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

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

September 20, 2007

September 20, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

September 20, 2007

1:30 PM

Special Meeting

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

COMMISSIONER ABSENT: None

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT ALEXANDER AT 1:38 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Amit Ghosh – Chief Planner, Delvin Washington – Acting Zoning Administrator, Elizabeth Watty, Sophie Middlebrook, Aaron Starr, Ben Fu, Diana Sokolove, Tara Sullivan-Lenane, Joshua Switzky, Sarah Dennis, Stephen Shotland, Linda Avery – Commission Secretary.

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2006.0074TZ (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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed to October 4, 2007

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

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.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed to October 4, 2007

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

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.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of July 12, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 4, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

2. 2007.0511T (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN: HEALTH PLANNER: BOARD FILE 070678 - Forwarding a proposed ordinance with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors amending the Planning Code (Section 304.5) to require a qualified health planner retained by the Department of Public Health to analyze the relationship to citywide health care needs of medical institutions' institutional master plans, revisions, and conditional use applications, to provide comments to the Planning Department, making environmental findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 9, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 4, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

3. 2007.0514T (S. EXLINE: (415) 558-6332)

Amendments to Planning Code Section 315/Inclusionary Housing: Alternative Rehabilitation for Rental - Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Daly as part of Board File No. 070444 that would amend portions of the Planning code to allow a new alternative to meet the requirements of the Residential Inclusionary Affordable Housing ordinance by allowing payment to a nonprofit to acquire and rehabilitate units for permanent affordable rental housing if the number of units is 25% greater than the amount provided under the existing off-site alternative.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

(Proposed for Continuance to October 18, 2007)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

4. 2006.1355DD (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

130 LEDYARD STREET - southwest side between Mercury Street and Thornton Avenue, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 5398 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.08.29.0915, proposing to legalize an existing deck at the rear of a single-family dwelling built without benefit of permit. The property is located in a RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Indefinite Continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

5. 2007.0688T (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

POLK STREET: BOARD FILE 070851 - Ordinance Amending Planning Code Sections 121.2 and 723 as related to the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District [Board File No. 07-0851]. Ordinance amending sections of the San Francisco Planning Codes by amending Section 121.2 to move Polk Street from a 3,000 square foot use size limit to a 2,000 square foot use size limit and by amending Section 723 to provide that commercial and institutional uses in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District are permitted up to 1,999 square feet and allowed as a conditional use for 2,000 square feet and above; adopting findings, inclusion Section 302 findings, environmental findings and findings of consistency with Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

(NOTE: Review time has expired and the matter is no longer before the Planning Commission.)

Since the printing and posting of this calendar, Supervisor Peskin has extended the time on this matter. It is now proposed for continuance to September 27, 2007

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued to September 27, 2007

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

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

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.

6. Consideration of Adoption:

· Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of April 6, 2006.

(Continued from September 6, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

7. 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 Moore

- There are a couple of things. I received a copy of the AIA discussion on the update of planning our City's future -- An Agenda for Change -- something that happened two years ago. The AIA completed a report and I am not sure whether or not the other Commissioners have seen it.

- I am not sure if we are just acknowledging it today or if we are having a discussion about it. I am not sure if you have seen this document already.

- The second thing is that as a follow up to approving 120 Howard, I met with the architect and Jim Miller from Planning to look at the possible modification of the ground floor.

- You might remember that it was an existing building for which we approved the third floor addition on Howard and Spear.

- I think the architect is taking the right direction and there are opportunities to improve the ground floor plan with a landscape architect brought on board.

- I feel very comfortable of what Planning together with the architect and landscape architect are doing.

- It seems to be a joint effort that brought broader issues and I suspect that Jim Miller will take this forward and bring it back to some formal and expanding discussion.

- The next thing is personal. I continue to receive letters that are not identified by the sender, which in many ways I find it inappropriate and bothersome. They are almost like junk mail.

- I would like to suggest to the commissioners that we do not accept letters that do not have a sender.

- We are living in a democracy where someone wants to say something they can identify themselves for discussion and comments.

- I am not willing to spend my time on letters that do not have [identified] senders.

- I am asking the City Attorney and the Commissioners whether we make a move that Commission Secretary Avery basically does not put these letters in front of us anymore. I call them junk mail.

- If there is something to be discussed, I will be happy to do so otherwise it is a waste of my time.

- Lastly, I wanted to comment on item 19 which will be before us in a couple of minutes and that is the fringe financial.

- There was a very revealing article about San Francisco's values, municipal ID cards, in the paper which really gave a background on how we should look at this particular line item.

- I hope you all read it. It speaks about the plight of people who do not have ID cards and how they convict them at these fringe financial institutions.

- I was moved and it gives me a great channel of understanding on that issue a lot better.

Commission Antonini

- In regards of the correspondence, I think that Commissioner Moore is speaking on those that do not have a return address.

- In my opinion, it does not bother me and I just sort it out and throw it away.

- I want to comment on something regarding the Transbay Tower.

- The Pele Hines design, which is the favored one. In fact I heard this morning that it has gotten recommendation and that is very exciting for a couple of reasons.

- I think it is going to help to begin, along with other developments in that area of Transbay, to reaffirm San Francisco as the commercial center of the Western United States.

- This building, at least presently, is designated as predominantly commercial space. That is an encouraging sign as well as a lot of other projects that are waiting to come forward.

- I think it has a lot of similarities to the period during the 60's, 70's and early 80's when we established a lot of commercial buildings and attracted a lot of businesses and were more of a center for businesses.

