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

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us

October 6, 2005

October 6, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

  Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 6, 2005

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

 

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

 

COMMISSIONER ABSENT:       None

 

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:35 P.M.

 

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Michael E. Smith; Glenn Cabreros; Daniel Sirois; Shaun Mendrin; Jonathan Purvis; Sara Vellve; Isolde Wilson; Paul Maltzer; Tammy Chan; Mathew Snyder; Lisa Gibson; Dan Sider; Kate McGee; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

 

  • CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

 

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

                                   

1.         2004.0876C                                                                       (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

2000 VAN NESS AVENUE- northeast corner at the intersection of Van Ness Avenue and Jackson Street; Lot 005 in Assessor’s Block 0595 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 209.6 and 303 of the Planning Code to install a total of six (6) antennas and related equipment cabinets on the roof of an existing 100-foot tall commercial structure, known as the Medical Arts Building, as part of AT&T’s wireless telecommunications network within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined) District, the Van Ness Special Use District and an 80-D Height and Bulk District, the proposal is a Preferred Location Preference 4 as it is a wholly commercial structure.

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

            (Proposed for Continuance to October 20, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Continued as proposed

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

            ABSENT:          Alexander and Olague

 

            2.         2004.0303C                                                                         (K. MCGEE: (415) 558-6367)        

401-407 VALENCIA STREET - southeast corner of Valencia and 15th Streets, Lot 029, Assessor’s Block 3554 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Sections 726.83 and 303 of the Planning Code to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) panel antennas and three (3) related equipment cabinets on an existing residential hotel, ‘The Royan Hotel,’ as a part of the Sprint PCS wireless telecommunications network within the Valencia Street Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District, a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation, and the Mission Alcoholic Beverage RUSD.  The site is a Location Preference 6.

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)

            Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

            PROJECT SPONSOR CANCELLED PROJECT

 

B.         COMMISSIONERS’ QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

 

            3.         Commission Comments/Questions

 

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. Gave a general statement regarding calendaring items on our agenda.
  2. Would like to explored the possibility of beginning our commission sessions a bit earlier in the day so we are finished a little earlier, or at least we’re able to concentrate a little better instead of getting into the late hours and facing the unfortunate choice of either continuing items that have been continued many times and are very sensitive.
  3. Would like know how other commissioners feel about this and maybe for next year we can start to look at room availability or other possible scenarios where we could pick up an hour to an hour and a half earlier on most Thursdays to hopefully get through our calendar a little bit earlier in the evening.

 

C.         DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

4.         Director’s Announcements

           

            None

 

5.         Review of Past Week’s Events at the Board of Supervisors and Board of Appeals

           

            BoA:

  1. - which was an existing older building, was not rated architecturally, but it was a handsome older building.  We felt that was not appropriate based upon the residential design guidelines that say to replace windows with windows that are in kind and in context with the original building.  The permit was issued and approved.  The Board of Appeals upheld the soundness issue, which is very gratifying. We’ve had problems in the place on replacement windows.  We feel they are very important.  The board upheld us.
  2. 220 11th Avenue – On July 22, 2004, the Planning Commission took Discretionary Review and made modifications setting the proposed front wall addition back by 15 feet, matched light wells and put a low parapet on this with one-hour firewall.  The commission was upheld again on this issue, +4 –0.
  3. 333 Greenwich Street – a merger – was continued.

 

  BoS:

            None

           

6.         Department’s Work Program and Budget – Status Report

 

            Alicia John-Baptiste, the Department’s Chief Administrator Officer gave a detailed presentation and update on the work program and budget for fiscal year 2006/2007.

 

D.         GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

 

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

            SPEAKERS:

Ernestine Weiss - cancelled

Gigi Platt

Re: 900 Innes Avenue

  1. This item has been on the calendar consistently from the end of May.
  2. It was continued for 45 days and you asked leaders of the preservation community, specifically qualified professionals to come and tell you whether we thought the document was adequate.
  3. It has been too long on the calendar and will need to be re-advertised

Jim Salinas Sr.

  1. Referred back to a statement that was made a couple weeks ago in the Planning Commission Chambers.
  2. Commissioner Olague was gracious and respectful enough to submit an apology, to staff and to the public.

Marilyn Amini

  1. Spoke regarding a continuance of Item #27- Better Neighborhoods

 

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

 

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

 

None

 

F.         CONSENT CALENDAR

 

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

 

7.         2005.0866Q                                                                         (M. Smith:  (415) 558-6322)

1115-1125 NOE STREET - east side between 24th and Jersey Streets, Lot 024A in Assessor's Block 6508 - Public hearing to determine consistency of a proposed six-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of consistency with the General Plan

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved

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

            MOTION:           17113

 

8.         2005.0865Q                                                                        (M. Smith:  (415) 558-6322)

271 CUMBERLAND STREET  - south side between Sanchez and Church Streets, Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 3600 - Public hearing to determine consistency of a proposed five-unit Condominium-Conversion Subdivision with the General Plan, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Finding of consistency with the General Plan

           

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved

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

            MOTION:           17114

 

 

9a.        2004.1087D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

570 41ST AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1504 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of residential demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.08.23.2225, proposing to demolish a two-story, single-family residence 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

           

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           No Discretionary Review and Approved

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

           

9b.        2004.1088D                                                                 (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

570 41ST AVENUE - east side between Geary Boulevard and Anza Street; Lot 016 in Assessor's Block 1504 - 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. 2004.08.23.2228, proposing to construct a 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

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           No Discretionary Review and Approved

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

           

10.        2005.0451C                                                                        (D. Sirois:  (415) 558-6313)

