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

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

July 12, 2007

July 12, 2007



Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, July 12, 2007

1:00 PM

Regular Meeting

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



STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Adam Light – Co-Acting Zoning Administrator and David Lindsay – Co-Acting Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Anmarie Rodgers, Craig Nikitas, James Miller, Edgar Oropeza, April Hesik, Michael Li, Nannie Turrell, Kearstin Dischinger, Jonathan Lau, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.


Conference with Legal Counsel – Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.10(d)(1). (Kate Stacy / Audrey Pearson)

Existing Litigation: San Franciscans for Livable Neighborhoods v. City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Superior Court Case 504-780, Court of Appeal A112987.

a) Disclose no information, or

b) Disclose information that a majority deems to be in the public interest.


ACTION: In public session (following the closed Executive Session) the Commission, by unanimous vote, passed a motion to not disclose any information.

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

1:302:08 P.M.


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. 2007.0136C (Tape IB) (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

3953 24TH STREET - south side between Sanchez and Noe Streets; Lot 032 in Assessor's Block 6508 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 728.94, 161(j), and 303(e), to modify a previously approved Conditional Use Authorization in order to allow six senior dwelling-units to be converted into five market-rate dwelling-units with no off-street parking. This site is located within the 24th Street - Noe Valley Neighborhood Commercial District 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to August 9, 2007)



- This proposed plan is to convert six senior citizen dwelling units into five market rate units with no parking. You have to wait until we [they] die.

- What is going to happen to those families? I am definitely opposed to the conditional use authorization for 24th Street in Noe Valley.

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2007.0469C (E. JACKSON: (415) 558-6363)

1049 -1053 Howard Street - southeast side, between Russ and Moss Streets, Lot 074 in Assessor's Block 3731 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Planning Code Sections 816.15 and 303 to amend a previously approved CU authorization, allowing a group housing facility within an SLR (Service, Light Industrial, Residential) Zoning District with a 50-X Height and Bulk designation.

Preliminary Recommendation:

(Proposed for Continuance to July 19, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2007.0246C (A. HOLLISTER: (415) 575-9078)

1326 Polk Street - east side between Pine and Bush Streets, Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 0668 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to establish a financial service (dba  CitiFinancial Services, Inc. ) of approximately 1755 square feet within the vacant, existing ground-floor commercial space. No physical expansion of the existing building is proposed. Financial services that will be offered at this site include home mortgages, personal loans and automotive loans. This site is within the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for Continuance to August 2, 2007)


ACTION: Continued as proposed

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


Adoption of Commission Minutes– Charter Section 4.104 requires all commissioners to vote yes or no on all matters unless that commissioner is excused by a vote of the Commission. Commissioners may not be automatically excluded from a vote on the minutes because they did not attend the meeting.

4. Consideration of Adoption: (Tape IB)

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 7, 2007.

· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of June 21, 2007.

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007.

· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of October 19, 2006.

· Draft Minutes of Special Meeting of January 19, 2006.


ACTION: Approved

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

Item 5 was taken out of order and moved to the end of the Calendar

5. 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 Alexander

- As part of some of the projects that we approved, one of the conditions on a lot of the large downtown projects was First Source Hiring and City Build Program.

- I would like to get a report on how we are doing on that. I want to understand how people are complying with that condition and where we are at.

Amit Ghosh

- We are arranging for a presentation on that and as soon as we get a word from the agencies involved I will schedule it.

Commissioner W. Lee

- Last week some person came up regarding the possible illegal purchase of a BMR unit and I would like this to be referred to the Mayor's Office of Housing. It is not our jurisdiction to audit it.

- If you [Secretary Avery] would send this package to the Mayor's Office of Housing to review.


6. Director's Announcements


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

Anmarie Rodgers reported on Board of Supervisor's events:

Land Use and Economic Committee:

A- Resolution sponsored by Supervisor Dufty that would approve the construction of a raised median at Market and Octavia Streets where the central freeway ramp is. The intent of this item will be to further reinforce Market Street as a multi-use street with the existing no-right turn onto the freeway regulations. Passed to the full board where it also passed +10 -1

Full Board of Supervisors:

A- Adopted in final form the re-appeal of the Planning Commission alternative review process. This is the planning code amendment that would delete language that expired four years ago.

B- Adopted in final order was the Pacific Avenue Neighborhood Commercial District. This is the Department sponsored rezoning creating a new named district - Pacific Avenue.

C- Appeals:

a- Parcel map subdivision for 43-44 17th Street. This hearing was an objection to the decision by DPW [Department of Public Works]. Upheld the disapproval.

b- Cat. Ex. for 1135 Green Street. This project would construct a new subterranean basement and create a five-car garage under an existing two story town house. The Board affirmed the Cat. Ex.

c- Cat. Ex. for the City Wireless Broadband Internet Access Network Ordinance. Item was continued.

D- Introductions:

a- Building code amendment introduced by Supervisor Maxwell that would help to control dust during construction.

b- Place Holder Legislation that would rezone 55 Laguna Street introduced by Supervisor Amiano.

He noted during the presentation that this is not intended to undercut the existing process that the City and the property owner are currently engaged in but rather that this legislation would be a living document that would undergo change before coming to the Board for its consideration.

Craig Nikitas reported on Board of Appeals events:

Board of Appeals

A- Request for jurisdiction to allow a late filing of an appeal written by the Zoning Administrator regarding the Market-Octavia Plan. Denied.

B- 309 exceptions determination for the 10th and Market Street Crescent Project.

-The Board opted to hold a hearing but ultimately chose not to make a decision pending a hearing on the variance.

Item 8 followed item 12

8. 2002.0626CEKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

1160 MISSION STREET - north side between Seventh and Eighth Streets, Lots 37, 38 and 56 in Assessor's Block 3702 - Informational presentation to the Planning Commission on the Public Art Program pursuant to Section 149 of the Planning Code.


Erick Cal, Developer

- As mentioned, part of our conditions for approval was to create a public art program.

- We are very exciting and happy to share with you the idea of the art program to include color, life and beauty from the area into this mid-market as part of the whole revitalization of it

- Large glass art panels will be on the façade of the building. We were inspired by the Bay Area Figurative Movement.

- We hope to bring some of these colors and inspiration to our building.