- I think we are also seeing other good things with retail development -- the opening of Barney's and Bloomingdales within the last year. 150 employees full time at Barney's and new hotels.

- The thing that is different this time around is that we are also building housing in that same area and I think that speaks volumes.

- What this does is allow housing but not necessarily address affordable or middle class housing needs. It is going to allow for a lot of people within walking distance.

- The boom of the 60's and 70's was almost exclusively commercial and you did not have the residential component of it.

- I think that this is much more balanced and is going to help the green of the Bay Area and you are going to have a lot of people living close to work.

- The more we can attract business downtown along with residences, the more we are going to keep them off the highways and I think it is going to help everybody.

- I would like to ask what the other Commissioners have to say.

- There has been a lot in the press about safety issues regarding high rises - seismic and fire issues.

- There was an article in the Chronicle recently and it has a lot of tension and comments in it but we have not had a hearing about this issue, nor testimony from structural engineers, architects or experts from around the world, and we certainly have many here in San Francisco.

- We are not working in a vacuum. These buildings are being built in other cities where there are seismic risks or other areas that are over water.

- I believe in Singapore, if I am not mistaken, they are building an airport off shore about 20 miles to accommodate their needs.

- The expertise is out there and I think it would be wise to have some sort of hearing in the future. No rush on it, but whenever we can calendar something and invite engineers to address these concerns.

- That way we can get information from experts and other places. Without speaking sparingly of the author of the article on the Chronicle, I do not believe that the author got that much technical experience on the subject.

- I think it is important to get this before the public to get an objective look at these questions and that is something that I would like to suggest for a future day.

Commissioner Sugaya

- On Saturday, September 8th; there was a meeting throughout the City. Neighborhood organizations and City Departments got together at the Civic Auditorium; I read this article.

- I was interested in this because no one told the Planning Commission about it. I do not think that any of us were formally invited.

- I do not know if this was something that we needed to go to but since we always hear from neighborhood organizations it would have been nice if the Mayor's Office has let us know that this was happening in advance.

- Second, I would like to have staff give us some information in the future about the status of the Japan town planning efforts.

- I know that they have held various focus groups and other meetings in Japan town in the month of August and that they have a store front office open in the Japan Center.

- I think that if we can get just a status report on what the efforts are right now, including any project plans or anything that is public at this point with 3-dimensional on the Japan Center itself.

- I think that there have been presentations to the Japan town task force by 3-D at this point. The Planning Commission could see what they are planning to do and that would be a great help to me.

- I think everybody knows that Newsom has appointed a new planning director and I just wanted to pass around an article that he had called  Streets as Parks in Seattle's Open Spaces.'

- I do not know if everybody have seen this or not but it is something that he authored in May, 2002. I have hard copies.

- Last, with respect to Transbay, I think it would be good since there was apparently a decision made about the developer. At this point if the Transbay Terminal Authority could make a presentation before the Planning Commission on the particular project that they selected.

- I have some particular concerns about it, especially the part that is sixty stories up in the air.

- How are they going to maintain it, and whether or not the maintenance falls to the City, or if it is being negotiated with the developer. How is that going to work?

- If you look around the Yerba Buena Center, since that whole park area is still under the jurisdiction of the Redevelopment Agency, there is some kind of public money going into it above and beyond what the City can possibly afford. It is very nicely maintained and kept.

- I do not know what the security situation is but there is no homeless in there; I am not saying that is good or bad but there is a particular situation in the City where people want to appear good or bad without being Golden Park for example.

- I do not know what kind of situation is being looked at with respect to this particular 5-acre park next to the Transbay Terminal and I would like to hear about that also.

Commissioner W. Lee

- I want to follow up with Commissioner Moore's request about having the AIA give us their update report on our progress in the last several years and I would suggest doing that in January when we have the new director here.

- That way we will have a third party looking at Building Inspection and also Planning and how we integrate some activities to be more effective.

- The second request is following Commissioner Antonini on the whole issues about high rises in the downtown once Rincon is completed and the height. In some ways I think we were hoodwinked into approving it.

- We saw the diagrams that were shown from Treasure Island. But when you come from Oakland over the Bay Bridge or come up 101 east bound, it is really massive and a lot of the public have a lot of concerns with that.

- I want to figure out how you can provide us, the Commissioners, a map of all the high rises with maybe 10, 15 or 20 stories or above that we have approved and how many are being proposed over 20 stories.

- This way we can conceptually get a sense of what the skylines would look alike and approximate how many new housing and commercial spaces would be available in the future.

- Right now we have approved a lot after the EIR for Rincon and next year we will see quite a few of them finished.

- We need to know and the public needs to know what it is going to look like downtown.

Commissioner Moore

- I want to follow up Commissioner Sugaya's comments about the Transbay Terminal. I think a presentation would be very timely.

- I share his concerns about the garden and for clarification The Yerba Buena is a BID [Business Improvement District] formed on its own to create security and maintenance. They are mostly independent of City money and they are doing it on their own.

- We have to create quite a critical mass of people or enterprises to maintain this huge garden.

- If we do not have enough money to maintain Golden Gate Park, I am wondering what we are going to do there high up in the air where I have not seen any elevated garden in San Francisco really work.

- With respect to Commissioner Lee's comments about approved high rises, I think I asked for that a number of times and this might be a wonderful moment to really do that since we know which building(s) over shades the new Transbay Terminal.

- I also support the idea of a presentation to the Planning Commission.

Commissioner Sugaya

- I would like to support that idea especially since the Commission is supposedly going to get into, at some point, determining what the height of this Transbay Terminal Tower is suppose to be.

- The modeling that we have been talking about is important since the Department is involved in undertaking a study of the area and that the height will eventually come before the Commission at some point.

