

        Dick Millet

        - He thanked the Coalition for their input.

        - He supports the Housing Element and the proposed amendments.

        Hiroshi Fukuda - Richmond Community Association

        - This is certainly not perfect.

        - He is concerned about the language related to neighborhood support. He does not know what that means.

        - He hopes that before the next Housing Element that this is clarified.

        Paul Wermer - Pacific Heights Residents Association

        - He asked that in addition to the very constructive amendments, that the Commission ask staff to add one more policy to assess neighborhood support for the local area plans that are consistent with the neighborhood character and neighborhood directions.

        - Also add implementation plans for this.

        Oscar Grande - MAC and PODER

        - He is a lifelong San Francisco resident.

        - He asked that the Housing Element be adopted but without the amendments recently issued by the Acting Director.

        - The affordable housing needs will never be met if it does not come from neighborhoods citywide.

        - They are troubled with the Coalition for San Francisco Neighbors for wanting to remove language containing density, transit corridors, NIMBYISM, etc.

        - Director Badiner is yielding to the Coalition's one sided conservative special interest.

        - It seems that there is the same "Willie Brown Back Room Deals."

        John Resinos

        - He is a student at Mission High School.

        - Everyone needs to live in affordable housing just like he has.

        - It is sad that a student like himself has to educate the Commission on affordable housing issues.

        - Every neighborhood should have affordable housing. People should be able to live in a neighborhood they can afford.

        Charlie Sciammas - MAC

        - Adopting a strong Housing Element will help the affordable housing needs.

        - He feels strongly that this Housing Element should be provided in neighborhoods around the city that can support it. This means East side and West side.

        - There is a double standard right now with the recently issued amendments.

        Luis Granados

        - He thanked the Long Range Planning staff for their efforts because they have come up with good solution.

        - The real housing element should be taken into consideration first and reject the amendments by Director Badiner.

        - The Planning Department has divided the City when this was a good opportunity to unite it.

        Gloria Williams

        - This is a really important issue.

        - She came from Houston not knowing how the housing situation was.

        - She has lived in an SRO hotel that did not have a wheelchair accessible bathroom and an elevator that did not work half of the time.

        - She has been active in trying to do something for housing.

        - There are people that are dying in the City but yet there are people who are worrying about getting a parking space.

        Joseph Shipman

        - He is a member of Local 22 Carpenter's Union.

        - He cannot work without his truck. Parking is a problem for everyone.

        - He lives in an SRO in the Mission and he likes it.

        - Transportation is being worked on.

        - Families are growing, the city is growing.

        Sean Williams - Mission & 6th Street Agenda

        - He was here last year telling the Commission about his situation.

        - He still lives in an SRO hotel.

        - He does not need his children to see what he sees today - everyone out on the street struggling.

        - He is a recovering addict and where he stays is detrimental to his health.

        - He wants his children to be in a place that is safe and affordable.

        James Collins - 6th Street/Mission Agenda

        - He has some recommendations for the Housing Element.

        - The Housing Element should be passed without Director Badiner's amendments.

        Marty Borrego - Mission Agenda

        - This has been the 6th Housing Element meeting and nothing has been done.

        - For three years, they have worked to get people housing on a fixed income.

        - He is a recovering addict and right now he lives in an SRO and has two jobs.

        - He does not want to have his children to come to his place and see drugs.

        Kathy Devincenzi - Laurel Heights Improvement Association

        - They oppose the Housing Element because they understand what it is.

        - The Housing Element is the supreme law for future development.

        - If you read the Housing Element, it is replete with suggestions that staff will rezone the City.

        - Once this plan is passed, the Planning Department will not be able to propose zoning for low density in the areas identified by this plan.

        - Any zoning ordinance will have to be evaluated for conformity with the General Plan.

        Barbara Austin

        - She also takes issues with some of the issues that have been stated before related to zoning.

        - Many elements hang from the Housing Element.

        - The Housing Element is a really important document.