2001 37th  Avenue (AKA St. Ignatius College Preparatory) - occupying the site bounded by 37th Avenue to the east, Rivera to the south, 39th Avenue to the west, and the West Sunset Playground to the North, Lot 6 on Assessor’s Block 2094  - Request for Conditional Use authorization to amend a Planned Unit Development for the St. Ignatius College Preparatory campus pursuant to Planning Code Sections 209.3 and 304. The proposal is to construct a three-story, 15,450 square-foot addition to the rear of the existing Student Center. The new structures would house a choral music room, an enclosed batting facility, four new classrooms, a fitness room and other associated accessory uses. A new terrace is also proposed to be located on the roof of the choral music facility.  The Project Site is located in an RH-1 (Residential, House, Single-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

           

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved

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

            MOTION:           17115

 

11.        2005.0612D                                                                          (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

4591-4593 18TH STREET - south side between Douglass & Clover, Lot 029B, in Assessor's Block 2691 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy on Dwelling Unit Mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.05.27.3634, proposing to convert a two-unit dwelling to a single-family dwelling. The subject property is located in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two- Family) District in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approved dwelling unit merger

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           No Discretionary Review and Approved

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

 

12.        2005.0663C                                                                     (S. Mendrin:  (415) 558-6625)

836 IRVING STREET - north side between 9th and 10th Avenues, Lot 025 in Assessor’s Block 1741 -Request for a Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 303(c) and 730.44 to allow the establishment of a small self-service restaurant use as described in Section 790.91 within the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The proposal is to change the existing personal use “Irving Nail Salon” (nail salon & facials) to a small self-service restaurant “Toasties” (deli/coffee shop).  The interior space will be reconfigured to accommodate the proposed small self-service restaurant (approximately 995 square feet and 12 seats). 

Preliminary Recommendation:  Approval with Conditions

           

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Without hearing, continued to October 27, 2005

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

 

13.        2004.0647C                                                                            (J. Purvis: (415) 558-6354)

2235 MISSION STREET - east side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 3590 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j) for a three-story vertical addition to an existing one-story-plus-mezzanine commercial building, resulting in a 50-foot-tall, mixed-use building with six dwelling units added over the existing 5,522 square feet of commercial space, with no off-street parking; within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District, a 65-B Height and Bulk District, and within the Mixed-Use/Housing Overlay under Planning Commission Resolution No. 16727.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

            SPEAKERS:     None

            ACTION:           Approved

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

            MOTION:           17116

 

G.         REGULAR CALENDAR 

           

            14.        2004.0175DV                                                                      (S. VELLVE: (415) 558-6263)

3075 PACIFIC AVENUE - south side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 014C in Assessor’s Block 975 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.01.10.4985, proposing to add a full third-story addition to a two-story single-family home in an RH-1(D) (House, One-Family (Detached Dwelling)) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal is subject to a Side Yard Variance request, which was heard on July 28, 2004 (Case No. 2004.0175V). The Zoning Administrator's decision is pending.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the building permit application as revised

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)

 

            ACTION:           Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

 

            15.       2004.1233D                                                                       (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

2549 POST STREET - south side between Baker and Lyon Streets; Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 1081 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.10.14.6841, proposing to legalize the installation of property-line windows on the east side of the three-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

            (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 8, 2005)

 

            SPEAKERS:    

            Joe Breal – Representing Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. This is a fairly unique and extraordinary case.
  2. As you know, this is a case where the developer did not take out a permit for these windows
  3. This affects my client’s privacy.
  4. This is not simply an issue of view.

Alice Lam, Discretionary Review Requestor

  1.   Concerned about safety and privacy for herself and her tenants

Leslie Yuen

  1. Concerned about noise, safety and privacy

Ken Welk, representing Project Sponsor

  1. Urged the Commission to approve the project

            ACTION:           Took Discretionary Review and Disapproved

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

            NAYES:            Antonini and Olague

 

            16.        2005.0527D                                                                    (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1847 SCOTT STREET   - west side between Pine and Bush Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1050 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.17.5059, proposing to add two stories to an existing two-story, single-family residence 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 revised

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

 

            SPEAKERS:    

David Cincotta, representing Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. Regrets that we are here today because we have made some progress with these projects.  Unfortunately we have not made sufficient progress.
  2. The size of the penthouse is down a third from what it used to be.  It its down to what a normal mechanical penthouse might be.
  3. The project is still too tall for its site.  It is too large.
  4. There are considerable things that could be done to make it better.
  5. All structures on that street are one-story or two-story cottages.
  6. The impact on the adjacent property is really considerable.

Sandra Whittman

  1. Owner of 1853 Scott Street,
  2. There are two facades--Victorian cottages with a party wall.
  3. People move in and they only move out if they are forced to move out by some other significant event in their life.
  4. They have a lot of light and they are very livable
  5. The owner expects the City and the people of San Francisco to pay for his investment in the lack of a historically significant building.  He also expects me to move all these pipes which I have an easement for, which costs somewhere between $60 and $80 thousand rather than solve it with a lightwell.
  6. We have to put in a lightwell.  We have to put in ventilation for the bathroom.  We have to put in a skylight.

Andrew Junius, representing Project Sponsor

  1. My client’s project is on a 16-foot wide lot.
  2. We have no room to make a lightwell.
  3. We cannot accommodate a waste line over the property line.
  4. We are willing to put the money out there and make that line go into the building.
  5. My client has been very cooperative.
  6. This issue is not for the Planning Commission.  It is a dispute between property owners.
  7. They have no right to that property line window and there is not a significant shadow issue related to this addition.