- It would be good if we understood what kind of other buildings are there and what the heights will be in the area.

- I do not know who modeled the buildings that were on the cover of San Francisco Magazine about four or five months ago. Somebody has already done it in the private sector.

Commissioner Moore

- This is not a discussion about the Transbay. As we are going forward, I would really liked Planning to also reflect on the types of housing that we are bringing into these high rise buildings.

- A concern to me is bringing 1.6 million square feet of office as suggested in the Pele solution. As you are going forward, I am sure you will be very serious to look at that.

- Many people are asking themselves whether or not that much office space can be brought to a market without creating an unbalance in other areas.

- I am just throwing it out as a question and ask staff to consider also the uses and mix of uses wherein housing is being distributed and emerging downtown.

Commissioner S. Lee

- I just want to make a comment on the hiring of the new director and remind the public that this Commission was involved in interviewing the candidates for the director and the Mayor has finally selected one of the people who we interviewed.

- I want to express my disappointment on how this Commission was in many ways disrespected in how the announcement came about.

- I received a copy of an internal staff email that announces that the selection had been made in the morning.

- As a Commissioner I did not receive anything official but I did read about it in the newspaper. I do not think that is acceptable and I think we need to clean up our acts.

- I think the Department needs to treat this Commission with respect and courtesy. We need to treat ourselves with respect and courtesy.

- I think that some of our questions about things like Transbay reflect the fact that we are not in the loop.

- Until we begin to act this way, we are not going to be in the loop. I would respectfully ask or suggest to the Department, the Mayor's Office and the Commission that we need to start acting the way we want to be treated.

8. Discuss Commissioner Antonini's request made at the hearings on June 6th and July 26th 2007, for an explanation of why springing conditions have been proposed on market-rate projects in the Eastern Neighborhoods, yet were not imposed upon the recently approved Westbrook Plaza housing project at 255 7th Street.

(Continued from September 6, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Calvin Welsh

- I believe the City and County of San Francisco in a very deliberate process both in its 1990 and 2004 Housing Element discuss a variety of things that could be done procedurally and administratively to assist the development of affordable housing.

- I am reminded that the State of California exempts from local taxes headquarters of office building and financial institutions.

- This is a long standing policy that you can wave fees in requirements to get the kind of developments that you would like.

- We pay just like affordable housing developers, the school impact fees. That is not waved for affordable housing developments.

- We pay all of the fees of the Department of City Planning just like any other developer.

- I would seem reasonable, since you are willing to give density bonuses for affordable housing developments, that you would give this kind of bonuses if you will as well.

- I think Commissioner Alexander hit it right on the head. This is what you can do to facilitate affordable housing developments. I think you should.

ACTION: This is a discussion item only and does not require Commission action.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

9. Director's Announcements (Tape IA)

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Director Macris is not here because he is at a Transbay presentation with the Mayor. He sent his apologies and he will be here later, I believe.

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

(Tape IA; IB)

AnMarie Rodgers

Land Use Committee

A.- 225-227 Front Street: Planning Code Amendment to Article 11. It was passed on to the Full Board.

B.- Eastern Neighborhood Hearing Presentation: Responding to Supervisor Maxwell's request. Presentation was given by the Planning Department and the Mayor's Office of Housing. It was a condensed version of the presentation you heard on August 30 and September 6 consisting of an overview on the proposed zoning, public benefits, and affordable housing.

Full Board

A- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries Permit Ordinance: This item would amend the Health and Planning Codes to extend the timeline for MCD to obtain their final permits. It also contains new provisions for disability access. Passed on first reading +8 -2.

B- 3424 Jackson Street: Appeal of the Environmental Review Exemption. This is categorical exemption for a single family house in Presidion Heights. The Department conducted a full Historic Resource Evaluation and determined that the house is a historic resource under CEQA. The proposed project consists of a horizontal addition at the roof and rear that met the Secretary of Interior's Standards for treatment of Historic Properties. Neighbors appealed the Cat. Ex. on issues relating to the rear of the property. This item was not heard and continued to October 2.

C- 601 Duboce Street: This project is a 50,000 square foot, four story, urban infill medical office building on Noe and Duboce Streets. The Negative Declaration and the Conditional Use were appealed to the Board. The Board found that the proposed project was improperly segmented from some of the analysis for CPMC's larger 5-campus master planning efforts which is also currently on the way. Therefore, the Board required this Medical Office Business be analyzed within a full EIR. This decision removed the Conditional Use appeal from the calendar.

D- Appeal of 55 Laguna –UC Berkeley Extension Landmark: They found that the entire site would not be landmarked but they did landmark three of the buildings on the side.

Introductions

A- Interim Zoning Controls requiring Conditional Use Authorization for all uses in the Eastern Neighborhoods for 18 months was introduced by Supervisor Ammiano. Supervisor Ammiano prefaced his introduction by stating his disappointment with this Commission's August 30 vote on potential springing conditions. The proposed interim controls would require submission of as many as 7 new reports with the conditional use application including reports on (1) how new housing may help to meet the targets identified in the general plan (2) the impact to Recreation and Park facilities (3) the impact on transit routes (4) the impact to neighborhoods serving retail (5) the impact to PDR (6) the impact to the art spaces (7) the impact of the proposed projects to historic resources.

B- Amending Section 303 to require a Conditional Use Permit for any new construction that would shade a solar energy system, as defined by and registered, and new solar energy systems.

C- The Department of Building Inspection also introduced several ordinances which would repeal existing codes including Building Code, Housing Code, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes and replace them entirely with the new 2007 San Francisco Specific Codes for these municipal codes. This would be a combination of both the new State Codes and the 2006 International Codes.