- This is a larger rendering of the art piece that will cover 2 to 3 stories of our building with glass and metal framing.

- The building is a constrained area and has very limited frontage on Mission Street. The art is trying to maximize the public view.

- Within a month, you should be able to see all the pieces of art.

Dorothy Lynnhan

- The glass we have chosen to use here is fusible material and it should last forever.

- This type of glass is usually used in small crafts.

- We have other areas of background that create a flat white canvas on which these pieces are laminated or in place of so it will give a relief feeling of the building.

ACTION: No Action is required of the Commission. Informational only.


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



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.

Item 9 was taken off consent

9. 2007.0344C (Tape IB) (E. OROPEZA: (415) 558-6381)

2410-2412 MISSION STREET - west side between 20th and 21st Streets; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 3609 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow a "formula retail use" pursuant to Planning Code Sections 703.3, 703.4 and 712.40. The proposal is to renovate and merge two vacant commercial units into one for occupancy by  AT&T, which is a formula retail use, within the NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District, the Mission Alcoholic Beverage Restricted Use Special Use District and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


Ron Wallace, Project Sponsor

- This is a very small retail business to provide some services that other stores in the area do not provide for telephone service.

- I have done my own research on the number of vacancies in the area. I found 12 vacancies between 19th and 22nd Streets and 28 vacancies between 16th and 26th.

- This particular property was a bar and was closed by the owner. The place was vacant for over a year.

- It appears that with the number of vacancies it sounds appropriate to be able to occupy the space with a retail business.

- The formula retail regulations are designed to apply to stores that come in and take over neighborhoods. This is not the case because this business has only a few stores in San Francisco.

Kevin Strain, Ownership Representative

- The building has been vacant for two and a half years.

- There had been a hard liquor bar in this location since the 40's bringing all sorts of problems.

- This store is going to be next to a pharmacy and a bus stop is right in front of it.

- We believe that this cellular phone business lends cosmetic appearance enhancing the Mission District and would be a strong tenancy.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-No gates or barriers on front façade.

-Continue working with staff on design and decorative elements.

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

MOTION: 17458

10. 2007.0301G (Tape IB) (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

225-227 FRONT STREET - west side between Sacramento and California Streets, Assessor's Block 0237, Lot 005 - Request for a change of designation pursuant to Planning Code Section 1106: consideration of adoption of a resolution recommending approval of a proposal to change the designation of the subject property. The subject property is a two-story, reinforced concrete commercial building with Gothic Revival-style details constructed in 1907 and 1929. The building is within a C-3-0 (Downtown Office) District and a 75-X Height and Bulk District. It is designated as a Category V Building (Unrated) under Article 11 of the Planning Code and is within the Front-California Conservation District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17457

Item 11 was taken off consent

11a. 2007.0242CV (Tape IB; IIA) (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to reduce the parking requirement by one off-street parking space pursuant to Planning Code Section 161(h) in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. Requests for Variances from the rear yard, open space, and dwelling unit exposure requirements of the Planning Code will be considered by the Zoning Administrator at the same hearing. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea no. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions


Tracy Rubin, Project Sponsor Representative

- This is a building with 45 units of single room occupancy on the top three floors. The owner has a 20 year lease agreement with the City to provide them to low income residents.

- The work would not disturb existing residents.

- We would work on the ground floor to put in 4 modest units that are going to be more affordable than anything else in the neighborhood and would be available for first-time home buyers.

- We met on Tuesday night with the Coalition for a Better District 6 and they seem to be in general support.

- Lastly, while this space has been vacant for 30 years, we are going to activate it and provide residents close to downtowns so people can work, walk and take transit.

Robert Gimelli, 785 Brannan Street

- I was one of the original tenants of the Looper Residence [875 Post Street] and moved four months ago.

- It was supposed to be a unique SRO [Single Room Occupancy] funded by a HUD Federal Grant for transitional housing.

- Part of that transitional housing package, I believe, was looked at to include a community kitchen, laundry facilities, and small storage for each of the tenants and a meeting area in the basement.

- The building was in very good shape when it was taken over.

- Right now there is a steam leak through the mail boxes and it is destroying the tenant's mail.

- I am in opposition to any request for conditional use or waivers that would allow anything other than a community kitchen, laundry and meeting area.

- If you look at the basement, this is a totally inappropriate use for that space.

ACTION: Continued to August 2, 2007 with public hearing open.

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

11b. 2007.0242CV (A. HESIK: (415) 558-6602)

875 Post Street - south side between Leavenworth and Hyde Streets, Lot 014 in Assessor's Block 0303 - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for rear yard, usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in connection with the proposed construction of four dwelling units in the ground floor of the existing building. There would be no physical expansion of the existing building. The site is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District (Subarea no. 2), and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 11a.

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator continued this item to August 2, 2007.

12. 2007.0330D (Tape IB) (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

1077 POST STREET - south side between Polk and Larkin Streets, Lot 017 in Assessor's Block 0693 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007 0327 7402 to maintain operation of an existing medical cannabis dispensary (dba  Grass Roots ) of approximately 875 square feet. The property is within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District, and an 80-T Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed


ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved.

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


13. 2007.0193D (Tape IIA; IIB; IIIA) (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

722 COLUMBUS AVENUE - east side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets, Lot 027 in Assessor's Block 0090 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007 0206 3529 to maintain operation of an existing medical cannabis dispensary (dba  Medical Cannabis Center ) of approximately 1,000 square feet. The property is within the North Beach Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There will be no physical expansion of the existing building or commercial space.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the project.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 21, 2007)


Terence Hallinan, Project Sponsor Representative

- I have 150 more signatures and four letters from most people of the neighborhood asking that you allow the continuance of providing safe and affordable access to medical marijuana.

- In 1993 when I first begun to work to legalize medical marijuana use in San Francisco, we chose the club movement because that was a convenient and safe way for people to obtain it.

- This club provides support and it is important because most of the patients do not look sick but they are dying.

- No body knew this club existed there until these letters went out then complaints and problems started.

- You have the opportunity to say that there should be a club in the neighborhood for people with medical problems to get on a bus and come get their medications.

Fred Crisp, Police Officer

- I am here at the request of various neighborhood groups to give you an opinion and be available for any questions you might have.