Brian Growner, Property Owner

  1. This building was in a teardown condition.
  2. The façade has been restored to its exact condition in 1894.
  3. The lightwell that I proposed matches her lightwell as per the Building Code.
  4. Asked the Commission to deny the Discretionary Review application.

               ACTION:        Did not take Discretionary Review and approved

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

           

17.        2005.0698C                                                                        (M. Smith:  (415) 558-6322)

80 WEST PORTAL AVENUE - north side between Vicente Street and Ulloa Street, Lot 008 in Assessor’s Block 2931 - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 729.53 to establish a business/professional service operated by Guarantee Mortgage, located in the West Portal Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

               SPEAKERS:

               Dean Ricci

  1. Clarified that we are not a financial institution.  We are a professional service that is more closely related to a real estate brokerage. The Zoning Administrator made this determination.
  2. We feel that we are a valuable asset to the community and greatly improve the retail environment on the street.

Sharon Green

  1. Strongly protests the proposed project
  2. Extremely concerned about the possible loss of retail business in the area.

 

               Leonard Norak

  1. Opposes the project

Bob Singer

  1. Spoke in favor of the project.

Patricia Clark

  1. We need diversity in retail to provide the every day goods and services that families require on a day-to-day basis.

Timothy John McCarthy

  1. Asked and urged the Commission to support their conditional use authorization for Guarantee Mortgage to make their move in the neighborhood.

               Miles Grant

  1. Thinks that this will bring a lot of business and a lot of people into the West portal area that did not know about it.
  2. This will be a very positive impact on the neighborhood.

Dan Saunders

  1. His fear is if Guarantee Mortgage is not allowed to move to the new location, they will move off the street.  This will cause him and his business a lot of increased pressure and hopefully that won’t happen.

Ken Crusca

- Is opposed to the project.

               Ray Doyle

               -  I’ve lived on Kensington Way close to West Portal Avenue since 1961.

               -  Please don’t give up on retail on West Portal Avenue.

               -  With the granting of conditional uses in the past few years, the retail businesses are being squeezed out.

               -  I think the owner should pursue other options.

               Neil Mitchell

  1. Really supports the project and move.

Dianne Goodman

  1. Does not support the project.

               Mary Christian

  1. Is not in support of the project.

Linda Story, Representative of Guarantee Mortgage

  1. First, we have never seen a notice of any violation
  2. Read a letter from Mathew Rodgers, a current merchant in West Portal who supports this project.
  3. It is a misnomer to say this is a financial institution.  We are governed by the Department of Real Estate not the Department of Financial Institutions.
  4. Would like the Commission to grant the conditional use request.

 

               ACTION:        Approved

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

NAYES:         Olague; Alexander; S. Lee         

MOTION:        17117

 

18.        2005.0632C                                                                        (M. Smith:  (415) 558-6322)

115 WEST PORTAL AVENUE - between Vicente Street and 14th Avenue, Lot 031 in Assessor’s Block 2989B - Request for Conditional Use authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 729.50 to establish a limited financial service operated by Sterling Bank & Trust, located in the West Portal Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District and 26-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

 

 

 

               SPEAKERS:

               Walter Parsley, Project Sponsor

  1. Banks opening on West Portal Avenue would be positive for the neighborhood.
  2. This will be a small institution.
  3. This is a community organization.
  4. The Planning Code allows for limited financial services in this neighborhood and none have been opened.

Sharon Greenland

  1. Who is going to monitor that they promised to only use 200 square feet?
  2. Do not approve the conditional use application.

Tammy Lee

  1. If the CU is approved, she will be the new branch manager.
  2. Asked the Commission to approve the application.

Patricia Clark

  1. There are already too many financial offices in the neighborhood.

Kenneth Crusca, West Portal Association

  1. Opposed to the project.

Ray Doyle

  1. People should have property rights.
  2. The community rights should not be overridden.
  3. The right to request a conditional use permit was designed to build flexibility.
  4. The neighborhood commercial district zoning restrictions are one tool to protect small businesses
  5. Please do not dismantle this protection.

Steve Adams, Managing Director of Sterling Bank in San Francisco

  1. Is in support of this project.

Mary Ann Christian

  1. Ground floor retail space is prime in West Portal
  2. We need to encourage new small Businesses to come into that space
  3. Is not in support of this project.

Ernestine Weiss

  1. This is healthy.
  2. [Banks] fill a need
  3. If there weren’t a need, they wouldn’t be asking you to have them there.
  4. Things change in neighborhoods.  We have to change with it.
  5. I think you should approve this.

Dianne Goodman

  1. Concerned about the possibility of the increase in her rent.

Marilyn Amini

  1. Fully endorses what Ray Doyle said, there are controls in the neighborhood that concern proliferation of financial institutions.
  2. This should be looked at more closely by the Commission.

               ACTION:        Public Hearing Closed. Intent to Disapprove.  Final Language on 10/27/05

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

 

NOTE: Items 19 and 20a & b were called and heard together.  The public hearing for item 19 is closed.

 

19.        2000.1164E                                                                     (P. MALTZER: (415) 558-5977)

1880-1886 MISSION STREET - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report.  The project site on Assessor’s Block 3547, on Lots 2A, 3, 4, and 29 is approximately 51,888 square feet in size and contains two existing buildings containing warehouse use and printing plant with offices.  The project site is located at 1880-1886 Mission Street at 15th Street (northwest corner) bordered by 14th Street to the north, Mission Street to the east, 15th Street to the south and Julian Street to the west, within the Mission District neighborhood.  The project site is located in a Heavy Commercial (C-M) zoning district, within a 65-B/50-X Height and Bulk district, as well as the Mission District Interim Controls district. The proposal is to demolish the two existing buildings and construct one seven-story plus basement building containing 194 dwelling units, including 39 affordable units, and 8,536 square feet (sf) of retail space.  The basement and ground floor levels would contain 181 parking spaces with ingress and egress from 15th Street.  The proposed project would require conditional use authorization by the Planning Commission pursuant to San Francisco Planning Code Section 303. 