Larry Badiner, Zoning Administrator

Board of Appeals

A- 2130 Leavenworth Street: This was a residential building where one of the twelve units had been purchased by a consortium by sixteen people and was being used essentially as a time share. The neighbor downstairs was complaining about noise and we took enforcement action. Essentially it was being used as a hotel.

The Board of Appeals did not buy my argument that this was essentially a hotel because it was not a retail use that involves the exchange of money. It really pointed out that our classification between group housing, residential, and hotels no longer totally conform with reality anymore.

I just want you to be aware of it so when it does come up.

B- 124-128 Fillmore Street was a case where I granted a variance for a garage and it seems like it is being used as or for tourist use. Project Sponsor assured us that they leased it over 32 days. It does turn into a residential use.

C- 67 Madrone Avenue: Discretionary Review for a third floor addition that had four Commission hearings. At the fourth hearing, the Commission reiterated their concerns of the third floor addition and asked for a 3 dimensional model and then the permit holder expressed that they would not and could not pay any more money and that they would prefer you to disapprove it. It was disapproved. The Board essentially overturned your discretionary review decision +5 -0.

D- 399 Freemont Street: It was appealed by one of the neighbors that got construction issues which we think that it was adequately address in the EIR. The Board voted +5 -0 to deny the appeal.

E- 1675 11th Avenue: This is a case that in March of 2005 we sent out a 311 notice that allowed for a 12-foot rear extension. No Discretionary Review was filed. Going to DBI, they said to the building designer that they needed a second means of egress. The designer decided to remove four feet from the rear to just put in a stairway and leaving the extension to 8-feet. Then working with DBI, the project sponsor determined a different way to provide that second means of egress and went back to a 12-foot extension. We felt it was adequate.

Neighbors recently discovered this and claimed many discrepancies in the plan. I was before the Board of Appeals last night and at the last minute it was continued. The project was red tagged for illegal demolition. I suspect that you are going to here about this some time in the future.

F- Quickly – 1039 Ocean Avenue: This is a rehearing request for it. It has been before the Board of Appeals as a formula retail and operating as a small fast food restaurant. They requested a rehearing to say that they changed the operation and are no longer in violation. Staff has being out there a couple of times. Nothing has really changed. They just need to comply with the Code. There was no new information and the Board of Appeals agreed.

G- 943 Church Street: This was an appeal of a stop work order. There have been some technical issues about request for jurisdiction and ultimately last night the Board of Appeals granted jurisdiction. The Board voted +2 -3 to overturn the Zoning Administrator's decision; in other words we prevail because they needed four votes to overturn.

H- 3029 22nd Street: This is a subdivision case that came soon after the inclusionary housing. Since then, we recognized that a subdivision of land which might create more units in the future and we should put people on notice that they could be subject to the inclusionary housing requirement.

I- 1536 Pacific Avenue: Discretionary Review. Most of the neighbors were happy with the modified project that was in an  L' shaped parcel with a little cottage behind. I was told that they asked for a significant amount of money for compensation. They are asking for $80,000 and The Board continued it to October 12 to allow both party and work out a settlement.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

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

SPEAKERS

Sue Hestor

- On Commission's decisions that are being overturned at The Board of Appeals, this issue has come up a lot because there is no briefing done.

- You should ask to be notified when these appeals are made.

- I was there for 601 Duboce and I was representing the neighbors who were there for the Conditional Use Appeal and they never got to us because they denied it on the grounds of the efficiency of the environmental document.

- At the beginning of your calendar, you continued a very important legislation that you are going to hear on the 4th [October]

- I urge the entire Commission to listen to the way that the Board of Supervisors were struggling to understand Ralph Davis and the context of CPMC [California Pacific Medical Center]. It was an extremely thoughtful discussion.

- When you consider the Institutional Master Plan Ordinance and the Legislation is designed to give you more information on health issues, you need to be thinking about this.

Peter Cohen, Regarding 601 Duboce

- This is CPMC Davis Campus Hospital's 50,000 square foot office building expansion into the heart of the Duboce Triangle residential neighborhood.

- I know that the Board action yesterday was on the Neg. Dec. Appeal but there is another very equally significant part of the story and that was the Conditional Use appeal field by the neighborhood.

- After that hearing on June 7th, the project sponsor changed nothing to address issues that the neighborhood had.

- We had one – one hour meeting that was hosted by the Planning Director in which at that time it was very clear that the sponsor had no interest in budging at all.

- We gathered 113 signatures of property owners and took to the Board of Appeals. We did not have a chance to meet with the sponsor and try to resolve issues in advance. About 48 hours before the hearing they expressed interest in negotiating a solution.

- A critical role is that the Planning Department's process should be proactive and a community driven process and not rely on the developer to work it out with the neighborhood.

Warren Thompson, President of the Sparkle Lights Neighborhood Association

- We are representing the western portion of the 800 block in the Richmond District focusing on 27th to 30th Avenues.

- We were prompted to form by PHD [Proposed Historical District] on 29th Avenue.

- The houses in that area are built in a deep fall side and show forum of street settlement and we look forward to working with you.

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

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

SPEAKERS

Jonas

- The discretionary review for the project concerned a single issue. Does the project meet the requirements to exempt it from a mandatory discretionary review hearing?

- The Department of City Planning requested an appraisal for the property and two were provided, both meeting the criteria.

- The appraisal was forwarded to the Department of Real Estate for review and found to be valid.

- As a result, the Department of City Planning recommended approval for the project. It is supported by neighbors on Cole Street.

