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

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

October 26, 2006

October 26, 2006



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, October 26, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore, and Sugaya



STAFF IN ATTENCANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Claudia Flores, Theresa Ojeda, Steve Wertheim, Lisa Gibson, Rick Crawford, Kate Conner, Elizabeth Watty, Amit Ghosh, Craig Nikitas, Michelle Glueckert, Dan Sider, John Billovits, Anmarie Rodgers, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.


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

1. 2002.1129E (S. JONES: (415) 558-5976)

San Francisco Marina Renovation - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. 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 pumpout facility and refurbishment of two sewage pumpout 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.

Please note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report is closed. The Planning Commission does not conduct public review of Final EIRs. Public comments on the certification may be presented to the Planning Commission during the Public Comment portion of the Commission calendar.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 2, 2006)


Emeric Kalman

- I would like this item to be continued because the document is very long. I would need time to study and give appropriate input to the Commission.

- We need at least sixty days to review.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, and Moore


ABSENT: Alexander

2a. 2005. 0307D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 CAPP STREET - west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2659 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation. The project also includes the new construction of a three-unit building.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2006)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

2b. 2005.0329DD (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

368 Capp Street- west side between 18th and 19th Streets; Lot 047 in Assessor's Block 3590 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, and a request of Discretionary Review, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.01.06.2663 for the new construction of a three-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk Designation.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take DR and approve project as proposed.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 14, 2006)

(Proposed for Continuance to November 16, 2006)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

3. 2003.0347E (R. AHMADI: (415)-558-5966)

Market & Octavia Neighborhood Plan - Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report. The project area lies to the west of the City's downtown financial district and sits at the junction of several neighborhoods, including, Civic Center, Hayes Valley, Western Addition, South of Market, Inner Mission, the Castro, Duboce Triangle, Eureka Valley, and Upper Market. The proposed neighborhood plan would reclassify the existing zoning from Residential Districts (R), Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCD's), Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial (NC-3), and Heavy Commercial (C-M) to Downtown General Commercial Districts (C-3-G), Residential Transit Oriented (RTO), Neighborhood Commercial Transit Districts (NCT), Neighborhood Commercial-Transit, Moderate-Scale Mixed Use Districts (NCT-3). It would also increase height limits in certain areas and reduce height limits in other areas. The proposed zoning and height reclassifications would increase the potential for residential development in the area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Please note: The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report is closed. 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.

(Proposed for Continuance to December 7, 2006)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, and Moore


ABSENT: Alexander

4. 2006.0882A (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval.

(Proposed for Continuance to November 9, 2006)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

5a. 2006.0697CPR (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

100 ARMORY DRIVE - west side between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 7281 - Request by Sprint/Nextel Wireless for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 234.2(a) to install three (3) antennas, mounted to an existing Sprint Wireless 50' tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District, Coastal Zone Special Use District, and a OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. Per the City & County of San Francisco's Wireless Telecommunications Services (WTS) Facilities Siting Guidelines the site is a Preferred Location Preference 1 site as it is a public-use building

Application withdrawn.


5b. 2006.0697CPR (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

100 ARMORY DRIVE - west side between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 7281 - Request by Sprint/Nextel Wireless for Coastal Zone Permit authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 330 to install three (3) antennas, mounted to an existing Sprint Wireless 50' tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District, Coastal Zone Special Use District, and a OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Application withdrawn.

5c. 2006.0697CPR (K. CONNER: (415) 575-6914)

100 ARMORY DRIVE – west side between Sloat and Skyline Boulevards, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 7281 - Request by Sprint/Nextel Wireless for a finding of consistency with the General Plan pursuant to Section 4.105 of the City/County Charter to allow for the installation of a freestanding wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three (3) antennas mounted to an existing 50' tall monopole, located in a P (Public) District, Coastal Zone Special Use District, and a OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District.

Application withdrawn.


6. Commission Comments/Questions

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

Commissioner Antonini

  1. One of the things that I hope we all try to do is more good than harm.
  2. We have the presence within San Francisco of various neighborhoods of people usually with strong ethnic identification. Stronger neighborhoods, less crime and fewer problems.
  3. We have seen good things happening in the last few years. I do not want to get involved in policies that might keep areas economically depressed where the land value never rises.
  4. People would not want to invest and they tend to leave because some of the forces do not allow improving the areas by making good places to invest in and raise their families.
  5. We have to be very careful that we do not do things that might cause these kinds of results.
  6. We have to be careful about any policies that might prohibit new market rate housing or retail. The very dangerous thing that could happen is to perpetuate poverty in some areas.
  7. We have to look very carefully at what is before us and try to figure out what the real results on these policies might be.
  8. If the result is to do more harm than good and keep the neighborhood from developing up to their potential then we have to be very careful in supporting these policies.

Commissioner Moore

- I would like to bring to the attention of the Commission a wonderful article about Back to Reality. It was in the papers last Friday.

- I am looking forward the Planning Department, who has already made strives in revitalizing alleys as new downtown centers for entertainment, restaurants, and civic life to really take the opportunity at every possibility.


6. Director's Announcements


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

Dan Sider

Board of Supervisors

  1. Supervisor Ma's city wide conditional use requirement for massage establishments was heard at the Board. A friendly amendment was made by Supervisor Dufty exempting chair massage from the conditional use requirement. Continued for two weeks
  2. CEQA Appeal of replacement of two antennas on Sutro Tower. Upheld
  3. Introductions:
    1. Supervisor Peskin introduced a new rule requiring a 30-day referral period to the Planning Commission for significant Administrative Code amendments that relate to Planning forward to the Land Use Committee. It would be reviewed by the Rules Committee.
    2. Supervisor Elsbernd regarding to grocery stores. Two pieces of legislation that are substitute. This is going to be heard later today. The changes are reflected in your case report that you have right now.