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

SPEAKERS:  None.  Public hearing is closed.

               ACTION:        Approved – Certified Final Environmental Impact Report

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

MOTION:        17118

 

20a.      2000.1164E                                                                        (P. MALTZER: (415) 558-5977)

1880-1886 Mission Street  - Adoption of CEQA Findings.  The project site on Assessor’s Block 3547, on Lots 2A, 3, 4, and 29 is approximately 51,888 square feet in size and contains two existing buildings containing warehouse use and printing plant with offices.  The project site is located at 1880-1886 Mission Street at 15th Street (northwest corner) bordered by 14th Street to the north, Mission Street to the east, 15th Street to the south and Julian Street to the west, within the Mission District neighborhood.  The project site is located in a Heavy Commercial (C-M) zoning district, within a 65-B/50-X Height and Bulk district, as well as the Mission District Interim Controls district. The proposal is to demolish the two existing buildings and construct one seven-story plus basement building containing 194 dwelling units, including 39 affordable units, and 8,536 square feet (sf) of retail space.  The basement and ground floor levels would contain 181 parking spaces with ingress and egress from 15th Street.  The proposed project would require conditional use authorization by the Planning Commission pursuant to San Francisco Planning Code Section 303.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

               SPEAKERS:

               Warner Smalls, Property Owner

  1. We want to make it clear that for three years, which has been a long time for us, we have listened expressly to the concerns of the community.
  2. I think it is in that spirit that we are proposing this project as modified today.
  3. We have increased the number of three bedroom unit, we’ve added more, not by increasing the size of the building, but simply by adjusting the interior spaces to provide for more bedrooms that are truly legal, in terms of bedroom, light and air exposure.
  4. This makes a big change in the number of people, the number of population that can be accommodated in the building.
  5. We’ve increased the number of units to 194
  6. We have provided new community space.
  7. We’ve reduced the number of parking to below the 1.1 legally required for independent access.
  8. We think this is a socially responsible project.
  9. We’ve waited five years since this project was conceived and have been in the pipeline for three years.
  10. Respectfully asked the Commission for their support and approval of the project

Name unclear

  1. Appreciated the support of the Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission for the past five years.
  2. Our main concern has been to make this project inclusionary.

Gloria Diana Ramos

  1. This project will provide homeownership to about 39 low-income families who are probably all tenants at the moment.
  2. This is something critically important.
  3. She is very proud of that, and happy to know that low-income families will be homeowners and no longer have to rent.

Ron Miguel

  1. There are overriding considerations for your approval of this project.  Just take a look at what has been achieved here. Neighborhood group considerations particularly regarding retail, streetscape, traffic and everything else has been thoroughly taken into consideration.  It’s probably more than most developers have done in being responsible to the neighborhood.

Ruben Santana

  1. I currently employ approximately 50 union carpenters and laborers.  75 to 80% are local from the community and/or San Francisco residents.
  2. My organization is that of grassroots of this city and I’d like to see the city develop and become a stronger unification with all the people involved.
  3. Is in favor of this project.

Tim Paulson, Executive Director of the San Francisco Labor Council

  1. Asked the Commission to push this project forward.
  2. Commended the Commission for the work they’ve done so far.

Michael Therianlt

  1. Thanked the project sponsor for pledging to build the project with all union labor.
  2. We have a legitimate hope that some of our own members may eventually occupy those units.

Roberta Gabino

  1. Asked the Commission to support the project.  It will create good union paying jobs as well as provide much needed affordable housing.

Jose

  1. The building that is there serves no real purpose and has little value
  2. You can help solve the problem by supporting this project and move it forward.

Larry Mizzola, Jr.

  1. The type of project you are considering tonight will help me and my people in the community secure permanent housing.
  2. This is the type of project in the Mission District that will allow people in my community to keep current economic status with construction jobs.

Jose Ferreira, Jr.

  1. We have over 3300 members in our union.  This project will provide work for some of those members. 
  2. I’m here to support the project and the housing that will be developed
  3. Asked the Commission to support this project and move it forward.

Robert Crockett, Local 22

  1. This project will help bring a dead neighborhood back to life.
  2. I’d like to work on it to help the people of the neighborhood to improve it, to give them a reason to have faith, hope, and just a little bit of pride in their neighborhood so they will want to live there.

Don Marcos

  1. I have supported the project since it was proposed three years ago, before they made all the changes, simply because of what it will do in that neighborhood.
  2. Every month, every year that this project is delayed, it is one more crime, one more victim, and one more family not being able to move in.

Joseph Martinez

  1. I am in support of this project and I urge you to please pass this.

Tim Kelly

  1. Wanted to ask the Commission for their support of this project.
  2. I spoke in defense of the CEQA process and I am glad to see that it has been respected.
  3. I think that it was only appropriate to be done and we have benefited.  We will be learning much more about the social history of the building if you approve this project with the mitigation measures related to the public display regarding the history today.

Marc Glomb

  1. We are looking forward to the possibility of our low-income seniors, which are primarily women that live on Social Security and SSI, having the possibility of homeownership in that building for themselves.

Philip Lesser

  1. Nobody has spoken to the fact that this project is only 500 feet away from the 16th and Mission BART station.  This is an ideal place for high-density housing and retail.
  2. I support this project.