- I have yet to meet anybody who is against a medical dispensary or what their intentions are. In this case it is about location.

- A playground, library, and Saint Peter's Church is a half block away.

- Mr. Li mentioned that there are no records at the Police Department of any calls for service or complaints regarding 722 Columbus but people are intimidated.

David Dove

- I am a customer and feel that this is a very well run secure safe operation.

- This should be passed as far as continuing the sell of medical marijuana.

Lee Goodin

- This argument is not about medical marijuana. I voted for medical marijuana because it was a very good piece of legislation.

- Pot dealers in close proximity to schools, playgrounds, swimming pools, library and North Beach Place that is a public housing complex where 400 at risk children live is not what we voted for.

- Medical marijuana is only semi-legal. Under federal law it is still an illegal substance.

- We do not see these people in the audience, but what we see is gang type loitering and smoking, double parking, intimidating pedestrians, store owners and employees. Store owners said that they could not attend this meeting because they were afraid of retaliation.

Fr. John Itzaina, Pastor of Saint Peter and Paul

- I request that you forward staff's recommendation to disapprove the project.

- Almost 500 petitioners that have objected to the continuous practice of this medical distribution center because of its proximity to club, church, schools, playground and library.

- There is a high concentration of little children that cannot distinguish between medical and recreational use of marijuana.

- Can our young people not be influenced by marijuana use in front of their eyes?

Tony Ganiner

- We all realized that the challenges presented by this application really begin at the federal level.

- Most of us support medical marijuana and a well regulated tax system for the general sale of it.

- The present application is not in the best interest of our neighborhood for the sensitive facilities nearby: schools, playground, church, pool, library, and families that use these network facilities.

- Neighboring merchants feel a degree of intimidation and we have no evidence that this MCD is really a neighborhood business.

Arthur Chang

- I urge the Commission to exercise the discretionary review and disapprove this application.

- It seems that this center has a marijuana exchange and it is not a dispensary.

Ken Estes, Owner

- We have been there for six years without any complaints until recently.

- We have tried to address every complaint raised and we have zero police incidents.

- We have 300 – 400 patients just in that neighborhood. They are working class and unable to attend this hearing but they signed petitions. 20 businesses support us.

- We really want to be part of this community.

Mike Lohrig

- I live one block and a half from the dispensary and it should not be closed.

- As far as the Catholic Church goes, there have been more law suits against them than anything else. You've got to put this in perspective.

- Double parking, I have seen it once or twice in five years. There is double parking everywhere in the City.

Kery Tally

- I have been a patient for two years now and I have seen this happen to many dispensaries.

- Neighborhoods view them as drug dealers and force them out. This is a form of discrimination and harassment.

- It is unfair because many of the patients are afraid to speak-up for fear of losing their jobs or children at home.

Joan Wood

- I did not know that this dispensary existed until the notice of this hearing was made public.

- Most of the opposition is saying that there would be a problem if they stay open. There have not been problems.

- I either drive or walk by there at least twice a day and have never seen double parking. I have only seen two customers in the last eight years.

Lynn Jefferson

- We are opposed to this MCD. I found things that made me really uncomfortable and some of the merchants were intimidated.

- Is an MCD non-profit or a business? If it is a business, it might be the reason why merchants are intimidated. But if it is not, why are they intimidated?

- Use discretionary review and do the right thing.

John Howett

- I talked to the retail people this morning on my third visit to get an update.

- It is the same arguments: double parking, noise and located next to North Beach Citizens that is a homeless property.

- We support dispensaries but not 722 Columbus.

Casimira - Merchant

- We have been intimidated and experienced confrontations from people that go to the dispensary and then come to our store that has outdoor seating.

- They do not buy anything from us and when we ask them to leave they threatened us. When we contacted one of the managers at the dispensary they had an attitude of care less.

Rev. Randy Webster

- Intimidation is usually based on fear and lack of understanding.

- I think that more that the places allowed to develop and grow within the confine of the neighborhoods, we would find intimidation is replaced with of education.

- This is a legal medicine for people who need it and not drug dealers. We should not be limiting our love and access.

Robert Hinish

- I have witnessed the intimidation in the neighborhood.

- The list of concerns is endless.

Yox Truffles

- We have had intimidation and some of their managers are good but others are careless.

- I spoke to the manager only once when asked for support for this permit. He should have done that since the beginning.

Richard Barrett

- I've work at the Front Door dispensary since last fall.

- Since I have been there, we have worked very hard to cooperate and minimize disturbances in the neighborhood.

Paul Kohler

- I urge you to take discretionary review for these concerns: wholesaling on site, conflicts with substance abuse and treatment, land use conflicts with children's facilities, and there are 25 dispensaries in the city with three closes by in the North Beach and Nob Hill area.

- This dispensary is much too close to many of our neighborhood facilities serving children, homeless and drug dependant people.

Chuck Thomas

- This dispensary is in the center of the North Beach and I oppose it.

- What is going on there is not medicinal cannabis but a wholesale operation. Why are 99% of their clientele males between the age of 25 and 30?

Ron Ragusa

- I oppose this application because it is located too close to children.

Wayne Justmann

- What kind of an organization do we have?

- The dispensary is not good for this neighborhood but it is okay to have a sex shop, alcohol outlets and tobacco outlets there just a few blocks away on Columbus.

Brent McDonald, Boys and Girls Club

- One of the concerns we have is that children go out to get lunch or they lunch on the grounds and this club is in the immediate vicinity.

- There has being a significant raise in crime and shootings.

- I request that you take discretionary review and make this club relocate.

Elizabeth Diaz

- I have an issue with this dispensary being in a delicate section of the neighborhood between the pool, library, schools and all other facilities that involve kids.

- There is a reason for creating an ordinance that says they need to be 1,000 feet away and I think North Beach should not be singled out.

Marc Bruno

- We are doing social work helping with medical marijuana.

- When this was passed, there was no reference on how it would work. It was about use for those people who were sick and was never intended to allow medical dispensaries.

- Vote for the Planning Department recommendation to not allow this to continue.

Alexandra Li-Kienker

- There are other opportunities sites for a MCD in the north-east portion of town. There is an extensive C-3 district that would allow relocation.