Land Use and Economic Development Committee

  1. Reviewed Planning Code amendments relating to signage along the MUNI metro on the street. Passed

Mr. Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals

A- 704 North Point – Medical Cannabis Dispensary – Discretionary Review. Commission decision was upheld.


Marilyn Amini

- I am going to comment about the motion introduced by Supervisor Peskin.

- That motion would do nothing for you to ensure that significant matters come before you.

- There are already rules that require a 30-day hold on significant policy matters. It's Rule 5.0

- The community improvements in the Eastern Neighborhoods legislation that the Commission asked for formally with a letter to come back before you for your review and comment was put on a 30 day hold. That is not the problem.

8. (Tape IA; IB) (C. FLORES: (415) 558-6473)

2005 HOUSING INVENTORY REPORT – Announcing the publication of the 2005 Housing Inventory. This report is the 36th in the series and describes San Francisco's housing supply. Housing Inventory data accounts for new housing construction, demolitions, and alterations in a consistent format for analysis of housing production trends. Net housing unit gains are reported citywide, by zoning classification, and by planning district. Other areas covered include affordable housing, condominium conversions, and residential hotel stock. In addition, lists of major housing projects in the pipeline (i.e, projects under review by the Planning Department and the Department of Building Inspection, and projects authorized for construction) are included to provide a picture of likely housing construction activity in the near future. Report is available for the public at the Planning Department and on the website.

Preliminary Recommendation: No Action required. Informational only.


Sue Hestor

- I have raise questions about the housing inventory for many years. Once again, there is a big problem with the data.

- If you compare page 39 to page 37, projects authorized for constructions versus projects pending, you will find 601 Alabama on both lists.

- On page 37, I also note that there is a project authorized for construction at 1179 Tennessee Street. That is one of the messiest cases at the Planning Department.

- I would really love it if one of the staff hired would be a really data expert to keep track of projects.

- There is a major disfunction between the housing prices and the median sales price. It should be flagged to show whom are we building houses for.

ACTION: Meeting held – Informational only – no action required

9. (L BADINER/S. WEIRTHEIM: (415) 558-6350/558-6612)

Zoning Administrator announcement of the receipt of the New College of California Abbreviated Institutional Master Plan (IMP) pursuant to Planning Code Section 304.5. The Planning Commission has the discretion under Planning Code Section 304.5(d), to hold or not hold a public hearing on an Abbreviated IMP. If the Commission requests a hearing, it would be scheduled for a later date.


ACTION: The Zoning Administrator continued this item to November 9, 2006


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.


Emeric Kalman

- I want to raise a very important issue for the City that might be an inconvenient question for you, and ask staff to respond.

- We do need more housing and there is no question about it, but does the City have the proper capacity for energy, water and sewer?

- This waster plan was reported to take 4 or 5 years and it is not ready.

- We would be in a real problem in case of an emergency because we do not have answers.

Guadalupe Arriola, Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

- Asked the Commission to take into account the low income San Francisco working families for affordable family housing.

- The permanent controls are opportunities to create these policies that will prioritize community services for the most vulnerable in San Francisco.

Sue Hestor

- I got a lot of 311 notices and received one two days ago for a proposal to legalize an already done construction.

- The question is why we are putting the burden on people to file for a DR [Discretionary Review] and pay $400 to reward someone who is acting illegally?

- The second thing is the failure to follow up on the historic district.

- There should be a search of the computer files to find out files/project pending in historic areas and warn them to comply in accord to historic districts and the Landmark Board.

- We are spending a lot of time correcting something that should have never happened and how do we correct those mistakes?

- The project on Tennessee Street went to the DBI and the Board of Appeals but did not come to you. That is questionable to me.

Marilyn Amini

- When you initiated the Market-Octavia hearings, you decided to frame your hearings on topics versus the community needs framework. I hope the public would be allowed to speak on that plan even if it is not scheduled.

- [Reminded the Commission about Sunshine requirements Section 67(d) regarding public comments.]

- Sunshine supersedes any other City ordinances.


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.


Marilyn Amini

  1. I verbally notified the Commission Secretary that a letter came in from the West of Twin Peaks Association requesting continuance of this matter.
  2. A vote was taken on Monday night asking that the matter of chapter 31 be continued to give community organizations the time to review and respond to this very significant legislation.
  3. I looked at the file yesterday and there were no materials available to the public about any amendments to be considered.
  4. The Commission does not need to be pushed on this. You have the authority over any revision or modification to chapter 31.
  5. In the Administrative code in Section 34(b)(c) says that when there is adoption or modification revisions of administrative regulations, it has to be by resolution of the Planning Commission after a public hearing, which is noticed 20 days prior to the hearing.

Hiroshi Fukuda

  1. The public did not receive notice of this hearing in an adequate manner nor have [been able to review] written material in regards to this matter.
  2. This is a very significant revision and it is required that the Planning Commission take this matter to a public hearing.
  3. Asked this matter to be continued.


Marilyn Amini

- I hope the public would be allowed to speak at the time the item is called.

- This says that the Commission took action to close public comments. However, that is not the case because I have the transcript of it and it was just continued.

- Chapter 31 of the Administrative Code states that no amendment can be made to this code without a 30-day notice.

- You have to develop a recommendation based on public hearing and your recommendation should be final.

- Public hearing should not be closed for item 10 because you did not take action on it.

Steve Williams

- I had asked several questions to some of the staff and I have not gotten any answer making much sense to me.