               John Crowly in place of Sophia Ayala

  1. People are displaced in the Mission because they are renters.  They are not homeowners.
  2. It is time to say yes to this project and move it forward.

Unclear name

  1. Strongly supports this project because it would bring much needed housing improvements to the neighborhood.

Kenneth, translating from Chinese to English

  1. The speaker urged the commission to push this project forward.  The current building serves no purpose.

John Crowly, Local 483

  1. We build them but we can’t live there
  2. It is about time we built something where can we live.
  3. This is a great project.

Luisa (unclear last name)

  1. This particular project is a model--not only of working together and taking into consideration our working folks in San Francisco--but also for looking for ways to make it affordable for people to own their homes.

Nick Pagalatos

  1. Would like to thank the community for continuing to engage in a tenacious way with the developers to make sure that community needs were met.
  2. I am in support of this project.   And is not because it’s going to develop over 100 units of market rate housing, but rather because it is going to provide for dozens of units of below market rate housing at 80% of AMI, which is a precedent and which is a solid step in the right direction.

Ruby Harris

  1. This is a significant opportunity for our buyers, but it does not go far enough.  I want to echo a lot of things and let you know that our neighborhood is a low-income.
  2. This is a good step in the right direction.
  3. We look forward to working with future developers to really become more relevant to the neighborhood and to offer more opportunities for all these folks in the neighborhood.

Eric Quezada

  1. There are a lot of people here today supporting the need for affordable housing in our neighborhood.  That’s good.  It would be good to see this kind of support every time we are here fighting for one more BMR unit.
  2. The fight is not over.  We have a long struggle ahead of us.
  3. We support this project but we need to make sure to take care of the folks that have been there for many years, who have struggled through the difficult times in our neighborhood.  The ones who have stuck it out.  We need to make sure those folks aren’t victims of this project and that the businesses that have been serving our neighborhood aren’t forced out for lack of leases and speculation from other landlords in the neighborhoods who view this as an opportunity to displace more of our community.

Fernando Marti, Mission Anti Displacement Coalition

  1. Over the last four years of working with this developer, we’ve gotten a project that will really be something that will, I think, be a first step and a precedent to how we might see development in the future in the Mission District.

Luis Granados

  1. I think this is a step in the right direction.
  2. To put it in context though, it would be great if this project were 100% affordable.

Bruce Alison

  1. Spoke in opposition of this project.

Catania Galvan

  1. We all need to see that projects like this become more the norm than the exception.

Rosario Anaya

  1.   Believes that the builder has done much more than his due diligence
  2. The neighborhood will be so much better served by the creation of new homes and spaces for small businesses in the community.
  3. Urged the Commission to approve the project.

Joseph Shipman, Member of Local 22 carpenters Union

  1. I find myself in a perplexing situation
  2. I’m for affordable housing.  Single parent dwellings are one of my big issues.
  3. I just don’t see it.  I see condos going up all over the place and I see myself as a hard working blue-collar worker and slowly being nudged out of my neighborhood.
  4. I need the work and I don’t make that kind of money
  5. I can’t afford to move into one of those units.

Danny Mclinden

  1. If you build these, where will the poor in the Mission go?
  2. Spoke in opposition of this project.

Bill Murphy

  1. I’m disabled and live on a fixed income.
  2. This project is only affordable to the wealthy
  3. I know for a fact that at least 80% of the people in my part of the Mission make less than 30% of median income.
  4. Many have big families to support with low-income jobs.
  5. Most of the people in this neighborhood could never afford anything in this project unless it’s maybe a closet.
  6. It will create more displacement and gentrification

Ellis McDonald

  1. Does not support this project.

Marna Schwartz

  1. 80% AMI with 20% inclusionary should be the standard for development.
  2. Teachers, Firemen, union workers and others should be able to buy these below market rate units
  3. In order for folks with low incomes to get into these units, they are going to have to get down payment assistance form the City.

Larry Del Carlo

  1. We have been renovating low and affordable housing in the Mission for 35 years. 
  2. We are committed to build low-income affordable housing in the Mission District and we will continue to do that
  3. A project like this does not really bother us because it is an opportunity for many of our residents who have increased their income over the years, as they have been renters in our buildings, to be able to realize a dream that they have.  To have an opportunity to get a start and own their first home.

-  A low-income resident in one of our buildings does not stay a low-income resident forever.        

               ACTION:        Approved – Adoption of CEQA findings

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

MOTION:        17119

 

20b.      2003.0758C                                                                       (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

1880-1886 MISSION STREET - west side between 14th and 15th Streets; Lots 2A, 3, 4, and 29 in Assessor’s Block 3547 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 215, 271, 303, and 304 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) exceeding bulk limits, and to allow construction of up to 194 dwelling units, 8,536 square feet of retail commercial space and up to 181 independently accessible off-street parking spaces, following the demolition of two light industrial buildings on the site.  Exceptions are requested from bulk, rear yard, off-street parking and dwelling unit exposure requirements of the Planning Code.  The site is within a C-M (Heavy Commercial) Land Use District, and a 50-X and 65-B Height and Bulk District.