Naomi Finkelstein

- People are allowed to be different in neighborhoods. People need this medicine to live.

Patrick Goggin

- I have heard intimidation accusations without any supportive fact. Not a single complaint has been filed with the Police.

- We live in one of the most compact cities in this country where we need to get along and co-exist.

Sammie Shepherd

- I keep hearing people trying to use these emotional appeals with children to mischaracterize medical cannabis.

- As part of intimidation, I have not seen that kind of people inside this club. But there are people by the sex shop acting out.

Russell Kyle

- I would like to speak in favor of the North Beach pot club. Problems will be there long after the pot club is closed.

- The way that sex club degrades women has not been mentioned here.


- Why have we come to fight when we are really making something right for the world? This is just a plant given by God.

- We know a lot of stuff can happen to kids but I do not know any kid that comes home and say they are in to weed but many that are in to alcohol.

Silvia Johnson

- Medical marijuana is not abusive. Chemicals in the process could eliminate good chemicals.

Michelle Aldrich

- This would add to the community and not take away from it.

- Most medical marijuana patients do not want or need to be harassed or harass any one. They want to go home and get medicated.

- In regards of children, you have to teach them that this is good medicine for some people.

Harold Cubstead

- Alcohol is socially accepted and children are overdosing on it and dying. [He shared a testimony.]

Kevin Reed, The Green Cross

- There are a lot of patients in the city and so many that would loose their jobs if they come to speak on their own behalf.

- There is nowhere else for these clubs to go.

- Rules have been put in place. Give them a change to operate right and be partners with the community.

- Every facility we closed down is going to put more patients at another facility.

ACTION: Took discretionary review and disapproved.

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

NAYES: Olague

Item 14 followed item 16

14. 2004.1245E (Tape IIIB; IVA) (N. TURRELL: (415) 575-9047)
300 Grant Avenue
(aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - Assessor's Block 0287, Lots 013, 014 - Appeal of a Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 10,500 square-foot project site is located at 300 Grant Avenue (aka 272-290 Sutter Street) on the northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street in the Financial District neighborhood. The proposed project would involve the demolition of two buildings containing approximately 35,600-square feet of retail space and construction of an approximately 114,354 gross square foot, 12-story, 130-foot tall building containing up to 56 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail space, and 34 to 40 off-street parking spaces. The retail entrance to the proposed project would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Street, while the residential lobby entrance would be at the corner of Grant Avenue and Harlan Place. Access to the parking garage would be from Harlan Place off Grant Avenue. The site is zoned C-3-R (Downtown Retail) within an 80-130-F height and bulk district, and the Downtown Area Plan of the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2007)


Sue Hestor, Representing some of the Homeowners at 330 Grant – 1st Appellant

- 330 Grant Avenue is a landmark building converted to residential use and it is across the street.

- Shadows on the street are important in this district. This particular conservation district has its basic nature absolutely ignored in the staff analysis.

- The basic nature is predominantly four to eight stories in height, streetscape attractive to the pedestrian, and they have sunlit sidewalks and open spaces. This is important.

- All they look at in the analysis is how do you have a building rather than how do you have a district.

- On page 40 of the analysis you look for the discussion of the importance to sunlight and of scale. It is missing.

- On page 29 staff goes to the details rather than the purposes of the analysis in the Neg. Dec. and in the project's analysis.

- Why is there the maintenance of an identity separate from the financial district? That is a core issue in the Courtney/Mason southern district.

- The Neg. Dec. needs to be amended. Those two sentences on page 29 should be excised and add language saying that the district is suppose to be small scale and sunny.

- The other error is the maximum height on page 64. The code section on height limit of 170 feet does not apply.

- Article 11 on the specific Courtney-Market-Mason southern district is the control for this site and the height limit is 80 – 130feet as the controller.

- The Neg. Dec. and the project's analysis should be corrected.

Pamela Duffy, Representing 2nd Appellant

- I have not much to add from Ms. Hestor's remarks or the ones submitted on this matter in our submission to the Commission earlier this year.

- I want to make it clear that we are not suggesting an Environmental Impact Report.

- We have suggested that this document is superficial in its treatment of the relationship of the project with the conservation district where it is located.

- We believe that the environmental document continues to give short shrift to the very sensitive location in which it is proposed.

Tim Tosta, Representing the Project Sponsor

- The staff has done a very good job in detailing the responses to the issues raised by the appellants.

- What I want to reinforce is that the appellants have matched together the arguments on the policy concerning this project and tried to put them into an environmental context.

- There are a series of arguments that miss the point of what the Neg. Dec. appeal is about.

- Ms. Hestor does not like the way it is characterized but she provides no evidence as what it is that should be added that is not already in the document.

- She raises an irrelevant consideration considering shadowing private windows and rooftop open space that has never been considered in any environmental document in San Francisco.

- The policy arguments, the cumulative exceptions that she raises are really a challenge to the City's policy. It is too literal a reading of the exceptions in the City.

- Another issue is a perception argument which is  I wish you would describe it my way.'

- Staff has chosen a variety of contexts to make the description because it creates more balance and a deeper perception for you as a decision maker.

- The only evidence on the record indicates that there is not going to be pedestrian or traffic issues.

- The project does not meet conservation standards. It is not an environmental issue.

- Static arguments are extraordinarily difficult to sustain in an environmental context.

Sally Johnson

- A lot of these arguments involve you with our environment impacts.

- A lot of these things have been drawn by different organizations.

- The process is very important and studies fall apart because it goes too wide.