- On Page 7 of the proposed amendments, it basically says that all Categorical Exemption that has anything to do with historic resources and districts require an additional step for some kind of objections to this body.

- You were told last time that your calendar would not be increased and I see here a great potential for increasing your calendar.

- In order to appeal a Cat. Ex., you will have to be entitled of intent to rely the issue. I have no idea what that is and I asked staff and they do not know what it is either.

- The ordinance as it is proposed does not make any sense. That section needs to be straightened.

Sue Hestor

- The section on the Cat. Ex. is extraordinarily confusing. I proposed a simple solution: diagram it.

- It needs to be clear. What is the notice of intent to approve?

- Secondarily, it was the practice of the Commission for years that any changes need to be presented

- What is the briefing for the Board of Supervisors?

- It is really hard to understand. There are many things and many solutions.


10. 2006.1221E (Tape IB; IIA) (L. GIBSON: (415) 558-5993)

Amendment of Administrative Code Chapter 31 [Board File No. 061311] Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Ma amending Administrative Code Chapter 31 provisions for appeals of environmental documents and determinations to the Board of Supervisors under the California Environmental Quality Act, as well as public notice of such determinations and environmental documents.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt resolution supporting Board adoption of the ordinance, with Department-recommended modifications.

NOTE: On October 19, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter to October 26, 2006, by a vote +6 –0.

ACTION: Continued to November 2, 2006. Staff is to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting that they continue the matter and take no action until the Planning Commission has had a chance to review. The public hearing is to remain open.

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander


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.

11. 2006.0738Z (R. CRAWFORD: (415) 558-6358)

18 Arago Street- west side between Paulding and Havelock Streets, Assessor's Block 3154 Lot 063 - Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Map to change the zoning classification from P, Public Use to RH-1, Residential House, One Family. This property is split between a P, Public Use, District and an RH-1, Residential House, One Family, District and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


ACTION: Approved

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander


12. 2006.0818C (Tape IIA) (K. Conner: (415) 575-6914)

1014 Huron Avenue - north side, at the corner of the intersection with Sickles Avenue, Lot 84 on Assessor's Block 7145 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Section 711.54 for the development of a massage establishment in a mixed-use building in a NC-2 (Small-Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District, and within the 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions


Steven Courrier

  1. None of the neighbors in the vicinity of 200 feet received a notice about this.
  2. I have a petition signed with 110 signatures opposing this massage establishment.
  3. Some of these establishments in certain neighborhoods bring the property value down and people's anger goes up.
  4. I spoke with Javier and asked if we could speak and they refused to discuss/negotiate with us.
  5. If this is happening now, we know they will not be good neighbors and we do not want this establishment in our neighborhood.
  6. We are in close proximity to Daly City where a lot of crime happens. We just feel that this establishment is not welcome in our neighborhood.

Catherine Pacheco

  1. I am a neighbor, realtor and my grandson goes to school within one block of this proposed business.
  2. I am very concerned about such a business going in a residential neighborhood.
  3. There is an acupuncture business on Mission Street. We have had problems with 974 Geneva Avenue with the different types of business that have gone in there.
  4. I am concerned about the taxes that will have to be paid by the property and business owners for the police to come out there.
  5. Public health issues and crime elements do not need to be increased any more.

Javier Solorzano, Project Sponsor

  1. I had a conversation with Mr. Courrier last night and he requested to continue this hearing because of improper notification.
  2. I advised that we have done our part. Posters did go up 20 days before.
  3. There are a lot of misperceived understandings pertaining to these types of buildings. They are legitimate business.

Alex Murillo, Vice-president of Outer Mission Residents Association

  1. Notifications were poor and I asked my neighbors and nobody received it.
  2. Out of 110 signatures that signed the petition, 85 were signed by people within one block.
  3. We do not need this type of establishments in our neighborhood. This is the last thing we need in our neighborhood.

John D'Indis

  1. We have just gone through a big deal trying to close down a massage parlor.
  2. If it is a legitimate business, we would like to know why they did not want to talk to us about it.
  3. We were not notified and do not want to go through the same experience. It took many years.
  4. Finally in 2005, a federal investigation exposed a prostitution ring exploiting young Korean girls.

Monika Yungea

  1. I am concerned that I need to worry about my family's safety because of this establishment wanting to open.
  2. I feel like I'm going through déjà vu because back in April we stood before the Police Commission fighting again an establishment on Geneva Avenue.

Carrie Clark Walsh

  1. I think that small businesses are the heart and soul of our neighborhood but this one will attract a lot of negative activities.
  2. We work very closely with the Police to help keep criminal activities out of our neighborhood.
  3. This is not a good area for acupuncture and I am very concerned for the safety of my daughter.

Richie Walsh

  1. I am here to absolutely oppose this business. It should not even be given a chance.
  2. Safety for our children and parking are issues that we have.
  3. I have spent time and money improving our home and this would affect home prices in the area.

Raymond Rivera

  1. That building has been vacant for the last twenty years. There are two apartments in the building and one of them is vacant.
  2. Parking is a big issue. We have three parks within a block and three public schools in the neighborhood.
  3. This cannot be accepted in our neighborhood for the safety of our children.

Kathy McHenry

  1. This is a family neighborhood. It is not a suitable neighborhood for a massage establishment.
  2. There are many school children.
  3. The neighborhood itself has invested incredible energy to preserve it. We have worked very hard to establish a park there.
  4. The City has also worked hard when we voted against Samtrans trying to lay over in that area. Also, the police are helping to reduce crime.