        - At the Coalition meeting there was a vote that if the amendments were passed the appeal would be dropped. However, there are other appellants that will not be dropping out of the appeal.

        Jeff Hagen - FHCA

        - He is being accused of being white, racist, and privileged but at the same time nothing that he has asked for from the Commission has been granted.

        - It seems that now everyone is united since everyone is angry about this.

        - It is hard for the Commission to be in the position they are in.

        - If this situation wasn't so said it would be funny.

        Richard Werner

        - He is a San Francisco native.

        - He lives in a neighborhood where half a block away from him, he will be affected.

        - There is a development which will be built with 100+ units, 25 parking spaces, subterranean parking, etc.

        - His neighborhood will no longer be able to see Sutro Hill or the Bay. Parking will become an issue. His children will not be able to park on the street any more.

        - These are issues that the Housing Element will change.

        Greg Scott

        - This is worse than the 1990 Housing Element.

        - Downtown cannot handle the density.

        - He is insulted by the responses of this evening.

        - The Housing Element is filled with vague statements.

        - Living without cars? Cannot happen. People cannot live without their cars.

        - This job is so poorly done that there will be a need to fix it and not to adopt it.

        John Bardis

        - He asked the Commission to look at the memorandum he submitted on whether the Housing Element process is appropriate.

        - A ballot measure was passed to reform the Planning Commission, and you have an opportunity to show reform but instead there is the same thing. It is worse now because there is no Planning Director.

        Bob Bardell - Golden Valley Neighborhood Association

        - The association is against the Housing Element because the policies will encourage the Planning Department to advocate for developers to take advantage of all the density bonuses.

        - Over time, this will cause developers to outbid families thereby increasing density. Developers will be building condominiums, etc.

        Eileen Bolken

        - She would have preferred more time to read the amendments.

        - She is reluctantly requesting approval of the Housing Element with the amendments.

        Ellen Pound

        - She requested the approval of the Housing Element without Director's Badiner's amendments.

        Ellis McDonald

        - He is an honorably discharged marine.

        - He has served his country, his fellow man and his God.

        - San Francisco is a world class city and everyone is looking to this City as a guide.

        - The Mayor needs a courage Commission to make decisions that follow their hearts.

        - Someone needs to give the people a plan they can believe in.

        Cristina Olague - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

        - She urged the Commission to vote for the original Housing Element (the one in the read cover) and exclude the amendments by Acting Director Badiner.

        - It is unfortunate that the voices of 100 have been ignored as opposed to the voices of four members of the Coalition who had a private meeting with Mr. Badiner.

        - It would be nice to just pick up the pone and call Mr. Badiner and schedule a private meeting with him.

        Angelica Cabande - SOMCAN

        - They demand that the original Housing Element be passed without the amendments.

        - The public did not have time to see and comment on these amendments.

        Tony Robles

        - He is a fourth generation San Franciscan.

        - He opposes the amendments issued by Director Badiner.

        - There has not been comment on these amendments.

        - The wording of the amendments leave out affordable housing, transit corridors, etc.

        Angel Kielles

        -He recommends that the Housing Element be passed without the amendments.

        Richard Marquez - Mission Agenda

        - He knows that the Housing Element will be passed and that this is a done deal.

        - As a native he knows that there has been a great divide in this City.

        - The Housing Element has been postponed so many times.

        - Maybe this is a play by Director Badiner to become the permanent planning chief.

        Serena Bardell - Golden Gate Valley Neighborhood Association

        - She has been very impressed on the people speaking of the opposite side.

        - It seems that the point of the matter is will San Francisco build housing for everyone that lives here and who does not earn enough to buy affordable housing and say forget about the look of the City even though they make everyone feel guilty and ashamed?

        - She does not envy the member of the Commission.

        - She does not feel very good about the situation.

        Cris Durazo - South of Market Community Action Network

        - She asked that the Housing Element be passed without the amendments.