MOTION: To uphold the PMND

AYES: Antonini and W. Lee

NAYES: Alexander, Moore, Olague, and Sugaya


RESULT: Motion failed

ACTION: Continued to September 6, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore


15a. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for review under Planning Code ("Code") Section 309 of the construction of a new, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage, requiring the authorization of exceptions to Code standards for height above 80 feet, building bulk, rear yard, and off-street parking, as well as the granting of Variances of Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2007)


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 6, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore


15b. 2004.1245EKVX (J. MILLER: (415) 558-6344)

300 GRANT AVENUE (aka 272 and 290 Sutter Street) - northeast corner at Sutter Street, Lots 13 and 14 in Assessor's Block 287, in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District - Request for Variance of Planning Code standards for usable open space and dwelling-unit exposure in conjunction with the construction of a new, 11-story mixed-use building containing approximately 43 dwelling units, approximately 15,000 square feet of ground- and second-floor retail space, and up to 40 off-street parking spaces in a two-level underground garage.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 28, 2007)


ACTION: Without hearing, continued to September 6, 2007

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

NAYES: Moore


Item 16 followed item 13

16. 2007.0587T (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

Amendments relating to Medical Cannabis Dispensary Planning Code Sections 209.3, 217, 790.141, and 890.133 [Board File No. 07-0667].Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier amending sections of the San Francisco Health and Planning Codes to a) require the Director of Public Health to certify that applicants for Medical Cannabis Dispensary permits have not been convicted of certain felony offenses, (b) require the Department of Building Inspection to review and approve Dispensaries' security measures, including lighting and alarms, (c) authorize the Mayor's Office of Disability to approve equivalents to new construction accessibility requirements where Dispensaries demonstrate a hardship and satisfy minimum standards; and (d) extend the time period for Dispensaries to obtain a Medical Cannabis Dispensary permit to January 1, 2008.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.


Katherine Stephanie, Legislative Aid for Supervisor Alioto-Pier

- This legislation is strictly procedural.

- We took a good hard look at the Medical Cannabis Act that was passed in November 2005.

- We noticed some problems with it and therefore are trying to make changes to address them.

- It amends the Planning Code by extending the dateline to obtain a permit to operate a Medical Cannabis Dispensary.

- The proposed extension is for six months, meaning the final permit must be obtained by January 1, 2008.

- The extension only applies to those dispensaries that have filed an application with the Department of Public Health before July 1, 2007.

- The amendments also stay in section 209.3, sub-section K, that any dispensary that fails to file a permit as provided in the San Francisco Health Code, section 3304 on or before July 1, 2007 must immediately cease operations.

- The legislation was born out of a meeting with some of the members of the Medical Cannabis community and members of the Disability Caucus.

- We learned three things that we thought were worth pursuing.

- One - we learned that some dispensaries were having a difficult time meeting the new construction standards because of the physical constraints of their location.

- Two - In that meeting we were shown plans that providing accessibility to the community that Supervisor Alioto-Pier firmly believes deserves accessibility at each and every one of these medical cannabis dispensaries.

- And three - There were problems with the San Francisco Police Department involvement that came from both the Police and from the Medical Cannabis community. The deadline was unrealistic for those reasons.

- We had several meetings with Chief Wong and Deputy Chief Morris to further understand the problems that the San Francisco Police Department was having with the legislation.

- We also submitted letters of inquiries on March 27, 2007 to the Planning Department, Department of Public Health and Building Inspection to understand the permitting process and to inquire as to why there were delays in the process.

- The Department of Public Health stated that due to the current lengthy permitting process and the issues with the San Francisco Police Department regarding lighting and security referrals they did not want to do them because they are not in the business of doing them.

- They did not believe that July 1, 2007 was realistic deadline to assure permitting of the applicants.

- The Planning Department stated that prior to April 5, 2007 the Department of Building Inspection was not accepting MCD permits that cannot meet the full disable access for new buildings. This contributed to a further delay in the process.

- We concluded that it was necessary to take the San Francisco Police Department out of the process entirely and that was a situation where everyone agreed.

- We also found that in deciding that if a medical cannabis dispensary cannot meet the standards for new construction but they could meet what is very important for Supervisor Alioto-Pier - three basic needs of accessibility: entrance, service area, and bathroom.

- Those medical dispensaries and only those should be allowed to apply for a hardship request.

- Therefore, the extension is the only thing in the Planning Code to address these issues mentioned. The amendment would be the extension of the deadline for six months.

Naomi Finklestein

- I view the Medical Cannabis as a right to disabled people. It is one thing to have this right in theory and another thing to be able to access this right.

- In order to access this right, we may need to be able to get into the dispensaries. We need those dispensaries to actually be there.

- The standards of new construction would spell disaster for the small independent dispensaries and only the big ones would survive, which would create more congestion with a few dispensaries serving the community.

Charlie Pappas

- We have 500 members in our collective and many are disabled, but not the majority.

- We have spent $35,000 so far on improvements and we still do not have accessibility to get in.

-I have a back way to get in and once inside, it is easier for our patients to get around.

- If we have new building ADA requirements, it will be financially difficult for us.

Soren Ragsdale

- There is a cannabis called  relief on 2980 21st Street/Folsom. It is the only MCD in our district.

- There are great concerns about this dispensary. They had not filed for a permit until recently and do not have accessibility.

- The smell of smog from the front of the building indicates inadequate ventilation that is another violation of the current rules.

Cathy Smith

- We are getting more time to have this done and we need to really do it. There are 8 or 9 waiting for your decision.

- We have worked with Supervisor Alioto-Pier and Chief Wong and they have suggested using an independent firm. It seems to be a good way around this.

- I urge you to approve this to extend the process. You would help us tremendously.

Mira Ingram

- This coalition came together to work out all these problems with the dispensary regulations and the way they were written.

- We did not agree on things but came together to work out the best compromise for everyone.

- This would allow most dispensaries to be open and give extra options to patients.

Jasmine Mcfadden

- Medical cannabis has helped me tremendously with my illness symptoms such as fatigue, stomach pains and I also have neuropathy.

- I am not able to get around and a club in my area is helpful. I hope you vote on this.

David Cohen

- The access with new construction standards would be removing access for neighbors by leaving only 5 or 6 clubs.

- Closing down the clubs would really diminish mine and those who are more mobility impaired.

Maureen Burns

- I am speaking as a disabled veteran that served my country for fourteen and a half years and was diagnosed with hepatitis C.

- I am often get mistaken for not needing to go to clubs because I appear to not be disabled by some standards. One of my complications is neuropathy and I am often on a cane.

- The reason I have not spoken out before is because of personal stigmas. I am speaking out today because I realized the need for social justice.

Karen Kircher

- Each neighborhood dispensary has something on its own to offer.

- Whether is social space and activities that are important to people that tend to be isolated, or strains of medicine that I know work for my specific pain, or the chance to meet with a licensed social worker.