                                Preliminary Recommendation:  Approve with Conditions

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

               SPEAKERS:  Same as those listed for item 20a          

               ACTION:        Approved with conditions as drafted

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

MOTION:        17120

 

21.        2002.0449E                                                                            (T. Chan:  (415) 558-5982)

375 Fremont Street - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report.  Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIR, the project sponsor identified a new preferred alternative similar to Alternative B presented in the Draft EIR.  The preferred project, called Alternative D, is a 250-foot-tall, 28-story residential building of approximately 349,071 gross square feet (gsf) consisting of 225 dwelling units and about 217 underground parking spaces. One existing two-story building on the site which totals approximately 46,500 gross square feet would be demolished. The 375 Fremont Street Hill Building, constructed in 1929, is a listed in four local surveys containing buildings that could be considered historic resources.  The project site is located about mid-block on the eastern side of Fremont Street in the block bounded by Folsom, Fremont, Harrison, and Beale Streets.  Vehicular access to the parking garage would be from Fremont Street on the northern side of the building.  Pedestrian access would be from a lobby facing Fremont Street.  The site is within the RC-4 (Residential/Commercial High-Density) district, and a 250-R height/bulk district. This site is within the newly adopted Rincon Hill Downtown Residential (DTR) District, which is awaiting final adoption by the Board of Supervisors. Should the Board of Supervisor adopt the propose Rincon Hill DTR, the proposed project would be in the new 85/400-R height and bulk district.

Preliminary Recommendation:   Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.  Note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, January 6, 2005.  The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

               SPEAKERS:  None.  Public hearing is closed.

               ACTION:        Approved certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report

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

ABSENT:       S. Lee

MOTION:        17121

 

22a.      2002.0449Cv                                                                      (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

375 Fremont Street - east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street, Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 3747 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow for the construction of a residential project that would include approximately 225 dwelling units, 217 non-independently off-street parking spaces, two off-street loading spaces, in a structure that would be 250-feet tall and 28-stories.  Conditional Use is required pursuant to Planning Code Section 253 for the construction of a structure greater than 40-feet in a Residential District, and pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(b)(1)(B) for the construction of a project that would have full lot coverage on a sloping lot in the Rincon Hill Special Use District.  The project is being considered under the Planning Code Section 249.1, the Rincon Hill Special Use District, rather than the recently adopted new zoning controls for the Rincon Hill area as outlined in Planning Code Sections 827 and 309.1.  Planning Code Section 175.7 allows the subject lot to pursue entitlements under the zoning controls in effect prior to the adoption of the zoning amendments implementing the Rincon Hill DTR District.  Under the previous controls, the subject lot was in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Mixed High Density) District, the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 250-R Height and Bulk District.  Under the new adopted zoning, the project site is within the Rincon Hill DTR (Downtown Residential District), and a 400-R Height and Bulk District.   

preliminary Recommendation: Approval with modifications.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

               SPEAKERS:             

               Alan Mark

  1. Gave a brief explanation of how size is used to determine a one or two bedroom unit.

Allison Pool, Member of the Project Team

-  Gave an overall presentation of the project design and how that design responds to staff’s concerns.

Bob Meyers, Planning Consultant for Theodore Brown

  1. Responded to the design changes suggested by staff.

Theodore Brown, Developer of the project.

  1. Thanked staff for the four years of hard work on this project
  2. Expressed that one of the most important things is to make this building livable.
  3. We probably have the greatest amount of open space on the ground floor of any building in Rincon Hill.
  4. Respectfully asked the Commission to approve this project as proposed.

Greg Miller

  1. Asked the Commission to approve the project

Robert Herr, Attorney for the Project Sponsor

  1. Reviewed the process history of this project and asked the Commission to approve the EIR certification and the conditional use request.

Tim O’Brien, West Coast Operating Partner for Five Field Companies and Theodore Brown’s Development Partner

  1. We are currently developing over a billion and a half dollars of high-rise residential projects.  Four in California
  2. This is the first project in San Francisco
  3. We are committed to high quality urban housing and are excited about bringing that much needed housing to San Francisco.
  4. If this is a project you are prepared to approve tonight, we are prepared to build it.

Ernestine Weiss

  1. I’m coming to you from a tenant’s point of view.
  2. This is a perfect fit for the Rincon Area, as I’ve said before.
  3. This is both an outstanding and exceptional design by Ted Brown, and it is both beautiful and practical.
  4. I can’t find fault with one thing.

Pat McGarigan, A Lawyer representing the Archdiocese

  1. The archdiocese is here tonight to be able to tell you that we believe it is feasible for them to reorient its building such that it has a rectangular shape along Harrison Street and that we believe will allow us to add approximately ten feet, maybe a little more setback from the 375 building, provided that we are able to work through with staff a few additional changes that would be required for such a project in terms of diagonal dimensions and the setback from the east side property line.
  2. As well as a change in the floor plates.
  3. All of those things are under consideration and will be involved in the process of our submittal as a revised CU application for the 385-399 project.
  4. We don’t see that we can increase the tower separation more than the 60 to 80 foot range
  5. We do think it is realistic for the 60 to 70 foot range
  6. If we do this reorientation of the 385-399 project we do believe we can achieve a few additional units.
  7. With these things, the adjourning property owner is supportive of this application.

 

               ACTION:        Approved as modified:  some corrections as pointed out by the project sponsor; setbacks in a couple different places – we took away the varying dimensions and said it would be 20 feet from the south side property line; strike the last condition; it will be subject to Rincon Hill requirements and fees; to continue working with staff to see if the balconies are movable; the Commission will get an informational presentation on colors, glazing and those types of items as the project goes forward.