- The project meets all the requirements for DR exemption. It is completely compliant with the Planning Codes and has the support of the Department and neighbors.

Calvin Welsh -- Land Use and Housing Chair of the Council Community Housing Organization – Appellant.

- We bring this matter before the Commission for a simple fact that it would set precedence in our neighborhood.

- It is difficult for me to understand how a project could be fully compliant with the Planning Code when its face violates the Housing Element, both 2004 and 1990.

- Objective 3 of Policy 1 of the 1999 Housing Element, which is exactly the same as the 2004, is to discourage the demolition of sound existing housing.

- This building was determined by your staff to be sound and on its face a demolition violates the General Plan.

- If a building can be demolished if it is worth more than a $1 million dollars, what does the policy in the Housing Element to discourage the demolition of sound existing housing mean?

- This Commission should take action to discourage the demolition of sound existing housing.

F. CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

11. 2006.0965DD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

1552 COLE STREET - at the dead end of Cole Street, south of Carmel Street; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 2662 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.07.4038, proposing a new third floor, side and rear horizontal additions and facade alterations to the existing two-story, single-family residence in an RH-1(D) (Residential House, Single-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of September 6, 2007)

NOTE: On July 26, 2007, following public testimony, the Commission entertained a motion to not take Discretionary Review and approve by a vote of +2 -3 with Commission S. Lee, Moore and Olague voting against. Motion Failed. Commissioner Sugaya was excused. Commissioner Alexander was absent. The Commission continued the matter to September 6, 2007 to allow the absent Commissioner to participate in the final action.

MOTION: To take DR and disapprove:

AYES: Olague, S. Lee, Moore

NAYES: Alexander, Antonini, W. Lee

EXCUSED: Sugaya

Motion failed

ACTION: In the absence of a successful substitute motion, item is approved as proposed.

G. CONSENT CALENDAR

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

12. 2007.0685C (Tape IB) (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

3251 20TH Avenue - west side of 20th Avenue between Winston and Buckingham Drives; Lot 021 in Assessor's Block 7295 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Section 218.1, to allow a massage establishment (DBA The Art of Reflexology) within an existing tenant space at Stonestown Galleria, located in a C-2 (Community Business) District and 65-D Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

MOTION: 17483

Item 13 was taken off consent

13. 2007.0633C (Tape IB) (E. Watty: (415) 558-6620)

2323-2329 Irving Street - south side of Irving Street between 24th and 25th Avenues; Lot 040 in Assessor's Block 1779 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization, pursuant to Planning Code Sections 711.26 and 790.140, to allow a walk-up facility (ATM) that is not recessed three-feet to be located on the façade of the existing Financial Service establishment (DBA Washington Mutual Bank) within the NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District and 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS

Tracy Woods, Project Sponsor

- We are looking to add an ATM [Automated Teller Machine] to the façade of this building.

- Due to existing requirements that are in he current Code, we cannot put it adjacent to the existing ATM that complies with current ordinances.

- We are choosing a location just adjacent to where the existing ATM is but taking out our bank depository function and put it in the ATM at that location.

- Immediately adjacent to that there is a recess of over 3 feet from the property line to reduce the impact of pedestrian traffic by cutting it in half and adding more services.

MOTION: To disapprove

AYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

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

Motion failed

ACTION: Approved

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

NAYES: Olague, Moore and Sugaya

MOTION: 17484

H. REGULAR CALENDAR

14. 2007.0600L (Tape IIA: IIB) (S. Middlebrook (415) 558-6372)

1601 Larkin Street - southwest corner of Larkin and Clay Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0620 - Proposed designation of the existing church building as local San Francisco Landmark, pursuant to Planning Code Section 1004.1. The subject property is located in an RM-3 (Residential, Mixed-Use, Medium) District and a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Recommend that the Board of Supervisors Designates the Landmark

SPEAKERS on consideration of the continuance

Joe Yoto, Project Sponsor Representative

- I submitted a letter sending forth the reasons for requesting continuance on this matter.

- This is a proposed land marking of the Methodist Church at Clay and Larking Street and it is in litigation; requested to be continued indefinitely.

SPEAKERS

Michael Schoolnick

- I would like to give you a glance of Kramer's work in New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles and other places. A lot of them are registered as landmarks.

- [Submitted 3 letters of recommendation.]

Courtney Damkroger, Member of the Landmark Advisory Board

- I am here to convey our unanimous support for the designation of the church in your recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

- We believe that it merits designation based on the report submitted by Michael Corbette and it is significant for the architect Kramer.

Joe Butler

- Representing neighbors seeking the designation of the church as a landmark.

- The surrounding communities have benefited from the elegance of churches in their midst.

- The church is a landmark itself. Let us just acknowledge it legally and forward this to the Board of Supervisors for adoption.

Linda Chapman

- I want to direct your attention to an alternative mentioned by staff in the EIR [Environment Impact Report] and suggest that you follow that suggestion.

- That was keeping the existing church, putting common areas and some housing units within the church, and building on the lot next door.

- If staff works with the church on the proposal for senior housing, it would greatly reduce the parking requirements and would allow for more units within the building envelope.

Dawn Trennert

- Support this church as a landmark and review it as a neighborhood treasure. It is a welcome relieve in a very densely populated neighborhood.

Wylie Adams

- Read a letter from San Francisco Architectural Heritage Organization supporting the designation of the church as a San Francisco Landmark.

Rowena Jen

- Submitted 9 copies of petitions from neighbors supporting landmark of the church.

- Landmark this church because there is something special right there.

Patricia Somino

- I support the designation of this building as a landmark.