Matt Householder

  1. I am one of the many neighbors opposing this business application.
  2. I am proud of the diligence of the San Francisco Police Department at the Ingleside Station and community members in shutting down the massage parlor formerly operating at 974 Geneva Avenue.
  3. This is a residential area. Businesses appropriate for that setting would include grocery stores, coffee shop, Laundromat, retail clothing and things of that sort.
  4. Massage parlors do not belong in a family oriented residential zone.

ACTION: Following hearing, continued to January 11, 2007

AYES: Antonini, Lee, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

13. 2006.1114D (E. WATTY: (415) 558-6620)

1419 16TH AVENUE - west side between Judah and Kirkham Streets; Lot 002, in Assessor's Block 1837 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit No. 2006.05.17.1821, to create a second unit, and construct a one-story vertical addition and a horizontal rear addition. The subject property is located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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


ACTION: Prior to hearing, the DR was withdrawn

14. (Tape IIA; IIB; IIIA; IIIB) (A. GHOSH (415) 558-6282)

Proposed resolution establishing City policy for the eastern neighborhoods planning process - Review and comment of a proposed resolution Sponsored by Supervisors Maxwell, Ammiano, Peskin, and McGoldrick and introduced as part of Board File Number 061342. This resolution would set City and County of San Francisco policy for the eastern neighborhoods rezoning and community plan areas. The matter was introduced on September 26, 2006 and heard at the Board of Supervisors Land Use and Economic Development Committee on October 11, 2006, when it was continued to November 1, 2006, in part to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the proposal and, should it so choose, adopt a resolution advising the Board.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending.


Supervisor Maxwell

  1. I came today because I feel that it is very important and because this needs more clarification.
  2. As we talk about San Francisco being in a housing crisis, it is important that we understand what that really and truly means to all of us.
  3. As the Board of Supervisors, we have a responsibility to act on that crisis and create a clear direction on what we think can and should happen.
  4. As I look around and see the population of African Americans living the city - unlike any other city in this country - it concerns me. Something needs to be done.
  5. There needs to be a voice from the Board of Supervisors. That is what this legislation was about and this resolution is about.
  6. It was never about turning this Department upside down. It was never about making things so ridiculously hard for you to do.
  7. It was to say that there is a crisis and that the Board of Supervisors needs to have a policy dealing with that crisis.
  8. We have adopted plans for Rincon Hill in which there would never be a single unit of affordable housing built within the plan area.
  9. To balance this fact, we need land specifically set aside for affordable housing. The logical place to do this is in the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  10. That is where the vast majority of affordable housing is currently built and where neighborhoods welcome additional productive [PDR].
  11. Let us make that city policy. There is an additional policy direction put forward in this resolution and it is also about land.
  12. We cannot undermine our viable blue collar industries to land speculations and we must set aside land for neighborhood improvements to happen concurrently with the new developments.
  13. These are sound planning and economic development principles. I believe they are worth including as the City's policy for the Northern/Eastern Neighborhoods.
  14. I want to make sure that plans brought forward to the Board of Supervisors are developed with clear policy guidance from the Board. That is what we are trying to do with this resolution.
  15. There are a couple of issues that I want to particularly talk about that I think were misunderstood.
  16. Regarding the production target of 64 percent affordable housing.
  17. What I am proposing is that the area plans brought forward by Planning staff will facilitate and lay-out a frame work such that 64 percent of our housing production within the Eastern Neighborhoods will be affordable for the housing production established in the Housing Element.
  18. First and foremost in that effort is the set aside of land for affordable housing.
  19. That will complement what we already get from inclusionary housing and what we do around acquisition and rehabilitation of existing buildings.
  20. Let me tell you what I am not saying. I am not saying that the inclusionary percentage should be raised to 64 percent and I am not saying that we need to meet the entire city's affordable housing production here or that we need to make up for past deficits of affordable housing.
  21. The other misunderstanding that I have heard is that the resolution makes all industrial lands off limits to new developments. That is not my intention.
  22. My intent in this resolution is to make the protection of existing businesses within the appropriate zones and sites a priority for the Department as it is drafted in the plan.
  23. Let us talk about land speculation and displacement of viable industrial businesses.
  24. I realize that we may loose some lands in the Eastern Neighborhoods but let us have a real discussion about land values and impacts to our city.
  25. Let us make sure that we appropriately address the displacement of people and businesses through the market-rate housing and office speculations.
  26. I want to end by saying that what we do here, and I know that you do know this, is extremely important to the City. The decisions we make will have profound repercussions for years and years to come.
  27. I think that is why it is important we have this discussion and that the Board of Supervisors has some say and directions.
  28. We need to do all of these in order to keep our city what it really truly is. In order to keep the balance of our City.
  29. Its real treasures are the people that live in the city and we have to do something about that.
  30. This should be a city about building middle class not importing them.
  31. We have to look at our industrial properties, land, and speculations. That is what this resolution is about.
  32. I hope that you will come up with other ways to consider this as you go through it.

Rosario Ramirez

  1. You need to analyze impacts to low/middle income families before approving any legislation that will set the Eastern Neighborhoods policies.
  2. Families in those neighborhoods have lived there for generations. Other families have moved in the Eastern Neighborhoods because rents have increased in upper zoning neighborhoods.

Brett Gladstone

  1. I am very concerned with this proposal. There have been years of neighborhood process in the plans.
  2. It is troubling that this seems to short circuit that. It avoids the process and prejudges an assumed influence that has been put together from some of the plan's components, specifically A, B, C in the rezoning workshops.
  3. Secondly, there has been a lack of time for public testimony at the Board of Supervisors. Ask if anyone from the Board will consider allowing additional public testimony there.
  4. There are some due process considerations in here that need to be taken into account by the City Attorney's procedure.
  5. It indicates here that public input should be sought from a full range of stakeholders but particularly from communities at risk. I am not sure what that means.
  6. Do they get more notice for meetings or would they be allowed more time for comments?
  7. It needs to be clarified.