- It does not matter if I need someone else to open the door as long as the door opens and the people are honest, the medicine does what I needed to do and it is close enough for me to get to.

Stephanie Tucker, Vapor Room Cooperative

- We are in support of the amendments offered with this legislation and we also have a deep amount of respect for the process that was engaged in Alioto-Pier's office to arrive at these conclusions.

- I do support the amendments but I am not sure about the recommendations made by the Planning Department on the tiers.

- If they do not allow everybody who applies for a permit, we are going to loose a third of our dispensaries here in San Francisco.

Jonathan Beaver

- I am here in support of this issue. It is very important because it is a matter of life and death.

- I am sure that you will do the right thing and vote for this amendment.

Terrie Frye

- I am here in support of these amendments. I am on medical cannabis because I have glaucoma and arthritis and that is something you can not see.

Patrick Goggin

- I would just address the extension and urge you to pass it as drafted by Supervisor Alioto-Pier.

- Each cannabis dispensary is unique and they need to be addressed on an even playing field on a case-by-case basis.

Paul Sahagun

- I urge you to support this amendment because it means so much to my community and many of us who are sick.

Jose Velazquez

- There is a marijuana club that is illegally there in front of schools and a playground.

- This is an experiment and what are you saying to the kids? Think about this. What are you doing and who are you throwing this out to?

James Anthony

- I represent a couple of existent cannabis collectives in San Francisco.

- Your planning staff pointed out in her opening remarks that this is a new process. 18 months was the best estimate at the time.

- I urge you to recommend that the full Board of Supervisor adopt the amendments as drafted and let us take those who have submitted their applications to the Department of Health.

- Let us be as inclusive as possible.

Rev. Randy Webster

- The extension should be for everybody. The majority of these facilities are not money making propositions.

- We need to have accessibility understood as compliance.

- These places are harm reductions. We need to pass this into legislation.

Anthony Martinelli

- Dispensaries need to be open. The ones I have visited have social programs and bathrooms are accessible.

[No Name]

- I urge you to approve all the amendments that Supervisor Alioto-Pier has created for medical cannabis dispensaries to be added to the Planning Code.

Heidi Hanley

- Approve the amendments as drawn up by Ms. Alioto-Pier and to allow each MCD that has submitted their application to be equally considered and go through the proper process.

Evan Matteo

- Requested that two cannabis clubs in District 3 not be subject to this extension. They are in an area highly concentrated with zero impacts on services if that operation closes.

- There are 5 or 6 clubs within two blocks.

- This particular club has been a very bad neighbor. They have no ventilation and there is violence.

[No Name]

- Anyone with a facility that has demonstrated a lot of compassion for the people they serve should be given the extension.

- We may have a lot of facilities that might close because of the need to spend thousands of dollars.

- If someone is late with their form do not cut them down.

[No Name]

- There are approximately 31 clubs out there and there is an illusion that more clubs can open based on probable areas.

- There are no more clubs opening because there is no space left in the City.

Shona Gochanann

- This is a very creative and efficient discussion and it is still continuing.

- The fear of the Mayor's Office of Disabilities is a little bit [molded] and it will be made clear through further community discussions.

- The extension is very essential to get through the process.

Michael Aldrich

- I support the extension.

- I am concerned about the thousands of dollars that it is going to take some of the MCD to improve their facilities enough to qualify under the requirements for a new building requirement.

- I would prefer that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisor that ADA compliance would be sufficient to open its doors.

Michelle Aldrich

- I want you to approve the extension for the MCD to have extra time to complete the process to January 1.


- Thanked Ms. Alioto-Pier for the amendments. Medical cannabis means no harm.

Silvia Johnson

- A lot of these processes need to be taken care of as soon as possible.

- There are a lot of things to be done.

Francisco DaCosta

- I am in favor of the amendment to address the issues to ADA.

- There are some serious issues that need to be addressed with the best minds.

- This has to be run through the Department of Building Inspection, the Mayor's Office on Disability, and the Planning Department.

- If you do some research, you will find that 90 percent of medicines we use come from plants.

Espanola Jackson

- There is no medical cannabis in the Bay View Hunters Point and people have to drive out.

- You need to look into the fact that there needs to be a cannabis club in district 10.

Alex Franko

- I encourage you to look into the science. There are thousands of articles on how this works.

- I am concerned about smoking on site because smoke brings fire.


- This is medication and we have people in need of medication. These are our people.

- I am in full support of the amendment.

Kevin Reed

- I really want to support this legislation but I am not sure if this is going to affect my delivery services.

- We should really think about this and every body should be in a room together. We do not need 5 clubs in a room with a supervisor.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-Extend it to March 1, 2008

-Permit to be completed by August 15, 2007

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


Item 17 followed item 14/15

17. 2003.0347T (Tape IVA; IVB) (K. DISCHINGER: (415) 558-6284)

AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING CODE RELATIVE TO DEDICATING A PORTION OF THE VAN NESS AND MARKET NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Commission will consider adopting an amendment to the Planning Code to dedicate a portion of the Van Ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure program to affordable housing. The Planning Department, in coordination with our consulting team, has completed an analysis of the potential for an increased affordable housing contribution within the plan area. The amendments before the Planning Commission offers a substitute ordinance for section 249.33 adopted by the Planning Commission on April 5th. The proposed amendments would dedicate a portion of all of the Van Ness and Market Neighborhood Infrastructure Program to affordable housing.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval


Libby Sifold, President of Sifold Consultants

- We were challenged with the task of analyzing the financial feasibility of increased contributions to affordable housing with respect to up-zoning within the Market-Octavia Plan.

- The way that we picked this site was first analyzing potential up-zoning opportunities in this area. They vary in changes in height and density allowed within the area.

- The areas with +/- 10 feet change did not have much economic effect on land values. We really concentrated the analysis on the Van Ness-Market residential special use district.

- We particularly looked at four sites of the zoning map.

- The up-zoning would mean increases in height and the number of units allowed but higher development costs in fees. As you increase height, the construction costs go up.

- We looked at the assumptions of the inclusionary housing study as a basis for what we did.

- We made some adjustments for the specifics within the Van Ness corridor area. We spoke with a number of development consultants and got some key information.

- Construction costs represent the majority at approximately 50 percent of development cost.