- It is vital to preserve neighborhood character and special structures like this church contributes a lot to that character.

Elizabeth R. Gordon

- Landmark of the church building will only perpetuate and exacerbate an already unobtainable state of affairs from our perspective.

- We have seen our property values and the quality of lives of the occupants in our buildings significant compromised.

- There have been loitering, in-campmate and trespassing of homeless at that church. There are a lot of unsafe activities.

- Do not support the landmark designation for this church.

Tara Zanecki

- I know this church has been around for 96 years and it looks like it has not been taken care of for the last 50.

- I do believe in preservation, but the landmark decision would be jeopardizing the current safety as well as the future potential of my neighborhood.

- I hope you vote against this.

Gordon Eagan

- We acquired this building from the congregation in 2003 and Karen Oliveto was the last pastor at that church.

- She described a building that cannot be operated as a church today because it is an un-reinforced wood frame and the foundation is concrete.

- Building a condominium inside of it will not work. Landmark of this building would make it sit there empty.

Shawn

- Just take a good look and examine the process. The process is what makes us navigate through the legal process.

- This body is an extension of that legal system and by the end we have to agree or disagree but the one thing we always have to honor is to obey that legal system.

- This matter is in front of a judge and the judge will have the final say.

Joel Yodowitz

- I would like to point out to you irregularities from the staff's report: It does not report the lawsuit, 45 letters and signatures on a petition from neighbors supporting this project are not included, a historic architectural report by Patrick McGrew conflicts almost with 100% with the historic report from the Landmark Board.

- Mr. Corbette's report mentioned that he was never inside of it. This report should be done by an independent architectural historian.

Richard Hart

- There are two parts of this item: landmark and new building.

- Let us concentrate on the new building because the landmark is going to be before a judge and nobody knows what the judge is going to decide.

- Let us work together - neighbors, project sponsor and this Commission - to build there because the way it is right now is unsafe.

Silvia Johnson

- He is right and we should all work together because this is part of our lives.

John O'connel

- The landmark designation is going to be up to the judge and let us just wait for the ruling on that.

- The report from the structural engineer says that the foundation is un-reinforced and it is in poor condition.

- I suggest that we continue this item and the neighbors and the church can work together on this project.

ACTION: Approved recommending landmark designation to the Board of Supervisors.

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

MOTION: 17486

15. 2006.0107C (Tape IIIA) (S. Middlebrook (415) 558-6372)

300-314 Randolph Street - North side of Randolph Street, between Victoria and Ramsell Streets; Assessor's Block 7088, Lots 051 and 056 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization (pursuant to Planning Code Sections 710.11 and 121.1) for the demolition of the existing commercial structure on Lot 056 and the construction of three new mixed-use buildings, each with six residential units over ground floor commercial space, for a total of 18 new residential units over commercial space at ground level. The subject property is located within an NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial, one-story commercial units) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District within the Ocean View Neighborhood.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

SPEAKERS

Jerry - Reuben and Junius – Representing the Project Sponsor

- There were members of the Action Group that had to leave to attend a meeting with the Mayor back in the neighborhood. I have a letter written by Mr. Weaver.

- The architect and I are here to response to any questions you may have and I just would like to highlight only a few features.

- This photograph was taken above the vacant lot. We are happy to replace that with six buildings of 3 – 3 bedroom units each with above ground retail and with on site BMR [Below Market Rate].

- Usable open space is normally 36 square feet and we are doing 60 for all the 18 units in the form of a balcony.

- [Read written support for this project from Mr. Weaver from Members and Action Group.]

ACTION: Approved with the further condition that project sponsor continue working with staff on the design, particularly on balcony treatment and windows expression for a more residential appearance.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

MOTION: 17487

16a. 2007.0068DV (Tape IIIA) (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

20 PERALTA AVENUE, north side, between Holladay Avenue and Hampshire Street; Lot 003D in Assessor's Block 5512, Requested Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2007.01.18.1958 proposing to construct a new third level addition with a fire escape in the rear to an existing single-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House – Two-Family) District and the Bernal Heights Special Use District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation. Variance requests for rear yard and parking are to be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do Not Take Discretionary Review and Approve Project as Proposed.

SPEAKERS

Shawn Patricks, Project Sponsor

- Since the requestor is not here, I would hold my arguments to save time and I am available for any questions.

Bill Meyers, Project Architect

- I am available to answer any questions.

ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved.

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

ABSENT: Moore

16b. 2007.0068DV (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

20 PERALTA AVENUE, north side, between Holladay Avenue and Hampshire Street; Lot 003D in Assessor's Block 5512, Variance request to be considered by the Zoning Administrator for rear yard and parking, for the project proposing to construct a new third level addition with a fire escape in the rear to an existing single-family dwelling in a RH-2 (Residential, House – Two-Family) District and the Bernal Heights Special Use District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed on item 16a

ACTION: Acting Zoning Administrator Washington closed public hearing and took the matter under advisement.

Item 17 was take out of order and followed #14

17. 2007.0294D (Tape IIB; IIIA) (A. STARR: (415) 558-6362)

607 HAIGHT STREET - south side between Pierce and Steiner Streets; Lot 035 in Assessor's Block 0861 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of medical cannabis dispensaries, of Building Permit Application 2007.03.08.5811, proposing to establish a medical cannabis dispensary (dba The Vapor Room). The proposal is to relocate the medical cannabis dispensary from 609A Haight Street where it has been operating without authorization in a residential zoning district. The proposed location is located within an NC-2 (Small Scale, Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS

Leslie Young, Project Architect

- This project belongs in the Lower Height. It is appropriate and we have done everything we can to help your department and the other departments involved in the MDC [Medical Cannabis Dispensaries] process.