Robert Meyers

  1. Reject the resolution and advise staff to change the proposed East SOMA zoning from SLI [Service Light Industrial] to one that allows mixed use/mixed income housing.
  2. This is a fairness and trust issue.

Douglas Lynn

  1. There are specific areas that were handed to us two to three weeks ago. It is absolutely red lining areas. [submitted a copy]
  2. We have a project that has been in the pipeline since last December. There was no indication at all that this SLI was going to pop-up until two weeks ago.
  3. We had no warning or indication from any body. Reject this proposal.

David Lera

  1. I oppose any resolution or designation of the SLI or PDR zone within the East SOMA.
  2. My opposition is from a historical view and personal experience within the family business enterprise in the South of Market area.
  3. The designated zones had a strategy on preserving services in light industry and manufacturing use.
  4. This was not presented or discussed at any of the workshops within the East SOMA until the meeting of October 3rd, 2006.

Paul Lera

  1. Shared photography of area with affordable and market rate housing in the proposed SLI zone.
  2. The SLI zone has been a failed policy. It has not produced the desired effect

Gregg Miller

  1. This resolution seems well intended but undermines the planning process and all the hard work that many of us have put into that process including the compromise we discussed and thought was worked out.
  2. Second, it disregards one of the major goals that is in the General Plan: taking a holistic approach to planning and carefully weighing important competing options for our diverse stakeholders.
  3. This resolution is very problematic and narrow in its interest focus. Reject it.

Walter Wang

  1. We have participated in the Task Force over the last fiver years and it has continuously evolved. At the last meeting everything completely changed.
  2. All of a sudden a resolution is going to be voted on next week. I hope you reject it.

Fred Snyder

  1. I am strongly against this resolution.
  2. We are going no where. Maps came out and they were not accurate.
  3. We are getting all these changes at the last minute. Maps are not right. Do not approve this.

Jim Meko, South of Market

  1. The Board of Supervisor is saying to not send any neighborhood planning that does not conform to the priorities in the General Plan or they will send it back.
  2. If you do not like the General Plan just amend it.

Tony Kelly

  1. We support and urge you to approve this resolution.
  2. The problem for the past decade is that we are zoning without planning.
  3. The General Plan and the Eastern Neighborhoods community based process are real.

Angus McCarthy

  1. This resolution is very complicated. This is going to delay the planning process.
  2. There was no consensus on this. Do not approve it.

Daive Keeffle

  1. The approval of this resolution would establish a significant unsettling and potentially dangerous precedence.
  2. This would not resemble the open and extended public process that generated the Housing Element.
  3. Sacrificing the goals and objectives of the entire city to serve one specific interest will discourage the public future involvements. I urged you to reject this.

Kieran Buckley

  1. I am totally against this resolution and urge you to vote against it.
  2. It does not make sense to bring this resolution in at the last minute. It excludes bio-tech and it is going to stop regular market-rate housing.

John O'Connor

  1. I urge you to oppose this resolution.
  2. The mathematics of the plan is inescapable no matter how you sliced it.
  3. The formula of 64 percent mandated below market-rate housing with 0 new neighbor housing construction equals no new affordable housing.

Richie Hart

  1. We started this process over five years ago with input from everyone.
  2. This resolution will stop market-rate housing and bio-tech uses. Precluding market-rate housing will strike any efforts to construct affordable housing without the use of public funds.
  3. I urge you to disapprove this resolution.

Mike Cassidy

  1. This process has taken many years and everybody is figuring out what to do and what is good for everybody and all of a sudden someone brings it to an end.
  2. This is not planning process. I urge you to not approve.

[No name]

  1. Seven years of process is high jacked. It is not right.

Grace Shanahan

  1. Consider the signals of this type over-the-top public policy making sense to the business community, especially emerging businesses in and around the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  2. Businesses are attracted to certainty, regulatory flexibility and major growth.
  3. The resolution says that residents and businesses in the neighborhoods of the plan area that have invested years of effort to determine their community's future wasted their time.
  4. Is this resolution the end result? Vote no on this resolution.

Leo Cassidy

  1. I have a project on Bayshore Boulevard that offered 12 affordable units and it was done within a year.
  2. Where are these people that are supposed to be in line at the Mayor's Office of Housing?
  3. The building is lying vacant. There is only one family of people there.

Robert Mellett

  1. We do not support this resolution and I urge you not to approve it.
  2. The community has worked very hard on community planning.

Regan Carroll

  1. I am opposed to this resolution and I strongly urge the disapproval of it.
  2. It has been a long process to bring the community to consensus and it was cast aside three weeks ago.
  3. It is inconsistent with broader policies and objectives articulated in the City's General Plan and Housing Elements.
  4. It would serve to narrowly disturb the broader spirit and intent of these guiding documents, ultimately preventing the City from reaching many of its housing goals for income levels.

Gerry Agosta

  1. Market rate housing is the engine that provides affordable housing.
  2. This resolution needs to be rejected.

Robert McCarthy

  1. The stakeholders were not at the table when this resolution was put forward. This resolution prejudges everything.
  2. There was a long process where homeowners, builders, business owners were consulted and at the last moment there is this resolution.
  3. Say no to this resolution.

Marilyn Amini

  1. This community based planning process referred to in the legislation deserves careful review by this Commission.
  2. The creation of the West SOMA Task Force body never came before the Commission for Action and places a buffer between the Commission and the public.