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

ABSENT:       S. Lee

MOTION:        17122

 

22b.      2002.0449CV                                                                      (M. Snyder: (415) 575-6891)

375 Fremont Street - east side between Folsom Street and Harrison Street, Lot 006 in Assessor’s Block 3747 - Request for Parking, Loading, and upper floor setback variances to allow for the construction of a residential project that would include approximately 225 dwelling units, 217 non-independently off-street parking spaces, two off-street loading spaces, in a structure that would be 250-feet tall and 28-stories.  Pursuant to Planning Code Section 151 and 249.1(c)(3), one parking space is required for each dwelling unit; the proposal only includes up to 217 parking spaces (193 independently accessible, and 24 tandem).  Pursuant to Planning Code Section 249.1(c)(3), 50-percent of the frontage is required to be setback by 25-feet at a height of 50-feet; the proposal does not include such a setback. Pursuant to Planning Code Section 152 and 155, the project is required to include two independently access off-street loading spaces; one of the proposed two loading spaces would not be independently accessible.  The project is being considered under the Planning Code Section 249.1, the Rincon Hill Special Use District, rather than the recently adopted new zoning controls for the Rincon Hill area as outlined in Planning Code Sections 827 and 309.1.  Planning Code Section 175.7 allows the subject lot to pursue entitlements under the zoning controls in effect prior to the adoption of the zoning amendments implementing the Rincon Hill DTR District.  Under the previous controls, the subject lot was in an RC-4 (Residential Commercial Mixed High Density) District, the Rincon Hill Special Use District, and a 250-R Height and Bulk District.  Under the new adopted zoning, the project site is within the Rincon Hill DTR (Downtown Residential District), and a 400-R Height and Bulk District.   

                        (Continued from Regular Meeting of September 15, 2005)

 

                        SPEAKERS:     Same as those listed for item 22a

                        ACTION:           The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the parking and loading variances.  He has taken the upper floor setback variance under advisement.

                                                         

23.        2002.1129E                                                                         (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

SAN FRANCISCO MARINA RENOVATION PROJECT - Draft Environmental Impact Report Public Hearing.   The proposed project is the renovation of the San Francisco Marina at 3950 Scott Street (Assessor’s Block 900, Lot 003). Water-side improvements would include installation of three new breakwater structures and the removal of two existing breakwater structures; reconstruction of portions of the degraded rip-rap slopes around the interior shorelines of the marina and along the outer seawall (between the St. Francis and Golden Gate Yacht Clubs); maintenance dredging; replacement and reconfiguration of the floating docks and slips; replacement of gangways and security gates; installation of an oily water and sewage pump-out facility and refurbishment of two sewage pump-out facilities; upgrade of electrical and water services to the new floating docks; and improved lighting on the docks.  Land-side improvements would include renovation of marina restroom, shower, and office buildings; conversion of a vacant building (former Navy Degaussing Station) into office space; construction of a new 1,000-square-foot maintenance building; and restriping of existing parking lots. The project site is within a P (Public) Use District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

       Preliminary Recommendation:  No Action Required.  Public hearing to receive     comments

       only.

Note:  Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on October 20, 2005.

 

               SPEAKERS:

   Joan Girardot

  1. We are talking about 8 blocks of public shoreline open space that I believe is the most prized land use under the city’s General Plan.
  2. We all want the harbor repaired, but in an environmentally sensitive way.
  3. My first point is regarding the seismic retrofit of the existing seawalls.
  4. The project would be funded by Long shore DPW, which has limited funds for the repair of the marina unit.
  5. If you go to page 214 and the city says:  they quote a report in 1997 that does not deny the seawalls need retrofit.  But they don’t quote the earlier studies that say they will fall 4 to 8 feet.  And it says they recommend that the city make repairs to the seawalls after an earthquake.
  6. This is unacceptable.          

Sue Chang

  1. -I would like to speak out against the removal of the north south mall at the end.  It is extremely well used.
  2. Supports that the project be spanned to include the seismic retrofit of the seawall and requested that the Planning Commission require that the repair and replace alternative suggested by the Marina Improvement property evaluators be done for environmental review and the ability to meet the project sponsor’s objective.

Gloria Fontanello

  1. The impact of this changes views, the foreseeable increase in traffic noise, congestion, the increased use of the pump out facility and increased intensity of use of the shoreline recreation area.
  2. It must be evaluated in the final EIR.
  3. The final EIR must also specify the exact location of this guest dock.
  4. It should be obvious we need a traffic impact analysis to be included in the final report.

Jill Sinclair

  1. The marina draft EIR before you today is in violation of code chapter 29.
  2. I ask you today to suspend these proceedings and postpone this hearing until the violations have been addressed
  3. I hope this area will not become a commercial space.

Don (unclear last name)

  1. The Planning Commission should consider and recommend repairing and making replacements as needed to the existing harbor facilities with the existing layout and existing berth sizes.

Henry Coleman

  1. Concerned about energy consumption.

Susan Lipson

-  Concerned about the traffic circulation in the area.

Renee Monchard

  1. This Environmental Impact Report is inadequate.

Nathaniel Berkowitz

  1. Does not support the Environmental Impact Report

Judy Berkowitz

-  Asked the Commission to accept two resolutions 1) is to recommend that the scope of the Marina Harbor project be expanded to include the seismic retrofit of the Marina Boulevard seawall and fire wall; 2) to recommend to the Recreation and Parks Department to retain all 228 small berths at the Marina.

David Cincotta         

  1. Asked the Commission if there were a possibility to have a future hearing and an extended comment period.  That would be beneficial because some of these people, whom he represents, have considerable knowledge over the years and have read all of the background materials and studies.

Francisco DeCosta

  1. This is a flawed Draft Environmental Impact Report because it does not address quality of life issues.

Marilyn Amini

  1. Supports the request that the project scope include evaluation of seismic retrofit of the seawall to render the environmental impact report adequate and accurate.

 

ACTION:        At the direction of the Chair, this item was continued to November 3, 2005 for a full public hearing.  Staff has been instructed to invite the Recreation and Parks Department and the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to review and comment at the hearing.   Also, the written comment period has been extended until 5:00 p.m. on November 10, 2005.