- The current location is three steps down from the side walk level in the front making it difficult because there is currently a ramp that works okay but is not up to the current code.

- We looked very closely at putting in a platform lift on the front knowing that the historical people would not like that and there is no clearance to get something like that to work.

Eddie Mis

- They are working 10 hours per day and they are creating a lot of disturbances with noise, the smell, parking and a lot of people on the stairs in front of my house.

- Please support me and not allow this there.

Evan Mateo

- My wife was in labor and I was trying to get out of the garage and people would not move.

- My concern is that they create an environment that allows people to smoke on site and leave in a residential district. This is a 7-day a week operation during daytime hours when children are present.

- There are six other clubs within a two minutes drive and two allow consumption on site. If you approve them, please do not allow consumption on site.

Nicole Strand

- Being part of creating this MCD legislation has created a wonderful learning experience by watching the movements grow from the underground culture.

- We have addressed a lot of concerns with ventilation in our new plan.

Rich Cairns

- I was contacted by the management of the Vapor Room to assist in consulting with them regarding security plans for the new dispensary.

- After doing research on my own, I agreed to help and created a plan.

- They are here to help people and the plan includes working with the community at large.

Paula Kixses

- This neighborhood is an eclectic array of shops and is in a very distinctive district. The Vapor Room fits very well in there.

- They are very intelligent, dedicated, compassionate and responsible people.

Michelle Courtney

- Purchasing a vaporizer for home use is prohibited for a lot of people who live on social security and disability.

- By restricting use of vaporizing and encouraging smoking within the dispensary itself, it does not create a street scene where people are standing outside smoking. Potentially they are not differentiating tobacco from the medical cannabis.

April Funcke

- The staff at the Vapor Room helped me find the stream that I needed. They also provide free massage and group counseling.

- I hope you approve their permit because they are a very good addition to the neighborhood and I feel safe walking there.

Patrick Goggin, Counselor for the Vapor Room

- What we have here is an application of an existing MCD being treated as a new one.

- We have worked closely everyone and they are very good neighbors working with the community.

- Every issue that has been raised is already addressed in the application.

Stephanie Tucker

- For the last year and a half, I have been handling community outreach and organizing.

- We have hosted three open houses and tried to respond to any concerns they may have.

- I have participated in community events and neighborhood meetings and listened to every concern and have worked at addressing them.

Rev. John Nixon

- All the clubs that I know of are not involved in any drug activities, alcohol or violence. They all have security cameras.

- I am in support on keeping this club and all the others open. A lot of people need them.

Leonard Watkins

- For the past five years, I have been taking cannabis to the hospitals and a lot of patients have terminal diseases.

- Patients really depend on the Vapor Room and I'm requesting your support.

Brenda

- We are patients and this is our medicine.

- We are support to each other and need to remain in that location. Moving us from there is going to make us part.

Michael Murphy

- This location is very close and easy access for me; I need this medication.

- Marijuana has kept me alive for the last thirty years.

Sammy Shepperd

- The Vapor Room has been a sanctuary with everything they have there.

- I feel very safe there and they need to be there. I endorse them completely.

Williams

- I am a medical marijuana patient because of a chronic illness.

- The Vapor Room is very ideally located and all of the staff members enforce the rules and regulations to everyone. There is no preferential treatment.

- There would be a disadvantage to not having a place to medicate ourselves.

Thea Selby

- I am here to oppose the legislation. I believe it was poorly put in place.

- There are 7 pot clubs within a 2 minute drive from John Muir School, which is a school of at risk kids.

- I do not believe that the Lower Height should be the only place in San Francisco that all the pot clubs should be located.

Sheryl

- I have been diagnosed with several disabling illnesses and I would not be here if I was not on medical marijuana.

- The Vapor Room has responded to the need of our community by distributing compassionate medicine to low income patients regardless of the ability to pay.

- It has been very therapeutic for me to medicate among other patients and be able to avoid the isolation of my illnesses.

Laura

- I would request that you take discretionary review to extend the period of time for them to work with the other tenants of the house to get in an agreement.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and Approved with conditions to provide sound proofing; and that the project sponsor stress not driving after medicating.

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

ABSENT: S. Lee

Item 18 was taken out of order followed #21

18. 2007.0517T (Tape IIIB) (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: (415) 558-6257)

OFF-SHELF LIQUOR: GROCERY STORES - Amendments relating to Planning Code Sections 790.55, 249.5, 781.8, 781.9, and 783 [Board File No. 07-0617]. Ordinance introduced by Supervisor Alioto-Pier amending Planning Code Sections 790.55, 249.5, 781.8, 781.9, and 783 to remove grocery stores and other similar uses from prohibitions placed on the establishment of liquor stores in certain districts; and making environmental findings and findings of consistence with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 9, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Jeffrey

- I am here representing Cost Plus Market and would like to express its support for this proposed ordinance.

- The existing prohibition against liquor stores in certain districts limits the areas of where Cost Plus could open a potential store.

- Nuisance and negative impacts associated with liquor stores does not occur with stores like Cost Plus.

- We encourage this Commission to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors.

Silvia Johnson

- It takes me time to do all of this on paper because we want more housing available.

- I already explained what should be done with liquor as far as drinking too much.