- Others are finance and soft cost and the City's fee including the in-lieu fee for the affordable housing plan, school fee and the special fee associated with the Market-Octavia Plan.

- For assumptions on development profit or margin, we were consistent with the inclusionary housing study. We used 20 – 22percent for these higher towers.

- We developed a lenders model. What we were doing was looking at what is the effect when you change density on the value of the land.

- It is the same methodology used in Rincon-Hill and in the inclusionary housing study.

- We ran initial model on these sites and we also did sensitivity analysis changing the assumption up and down with respect to unit size, sales price and construction cost to test the analysis.

- This is an illustration of the four sites that we looked at and it shows that basically, fundamentally, even thought there is a dramatic increase in height the construction cost is also increasing consequently.

- From a policy stand point, we found what you already have done through your policies - and it is that you actually captured a lot of the public benefits.

- You have done slender tower design that limits the amount of development potential but for positive reasons to mitigate shadow impacts and wind effects.

- You have the Market-Octavia community improvement fee that is $10 per net square foot of residential and $4 per net square foot of commercial.

- You also have an additional VNRSUD development credit meaning that when a building goes above 9FAR there is actually an additional amount that is paid of $15 per gross square foot.

- There is a significant amount of money that is potentially generated as heights go up.

- Also, higher density means more units available for affordable housing units.

- We wanted to put this together to make sure that developments do happen and to encourage developers.

- The changes in residual land value were not enough to really warrant any increase in affordability requirements or increase in fees.

- We found that the fees were being captured by in FAR that are already in place that would go back to help the neighborhood.

- We found that we really could not recommend to you any increase in the affordability requirement.

- We have also found that you really have captured the economic benefit through the FAR increase fees and the TDR.

James Haas

- I have talked on several occasions on the subject of Market-Octavia and about the need for community benefits.

- The transit station on Van Ness needs open space and/or streetscape to make that area hospitable.

- I urge you to accept the conclusion of you consultant and pass the remaining item to the Board of Supervisors who have been waiting to deliberate on the plan.

- Octavia Boulevard parcels cannot be sold until this plan is completed and signed by the Mayor.


- I keep not hearing something that we need to start hearing in this Commission and that is improving economic development in San Francisco

- We never talk about creating small business owners. We are going to continue to build even more affordable housing that San Franciscans can not afford to live in.

[No name]

- There are conclusions and no decisions. This should not move forward.

ACTION: Approved as amended:

-100 % to go to the infrastructure and when paid out the excess is to go to affordable housing.

-This is the additional affordable housing requirement for resolutions 17406-08, 17410-11 approved on April 5, 2007.

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

NAYES: Moore and Olague


6:009:50 P.M.

18. 2006.0074TZ (Tape IVB; VA) (J.Lau: (415) 558-6383)

BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT AREA PLAN RELATED TO PLANNING CODE AND MAP AMENDMENTS. The Planning Commission will consider adopting Planning Code and Map Amendments of the City and County of San Francisco according to the provisions of Sections 302 and 306.3 of the Planning Coderelated to the creation of new Industrial Use Districts in Bayview Hunters Point. The new zoning would encompass the following areas: (1) the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Bayshore Boulevard, Jerrold Avenue, Barneveld Avenue, McKinnon Avenue, Tolland Street, Evans Avenue, and Third Street; (2) the area generally bounded by Loomis Street, the I-280 Freeway, Oakdale Avenue, the Caltrain right-of-way, Evans Avenue, Toland Street, and McKinnon Avenue; (3) the area generally bounded by Bayshore Boulevard, Paul Avenue, Egbert Avenue, Hawes Street, Yosemite Slough, the Hunters Point Shipyard, Thomas Avenue, Jennings Street, Van Dyke Avenue, Williams Avenue and Phelps Street. The Planning Commission certified the Bayview Hunters Point Plan Environmental Impact Report, adopted CEQA Finding, and adopted the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan, an amendment to the General Plan, on March 2, 2006 with Motion Nos. 17200, 17201, and Resolution No. 17202 respectively. These Zoning Text and Map Amendments would implement various objectives from the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan that seek to retain space for jobs and light industrial activities and to reduce land use conflicts between housing and industry in the Bayview.

A) 2006.0074ETZ (J. Lau: (415) 558-6383)

Adoption of a Planning Code Text Amendment - Consideration of a resolution to adopt an amendment to the Planning Code, including adding Sections 121.5, 121.7, 210.7, 210.8, 210.9, 230, and 249.32; and amending Sections 204.3, 204.4, 210, 210.6, and 213. The amendment would establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer) District, a PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair) District, and a South Basin Design and Development Special Use District (South Basin SUD) . The Amendments would also amend provisions related to uses, and add provisions related to use size, subdivision of lots, and demolition of industrial related structures. These provisions would, in part, support and encourage a wide range of light industrial activities, restrict residential development, and limit the size of retail and office uses in the new use districts. Provisions related to the South Basin SUD would further encourage and accommodate a mix of arts, product testing and development, telecommunications support, office, business services, and light industrial activities.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution amending the Planning Code.

B) 2006.0074ETZ (J. Lau: (415) 558-6383)

Adoption of a Zoning Map Amendment - Consideration of a resolution to adopt an amendment to the Zoning Map. The amendment consists of revisions to Sectional Maps 8, 9, 10, and 10 SU of the Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco. This amendment would: 1) reclassify the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Barneveld Avenue, McKinnon Avenue, Evans Avenue, and Third Street from M-2 to PDR-2; 2) reclassify the area generally bounded by Loomis Street, the I-280 Freeway, Oakdale Avenue, and the Caltrain right-of-way from M-1 (Light Industrial) to PDR-2 (Production, Distribution, and Repair); 3) reclassify much of the South Basin District, generally bounded by Bayshore Boulevard, Paul Avenue, Egbert Yosemite Slough, the Hunters Point Shipyard, Thomas Avenue, and Williams Avenue, from M-1 to PDR-2; 4) establish a PDR-1 (Light Industrial Buffer) designation over the northern and southern edges of the South Basin District, on the east side of Third Street, roughly along Fitzgerald, Van Dyke, Underwood, and Thomas Avenues – on properties currently zoned M-1; and 5) apply the South Basin SUD (South Basin Design and Development Special Use District) to the area generally bounded by Paul Avenue, Bayshore Boulevard, Phelps Street, Williams Avenue, and Third Street.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the resolution amending the Zoning Map.