        - The plan is supposed to guide development. It is disheartening to read that it proposes to eliminate transit.

        - The public deals with all this. This is the hardest part.

        - She is upset about this because they were not asked to participate in these meetings.

        Beverly McAllister

        - She is not afraid and concerned about the law and due process because it has been compromised in this process.

        - She does not like negotiations without full disclosure.

        - She is opposed to the Housing Element with or without the amendments.

        - If one of the major concerns of the amendments to the Housing Element is to increase affordable housing, the percentage of new affordable units should be greater than the percentage allowed for in the amended Housing Element.

        - New development should not be proposed on transit lines until transit is improved.

        Mary Beth Starzell

        - This public hearing was virtually unnoticed.

        - The rush for approval for something that was not properly noticed is very negative.

        - It is possible to ruin a City and it takes a long time to bring it back.

        - Why not begin the process all over again and do everything right and craft a Housing Element the way it should be?

        Cynthia Coleman - Presidio Heights Association of Neighbors

        - Everything has been covered so she does not need to repeat it.

        - There is no real meaning for "neighborhood support".

        - There is a long way to get this properly amended.

        Karen Niglio - Merced Manor

        - She did not get any notice of the Housing Element's red book and its amendments.

        - There were a selected few people who were chosen to participate and make decisions.

        - To go forward and do amendments without real public input is negative to due process.

        - If there is going to be an increase in density, everyone should understand what the impacts are.

        Marilyn Amini

        - The negotiation was done by a few people and only 11 out of a 40 member association voted for the amendments.

        - The notification for this issue was not done correctly.

        - SPUR said they would continue to work for density along transit corridors when they were the group that designed this whole General Plan.

        ACTION: Approved as Amended:

          1. Memorandum from Lawrence Badiner to the Planning Commission dated April 20, 2004, which revised the Housing Element Proposal for Adoption, May 2004.

          2. The amendment also adopted by the Planning Commission at the hearing on May 13, 2004 which reverts Objective 1 ("IDENTIFY AND MAXIMIZE OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF HOUSING IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS CITYWIDE.") to the language of the 1990 Residence Element Objective 1:

                "TO PROVIDE NEW HOUSING, ESPECIALLY PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS WHICH MEETS IDENTIFIED HOUSING NEEDS AND TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATED BY EMPLOYMENT DEMAND"; and

          3. The Housing Element Proposal for Adoption, May 2004, as revised by 1 and 2 above.

        AYES: Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, W. Lee

        ABSENT: Boyd and Hughes

        MOTION: 16787

    G. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

      David Levy

      Re: 3172-3178 Mission Street

      - He was here on April 1, 2004 representing the Dabel family for a project at 3172-3178 Mission Street (a project that provides three affordable housing units). The Dabels are also the neighbors of a proposed 20 unit residential project that would be built right up to the property line and would block an entire side of the Dabel's building with windows, some of which provide light and air.

      - The Commission approved the Conditional Use portion of the project. His clients mentioned that they don't object to the project in general but asked for a small light well that would retain light and air to two bedroom windows and therefore keep those units legally habitable.

      - The Commission added a finding to direct the Zoning Administrator to decide what the light well should be and make it part of the rear yard exception.

      - The finding is not included in the resolution or motion. He has spoken to staff and they mentioned that they will listen to the tape and include that.

      - The Department has just informed them that they intend to grant the rear yard exception without any provisions for a light well or any accommodations for the neighboring building. The reason given is that the neighboring apartment unit could be reconfigured to provide it's light and air some other way. That is not what the Planning Code states and that is not what the Commission's decision was.

      - It is important to bring this to the attention of the Commission.

      - He is not sure what the Commission could do.

Adjournment: 11:05 p.m.

        THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2004.

        SPEAKERS: None

        ACTION: Approved

        AYES: Antonini, Boyd, Bradford Bell, Hughes, S. Lee

        EXCUSED: None

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:14 PM