Sarah Karlinsky

  1. We were concerned when we saw this piece of legislation because it only spoke to certain values that we have.
  2. We want to offer a counter resolution that speaks to some other values we have. [Read it].


  1. I oppose this resolution. I urge you to disapprove it.
  2. It does not justify stopping all the broad-range of goals and objectives mentioned in the General Plan.

Joe Bass

  1. At the end of the day, I read this thing and what I see is it saying to the Planning Department to pay attention to affordable housing and be creative while working in the Eastern Neighborhoods Plan.
  2. This is a looking forward document. If it is properly handled it, we could finish the plan and adoption of it.


  1. The summary of the document on your website speaks of the study confirmed that reasonable PDR growth can be expected overtime in the Eastern Neighborhoods. What is reasonable?
  2. Significant proportions of PDR jobs are and can continue to be located on mixed-use parcels.

ACTION: Following hearing and a failed motion to continue the item to November 2, 2006, the Commission did not attempt to take any other actions. As a result, this item will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation from the Planning Commission

15. 2006.1216B (C. Nikitas at (415) 558-6306)

1600 Owens Street, a.k.a. Mission Bay South Blocks 41-43, Parcel 4; a.k.a. Lot 010 in Assessors Block 8709- 1600 Owens Street, aka Mission Bay South Blocks 41-43, Parcel 4; aka Lot 010 in Assessors Block 8709 - application for design review and office allocation pursuant to Planning Code Section 321 et seq. to construct a new, approximately 245,500 gross-square-foot laboratory/office building ten stories and approximately 160 feet in height, requesting up to 228,000 square feet of office space, with ground floor retail. Off-street parking will be provided off-site, in a parking garage on Parcel 6. The site is located in a Mission Bay Commercial-Industrial-Retail zoning district, and an HZ-7 Height District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions.


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 2, 2006.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

16. 2006.1212B (M. Glueckert at (415) 558-6543)

1500 Owens Street a.k.a. Mission Bay South - Blocks 41-43, Parcel 5; a.k.a. Lot 006 in Assessors Block 8709 - application for design review and office allocation pursuant to Planning Code Section 321 et seq. to construct a new, approximately 160,600 gross-square-foot laboratory/office building, six stories and approximately 90' in height, requesting up to 158,500 square feet of office space, with ground floor retail. Off-street parking will be provided off-site, in a parking garage on Parcel 6. The site is located in a Mission Bay commercial-industrial-retail zoning district, and an HZ-5 Height District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 2, 2006.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

17. 2006.0070T (C. NIKITAS (415) 558-6306)

CONTROLS FOR THE REMOVAL OF DWELLING UNITS - Intent to initiate an amendment to the Planning Code - Proposed addition of Section 317 to the Planning Code, that would stipulate Mandatory Discretionary Review of any application resulting in the removal of dwelling units through merger, demolition, or conversion, where such application does not require Conditional Use authorization under current provisions of the Code. The intent to initiate the Code amendment allows advertising for a future hearing to proceed, and the proposed amendment will be considered at such future public hearings.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a resolution of intent to initiate.


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 2, 2006.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

18. 2006.1214ET (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Grocery Stores and Formula Retail Controls- Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Elsbernd as part of Board File No. 060032 which would amend portions of the Planning Code relating to the application of formula retail controls to grocery stores.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 2, 2006.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

19. 2006.1222ET (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

Conditional Use requirement to demolish or change the use of a grocery store- Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Elsbernd as part of Board File No. 061261 which would amend portions of the Planning Code in order to (1) require Conditional Use authorization for any project involving the change in use or demolition of a general grocery store and (2) require specific findings as part of any such Conditional Use authorization.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to November 2, 2006.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander

20. 2006.0891T (Tape IVB) (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

Time Limits for Landmarks Board and Planning Commission Review - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Maxwell as part of Board File No. 061068 which would amend Planning Code Sections 1004.2 and 1004.3 in order to: (1) change the time limit from which the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board has to act on a proposed Landmarks or Historic District designation from 30 days to 45 days; (2) establish a time limit of 90-days from which the Planning Commission has to act on such designation from the date of the Board of Supervisor's referral when initiated by the Board of Supervisors; and (3) enable the Board of Supervisors to act on proposed Landmark Designations initiated prior to July 18, 2006 where the Planning Commission has not yet taken action.

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend Approval to the Board of Supervisors with modifications.


Alan Martinez, Landmarks Board

  1. We increased the time per the recommendation by Planning staff to prepare reports.
  2. There is another recommendation to have pending items periodically come up automatically on the Board of Supervisor's agenda to serve as a reminder.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Extend the period from 90 to 120 days.

-Strike section D and handle it separately from the legislation.

-Automatic reminder on Board of Supervisor's agenda for pending items.

AYES: Olague, Antonini, Lee, Moore and Sugaya

ABSENT: Alexander


6:00 P.M.

(Tape IIB; IVA; IVB)

21. 2003.0347EMTZ (J. Billovits (415) 558-6390/A. Rodgers: (415) 558-6395)

Market and Octavia Plan Amendments - The Planning Commission will hold a series of public hearings beginning on or after October 26, 2006 to consider Case No. 2003.0347EMTZ, adopting a Motion to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt CEQA Findings and consider resolutions to adopt amendments to the San Francisco General Plan, Planning Code and Zoning Map related to the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan. Hearings are scheduled for October 26, 2006, Nov. 2, 2006, Nov. 9, 2006, and Nov. 16, 2006. The Commission will consider and receive public comment on specific aspects of the Plan and proposed amendments at each hearing. The series of hearings will culminate in a public hearing to consider adoption actions on or after Dec. 7, 2006.