    

6:30 P.M.

 

24.        2005.0868ETM                                                                       (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Establishing a Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fee and Fund. - Consideration of an Ordinance adding Planning Code Sections 319 through 319.7 to impose a $4.58 per square foot fee on new residential development in the Visitacion Valley area, to establish a Visitacion Valley Community Facilities and Infrastructure Fund to mitigate impacts from residential development on public infrastructure in Visitacion Valley including libraries, streets, playgrounds, recreational facilities, and community centers, and making findings including findings under the California Environmental Quality Act

            Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

 

SPEAKERS: 

Francisco DeCosta

  1. Commissioners, be very careful not to set a precedent.
  2. If we set a precedent where the public does not have meaningful dialogue…, that is not good for the City.

- Asked the Commission to be careful how they adjudicate this issue.

               Shirley Jones, Chairperson of the Executive Park Advisory Committee

  1. The committee supports the proposed housing development at Executive Park
  2. The proposed development will result in a sizeable contribution to San Francisco schools and ultimate a sufficient increase in property tax.

   Linda Feliz

  1. She passed out written statements by the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families, which she represents
  2. Childcare is a vital infrastructure piece in meeting the needs of residents and employees in the case of Executive Park.
  3. We are certain that the demand for childcare will not be decreased.

 

Fran Martin

  1. Asked the Commission to ratify the fee ordinance for the good of the community.

               Ann Seimann

- Supervisor Maxwell’s fee ordinance is a common sense and fair solution to the impacts that incoming developments will have on facilities and services.                

   Ron Seimann

  1. He is a retired psychologist and a hearing impaired person.
  2. He supports Supervisor Maxwell’s ordinance.
  3. He very specifically wants to address the issue of the library.
  4. I don’t think it is too much to ask that out of the huge amounts of money that the developers of Candlestick Cove will make from their project, they give back a little to our community, at least so we can have a library that will serve the community including the residents of “Candlestick Cove.” 

               Espanola Jackson

  1. She is dissatisfied with how Bayview Hunters Point is not even being looked at.
  2. We have an infrastructure [problem] there.
  3. When everyone starts flushing their toilets, it comes to Bayview Hunters Point.
  4. We had the Supervisor come out to the community day before yesterday
  5. She could not explain to us why and how she decided on her own to put forth an ordinance without coming to the community and discuss it with the community.
  6. She didn’t have an answer.
  7. She said she could do what she wants to.
  8. I have submitted a complaint to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force because we’ve got to take care of business for Bayview Hunters Point
  9. She is opposed to the ordinance.

Joe Boss

  1. I really hope this helps clarify the need for coming up with a system that starts from the beginning with public input, goes through assessing the existing needs such as libraries,, and identifying new impact needs; coming up with real nexus studies that indicate what impacts there are and what the development should pay for .
  2. Opposes the ordinance.

ACTION:        Approved as amended to require continued dialogue between the Supervisor, developer, impacted communities; monies should be divided among Little Hollywood, Bayview Hunters Point & Visitacion Valley.

               AYES:           Antonini, Alexander, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:       S. Lee and Bradford-Bell

RESOLUTION:    17123

 

25         2005.0868ETM                                                                       (k. mcgee: (415) 558-6367)

General Plan Amendment in connection with the Executive Park/Candlestick Cove Project. - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the San Francisco General Plan in connection with approvals for the proposed Executive Park - Candlestick Cove Project; adopting findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and adopting findings that the General Plan amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the eight Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

                        Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

 

SPEAKERS:  Same as those listed for item 24

               ACTION:        Approved

               AYES:           Antonini, Alexander, Hughes, Olague, W. Lee

ABSENT:       Bradford-Bell and S. Lee

RESOLUTION:    17124

 

 

 

            26.                                                             (J. JARAMILLO/ J. RUBIN:  (415) 558-6818)/558-6310) 

EASTERN NEIGHBORHOODS PLANNING STUDY - Informational presentation on the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning.  The presentation will include information on status of the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning, which includes Showplace Square, Mission, Potrero Hill, Central Waterfront, Bayview, and parts of South of Market.  A staff report will be available in conjunction with the presentation.

Preliminary Recommendation:  Informational Presentation, No action Requested

 

SPEAKERS:  None

               ACTION:        Without hearing, continued to October 27, 2005

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

ABSENT:       S. Lee

 

27.        2005.0524T                                                                           (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

BETTER NEIGHBORHOODS PLUS TEXT AMENDMENTS   - Consideration of an ordinance  [Board of Supervisors File Number 050601] which would   establish   a   "Better   Neighborhoods   Planning and Implementation Process" by  (a) adding Chapter 36 to the Administrative Code  in  order to set forth uniform procedures for  developing  comprehensive neighborhood plans, (b) amending Administrative  Code  Section  3.4  to  provide  for integrated budget  documents,  and (c) adding Section 312A to the Planning Code regarding discretionary review for projects located within plan areas.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Modifications

NOTE:   On August 4, 2005, following public testimony, the commission president directed that this item be calendared for discussion at all commission hearings through September 15, 2005 with possible action on September 15, 2005.

NOTE: On September 15, 2005, the commission continued the item to October 6, 2005 by a vote +4 –0.  Commissioners Hughes, Olague, W. Lee were absent.

 

SPEAKERS:  None

               ACTION:        Without hearing, continued to October 20, 2005

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

ABSENT:       S. Lee

 

H.         PUBLIC COMMENT

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

             None

 

Adjournment:  10:42 p.m.

 

 

 

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006

SPEAKERS:     None

ACTION:           Approved

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

ABSENT:        Alexander, Bradford-Bell

 

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:18 PM