Brian O'flynn

- I am the coordinator of the Defend Bay View Hunters Point Committee, sponsors of the referendum petition against the Bay View Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan.

- The law suit has not been resolved. We are taking it to the California Court of Appeals and we are firmly confident we will prevail there.

- That would question some of these zoning changes and the redevelopment in the neighborhood.

- The Redevelopment's participation in the area is illegitimate in the sense that as you heard there is little vacancy and vibrant jobs creation and small business in the area.

- They have to make a finding by law that without the Redevelopment involvement, private enterprises and normal government services and functioning would not be able to create economic development areas.

- There is overwhelming opposition in the community. You are talking about a 10 year public involvement process, where in 90 days we have 3,000 people signed a petition.

- The Redevelopment brought a stadium plan and swap between parcel E and the shipyard in the Candlestick Point where the community has never once being involved.

- Currently, the community is very upset about the public health risk for asbestos contamination.

- Supervisor Maxwell said that now that the Redevelopment has taken over even the Board has no power. We have big concerns about this.

Randol Evans

- It kills me that we are talking here about one black community plan that does not include black people. It is disturbing.

- A lot of people have left [the hearing]. This is a serious issue to talk about something important and have it so late at night. Give us the opportunity to be involved.

Eric White

- The 70 studios that are there are the only art class studio open to the public and I am very concerned about what is going to happen to it as we start to redevelop that area.

- We are trying to integrate ourselves into the community and we want to work for everyone.

Al Norman

- We are not in agreement with all these proposed zoning changes mainly because a lot of those organizations mentioned are not better than others.

- I am the president of Bay View Merchants and he never came to talk to me about it. You can not just pick organizations that you want to go and work with.

- He can not just go to the Back Street Boys and have them dictate how everything is going to be laid out.

FranklinDelano Ross

- Some of the people that are going to make decisions here do not live in the Bay View district. You do not know the needs and what really is going on out there.

- We need housing, businesses and to survive as other communities are.

Laronda Smith

- I am opposed to the PDR plan because we need more housing and not industrial sites.

- We need more jobs for the people that live in the community and grocery stores and not corner stores.

Rev. Arnold Townsend

- I find this presentation spectacularly strange. We have been talking about re-servicing Third Street.

- Redevelopment is out there to do that and build it up as a viable business district for the people in Bay View Hunters Point.

- You have all these activities that have been built by the ballpark and you are trying to create an industrial buffer zone.

- Where are the Bay View organizations that have supported and been active in this plan?

- This is going to block people from coming from downtown and the ballpark to the Bay View. It is bad thinking. The Planning Department is capable of much better work.

Bob Legallet

- The Planning Department has done an excellent job of describing the issues faced by the existing PDR businesses in Bay View Hunters Point.

- The plan is unobtrusive to the existing conditions that will stabilize the land use for the industrial uses that are currently there and not impact the community.

- There is much retail and residential land available.

- I encourage you to support this zoning change in order to provide stability for the businesses in the Hunters Point.

Sascha Retailleau

- I employed eight people that come to the Bay View to work and it's where they spend their earnings in the community. Also, I work regularly with three other companies.

- I lease a space and sublet to eight other companies that include furniture, bio-medical device, etc.

- In our space alone, it is a very vibrant community of workers, artists and craftsman. I know several people that are looking for a space to work in the city.

Mark Klaiman

- I am proud to run a small industrial business that has created 20 jobs for San Franciscans, provides comprehensive health care and benefits for staff, and is also a certified green business.

- The Planning Department has done a tremendous job including the community in the process and ensuring that thoughts and concerns of the community have been reflected.

- I urge you to support the proposed change to the Planning Code because it will provide certainty to land owners, employers and employees to continue investing in their businesses and careers.

- The decision on how to balance jobs and housing is difficult but balancing must be done.

Peter Cohen

- [He read the official position that the Backstreet Businesses Advisory Board took back in January of this year supporting these changes.]

Daniel Frattin

- Our firm represents the owner of a site on the corner of Third and Cesar Chavez Street.

- The proposed zoning would designate this site as PDR too. We do not believe this designation is appropriate and respectfully request that you exclude this site from the PDR district.

- It is ideally suited for transit oriented development.

- Many buildings in this area are vacant or underutilized. New industrial uses to occupy them are no more likely to materialize now than may have been for the last forty years.

Paul O'brady

- I have not been involved in this process and I can assure you that none of the business and property owners that I know have a clue of what is going on.

- My property is 1616 Evans Avenue and I would like to be excluded from the redevelopment plan.

I have doubt that is a good idea to allow housing and mixed use along the Third Street corridor. It would be suited much better to allow more housing particularly close to the Third Street rail.

Maurie Cole

- I own a large parcel of property in the Bay View and was not notified about what is going on.

- I would like to see when we can sit down before you vote on this so the people can understand what is going on.

- I can not give my opinion on whether I like it or not because I do not know anything about it.

Wei Li

- I am a property owner in the Bay View and support what the community need in particular areas, especially along the rail.

- I really would like to support the industrial areas but the government controls are too much. They want to tell us what to do with the use of our personal property rights.

- It is not a good idea to change what is there already.


- There is no consideration of being a white person. These developments and concepts have never had any concerns.

- The process of explaining things does not even matter. I do not understand why you put [out] these measurements.

ACTION: Following public testimony, President Alexander closed the public hearing and the Commission entered into deliberation. Following Commission deliberation, the Commission continued this matter to a time certain on September 20, 2007. In the intervening time, the Commission Secretary is to attempt to schedule this hearing in the community on or near this date [at the Southeast Community Center or Bayview Opera House]. The public hearing will be reopened for this hearing.

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


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

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

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

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

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


[No Name]

- Appreciated the Commission for taking the time and explaining things.

- I want to give some estimates on my planning and see where I have been with industry building better machinery and different parts of mechanisms, suitcases and designs in arts.

Adjournment: 11:36 P.M.



ACTION: Approved

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

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

Last updated: 11/17/2009 10:00:29 PM