The Plan encompasses an irregularly shaped area in northeast San Francisco. It extends two to three blocks in width along Market Street for ten blocks and extends north along the former Central Freeway alignment at Octavia Boulevard for ten blocks. Along Market Street, the Plan Area boundaries extend from 11th and Larkin Streets in the east to Noe and Scott Streets in the west. The boundary jogs north along Noe Street, Duboce Avenue, Scott Street, Waller Street, Webster Street, Oak Street, Buchanan Street, and Grove Street; continues north along the former Central Freeway alignment to include the area up toTurk Street between Laguna and Franklin Streets; and east of Franklin Street jogs south to Grove and Larkin Streets. The Project Area boundary extends south of Market Street between 10th and 11th Street to Howard Street. Extending west along Howard Street, the Project Area boundaries jog along Division, Clinton, Stevenson, Fourteenth, Guerrero, and Sixteenth Streets. The Project Area is comprised of 89 Assessor's Blocks in entirety or in part, including the whole of Blocks 759, 761, 768, 770, 783, 785, 792 to 794, 806 to 809, 813 to 819, 830 to 841, 850 to 858, 863 to 876, 3501 to 3506, 3512 to 3514, 3533 to 3538, 3541 to 3545, 3556 to 3560; and portions of 3507 (lot 40), 3510 (lots 49, 57), 3511 (lots 1, 23, 25, 31, 33, 74, 75, 80, 82, and 93), and 3532 (lots 14, 19B, 35, 36, 88, 89, 90 and 91).

At the hearings, the Planning Commission will consider a rezoning and public improvements program to realize the vision articulated by the community through the Market and Octavia community planning process. For more information on this six-year planning process, please visit our website at

Specifically, the Commission will consider the following actions:

  • Case 2003.0347E – Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of CEQA Findings on the Market and Octavia Plan.
  • Case 2003.0347M - a proposed General Plan amendment that would add a new area plan, the Market and Octavia Area Plan, and make related amendments to the Commerce and Industry, Housing, Recreation and Open Space and Transportation Elements, the Civic Center Area Plan, Downtown Area Plan, South of Market Area Plan and the Land Use Index;
  • Case 2003.0347T - a proposed Planning Code text amendment that would revise Planning Code controls, including controls for land use, height and bulk, building design, loading, parking and new fees;
  • Case 2003.0347Z - a proposed Zoning Map amendment that would revise Maps 2 and 2H, 7 and 7H, and 2SU and 7SU. The proposed Planning Code text and map (Zoning Map) amendments would a) establish three new zoning districts, b) amend the Hayes-Gough, Upper Market, and Valencia Neighborhood Commercial Districts (NCDs), c) update height and bulk districts, d) establish the Market and Octavia Community Improvements Impact Fee, and e) make related revisions necessary to implement the General Plan.

Together, these four Commission actions are intended to implement the Market and Octavia Plan. Generally, these changes are described on page 3 of this document.

In addition, an historic survey is currently being done of the project area; property owners considering constructing or altering a building in this area should consult with Planning Department staff to determine the historic resource status of their property. Property owners and interested parties are advised that height limits and other controls do not provide unqualified rights to development, but rather, proscribe the maximum potential building envelope that may be permitted; proposed buildings may not reach the maximum permitted building height/envelope.

Members of the public may review a copy of the proposed amendments at the San Francisco Planning Department office at 1660 Mission Street 5th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, at the Public Library (the Main Library 100 Larkin St., and Harvey Milk branch library, 1 Jose Sarria Ct. (near16th & Market Sts.). An electronic copy of the proposed amendments and actions is available at

Draft Schedule for Planning Commission Hearing

This calendar gives notice that the Planning Commission will be hearing the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan on October 26, 2006. Be advised that due to the nature of the public hearings, the Commission may continue any particular hearing item and/or may not hear all items at the hearing. To confirm the final Commission Hearing schedule, on the week of the hearing please visit: or call Aksel Olsen at 558-6616.

Hearing #1 – October 26, 2006 6pm time-certain (presentation & public comment)

Staff will provide a presentation to the Planning Commission and members of the public on the following aspects of the Market & Octavia Plan: a Plan overview, including information about the Better Neighborhoods Program; a profile of the Market and Octavia Area Plan (issues and opportunities); the Market and Octavia Planning process and public outreach; an Integrated Plan for Housing, Transportation, Streets and Open Space; and a summary of required Planning Commission Actions and Plan Implementation structure. Staff will also present information about the proposed Land Use and Height Districts, and proposed Design Principles for the Market and Octavia Plan. At this hearing, Planning Department staff will present information and the Planning Commission will hear public comment on the subjects discussed at the hearing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Informational Presentation and Public Comment; No Commission Action requested.


James Haas

  1. I am very please that the responses indicate that arts and education will be integral elements in what is going on.
  2. I urge you to read Comments and Responses because it has a great deal of information on the notion of mixture or interaction between those particular elements.
  3. [Submitted a draft brochure that the Convention and Visitors Bureau is preparing]
  4. There is an issue with the plan regarding billboards. There are two big billboards on Oak and Franklin Street and I would like to include in the plan a measure to abate billboards.

Peter Lewis

  1. My main concern is the height [limits] on the districts. 85 feet on Market Street from Octavia/Church Street is not what we would like there.
  2. We are trying to have Mission Dolores as a historic district and the idea of having [tall] buildings at the entrance of our district does not please anybody in our groups.
  3. The design guidelines look good except on how it would affect our neighborhood in having corner stores throughout the Northern Mission.

Jim Meko

  1. Residents in the north-west area of Western SOMA are concerned about developments occurring outside the planning areas.
  2. The 10th and Mission Street proposal would impact Natoma residential. The same with a development at Mission and South Van Ness Avenue on the Lafayette residential area.
  3. Consider buffering those areas.


  1. I live in the Natoma neighborhood. I invited the Commission to visit this neighborhood.
  2. [Shared photographs of the area about Minna, Clay and Lafayette Streets.]
  3. Currently it is zoned of 130 feet but there is nothing built that high. Most buildings are 40 feet.

Alan Martinez

  1. I am here representing myself and giving my own opinion.
  2. [Shared thoughts of good and true planning ideas.]
  3. Good in a moral and technical sense.
  4. Planning is something based in serving cultural values. This is a good attempt to a better community planning.

Joel Yodowitz

  1. I specifically represent the owner on Howard and Third Street.
  2. The site is currently 130 feet and the proposal is to take them down to 55 feet, the zoning is NCT.
  3. We propose an 85 foot height limit there.
  4. Immediately across the street is also NCT but with 85 feet.
  5. I urge you to take a close look at this.

Joanie Misrack

  1. Reconsider the height limit on 12th Street, which is currently NCT.
  2. I would not be able to build residential above the retail with the proposed height.

Robin Levitt

  1. I am very supportive of this plan. It has been a long process.
  2. I support the density and height parameters. This plan would help revitalize my neighborhood.

Charles Chase

  1. Part of the integration of this plan is to look at the historic survey to balance issues around height - whether to increase it or decrease it - and how it is going to affect the character of the neighborhoods from the historic preservation point of view.

Jason Henderson

  1. We have a resolution that supports the concepts on this plan including the height and density.
  2. This plan should provide community benefits. In this community, we ought to worry about giving.

Paul Olsen

  1. We are very supportive of this plan and the height limits specially along Market Street.
  2. We welcome the residential zoning as long as it comes with strong urban design controls, making active streets welcome to pedestrians and others for a truly pedestrian oriented experience.
  3. We also want residential zoning that brings a strong community benefits packet.

Stefan Hastrup

  1. I just want to call your attention to the great investment that the community has in this plan.
  2. Thanked the Planning Department for bringing together all separate ideas and crafting them into a comprehensive vision for the neighborhood.

Jared Braiterman

  1. I am here to support this plan. The plan offers many ways for smart growth and development.

Joe Curtin

  1. In the Castro we have been very involved in this process since the beginning.
  2. We support the enhancement of urban character of the upper Market neighborhoods.
  3. Our members voted to support this and we urge this Commission to support the goals of the Market-Octavia Plan.

- We support the off street parking.

Sarah Karlinsky

  1. One of the things that San Francisco can do to help combat global warming it is to build densely beside transit nodes. This is something the Market-Octavia Plan does in an excellent way.
  2. Every objective in the plan is worth supporting.
  3. I urge the commission to respect and support the height limits brought forward in this plan.

Curtz Holzinger

  1. We want to support this plan but are not prepare to just yet. We will be attending the meetings and will speak to you about issues.
  2. We would like to have clarification on what form the guidelines are going to take. Would it be an addendum or be part of the General Plan?
  3. We suggest pulling them out as a special document where everybody could refer to it in a clear and precise way.

David Dupree

  1. There are points about this plan that I would like to see incorporated on the Hayes area: office on the ground level and developers to include a percentage for entertainment venues, art, support and educational facilities.

Chris Peterson

  1. This is a very good plan and I urge you to approve it.

Adam Millard-Ball

  1. I strongly support this plan especially the height limits for providing certainty on design guidelines and protecting historic preservation.

Sue Hestor

  1. Urged staff to get a hold of a wind study done by Federal GSA building on Van Ness and Market.
  2. They provided these studies for free because there are hills and the wind hits those buildings.
  3. If you build towers without having thought through all of that first, it is not planning.
  4. The practice in terms of implementation is where everything falls apart. This is why I asked that you have a hearing on how this is going to be implemented.

Jim Keith

  1. I have a few pieces of properties in the area plan. This is a great plan.
  2. We want to see one to one parking and the height limit on alleys should be lower.
  3. Grove and Gough Street height limit should be 55 feet. Property on Duboce and Market Street currently is 85 and it's being proposed to drop back to 55 feet. It should stay as it is.
  4. If there is going to be a prohibition on mergers, it should be a conditional use.

Rufino DeLeon

  1. I am also in support of the plan.

Height limits and density are well thought out. Density is very critical to bringing more eyes and in

  1. taking pride of your own place.
  2. There should be mitigation for trees, air quality and noise issues.

Tes Welsborne

  1. The plan helps set limits and makes things more certain. It is a good plan.
  2. I feel that Hayes Valley and Haight are examples of very livable neighborhoods.
  3. San Francisco doubled its population during the day. We should encourage those people visiting to live here.
  4. Incentives to allow developers to have any number of units within the envelopes without parking are encouragements for existing and new developments.


  1. People have invested time and effort and it is good to see that there is a final resolution and that we are getting there.

ACTION: Informational only. No action taken


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))


Joan Girardot

  1. I'm speaking on the Marina FEIR
  2. Staff should review these comments and respond next week.
  3. The City Attorney should check them.

Marilyn Amini

- She requested a written opinion from the City Attorney on the Chapter 31 amendments.

Adjournment: 10:35 p.m.



ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at Under the heading Explore, the category Government, and the City Resources section, click on SFGTV, then Video on Demand. You may select the hearing date you want and the item of your choice for a replay of the hearing.

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:24 PM