MOTION: To approve

AYES: Antonini, W. Lee and Sugaya

NAYES: Alexander, Olague and Moore

ABSENT: S. Lee

Motion Failed

MOTION: To approve with recommendations

AYES: Antonini, S. Lee and W. Lee

NAYES: Alexander, Olague, Moore and Sugaya

Motion Failed

ACTION: A Resolution for disapproval will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors

RESOLUTION: 17488

Item 19 was taken out of order followed #13

19. 2007.0515T (Tape IB; IIA) (A. RODGERS: (415) 558-6395)

FRINGE FINANCIAL: BOARD FILE 070671 - Forwarding a proposed ordinance with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 249.5, 781.8, 781.9, 782, and 783 and adding Section 249.35 to the San Francisco Planning Code to create a noncontiguous Fringe Financial Service Restricted Use District prohibiting new fringe financial services, as defined, with certain exceptions; amending San Francisco Planning Code Section 312 to require certain notice in Neighborhood Commercial Districts, amending San Francisco Planning Code Section 227 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Commercial District Zoning Control Table; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 702.4 and 710 through 730 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Neighborhood Commercial District Zoning Control Tables; adding Section 790.111 and 890.113 to the San Francisco Planning Code to define a Fringe Financial Service Use; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 790.110, 790.112, 890.110, and 890.112 to require that use applications for Financial Services and Limited Financial Services include a copy of any state-issued license; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 803.2, 810, 811, and 812 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Chinatown Zoning Control Tables; amending San Francisco Planning Code Sections 814 through 818 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to certain Zoning Control Tables in the South of Market area; amending San Francisco Planning Code Section 827 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential Mixed Use District Zoning Control Table; amending Sections 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, and 914 to add Fringe Financial Service Use to certain Mission Bay Zoning Control Tables; amending Sectional Maps Numbers 1SU, 2SU, 6SU, 7SU, 8SU, and 10SU of Zoning Map of the City and County of San Francisco to indicate the boundaries of the Fringe Financial Service Restricted Use District, and making findings, including environmental findings and findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan. to provide comments to the Planning Department, making environmental findings, and making findings of consistency with the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Continued from Regular Meeting of August 9, 2007)

SPEAKERS

David Agustin, Office of the Treasurer

- This program is collaboration from the Treasurer's Office, The Federal Reserved Bank of San Francisco, The Mayor's Office, The Non-profit Earn and 15 banks and credit unions in San Francisco.

- It basically aims to offer starter accounts to the estimated 50,000 un-bank users that currently reside in San Francisco.

- These starter accounts have lower or no monthly fees and they cannot be opened with a foreign counselor issued ID card.

- It cannot be opened by people who have bounced checks in the past and the accounts have no minimum monthly balance requirements.

- They also offer the opportunity for clients to participate in financial management training courses.

- These accounts allow San Franciscans to build assets and save for the future rather than spending money at check cashers and paying day money facilities.

- Again, we are 15 participating institutions representing over 100 branch locations in San Francisco.

- In addition many banks and credit unions offer short term lending programs on terms that are more favorable than products that are offered by the payday lending industry.

- We are proud of the work that we have accomplished to date and we have a lot more to do but the bottom line is that this is a vital alternative to fringe financial services.

SalvadorDuran, Senior Manager of Mission Area Federal Credit Union

- We are a community development credit union serving the Mission District. We have been providing the Mission's residents with affordable financial services since 1971.

- We have a youth program to encourage children and youth to start saving and learn how to manage their money.

- We are here to help and get people onto solid ground.

Jaime Trejo

- We are asking to help with asset development, which is composed of accumulation by helping people save and add preservation and protects individuals from predator lending.

- This is part of a larger strategy that we are asking this Commission to help us with. We are trying to prevent people from getting in a cycle of debt.

Dan Leibsohn, Executive Director of Community Development Finance

- We are planning to start a non-profit check cashing company with four main components: lower pricing, affordable alternative payday loans, financial coaching, and individual plans for each household.

- We are tying together the financial services and offering an avenue for people not in the financial mainstream.

Dairo Romero, Mission Economic Development Agency

- We are trying to find alternative products for our families in the Mission. We are also doing more financial literacy programs.

- I hope that our working families will be able to save some money and in the future buy one of the condominiums that you are approving here.

Richard Lake, California Check Cashing Stores

- We do help customers that are not being helped by the banks and I just want to share some facts.

- $4.2 billion dollars was paid in fees to payee lenders last year. The same number was paid for ATM fees. Bounced checks charges were $22 billion dollars last year and an estimated $10.3 billion in over draft fees.

- The problem is not the check cashers but really the lack of financial literacy because that is something that the education system is falling off on.

Kevin Stain, California Reinvestment Coalition

- The only reason that the check cashers and lenders are thriving is because the banks are not providing sufficient low cost services to people who need credit.

- The issue before you is a very modest and reasonable proposal on how to deal with a very significant problem of how people are being gauged.

- This ordinance is questioning if we really need more check cashers. It is not limiting access to credit or denying a choice.

Robert Fowler, North East Community of Federal Credit Unions

- [Share an experience of getting a payday loan and having to pay a lot of money and getting into more debt instead.]

- There are 14 Check Cashiers in the Tenderloin District and only two financial institutions that are credit unions and you have to be a member.

- Something needs to be done and there needs to be more regulations.

Daniel Lopez

- The average interest for an internet loan is 1,000%

- I work with the community and they tell me how they get payday loans and the experience to pay more money because the lenders deposit the checks earlier than agreed and they have to pay more fees.

ACTION: Approved with additional recommendations from staff and a further recommendation that the Board should consider applying this city wide.

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

RESOLUTION: 17485

Item 20 was taken out of order followed #18

20. 2007.0101U (Tape IIIB) (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)

45 LANSING STREET (BLOCK 3749, LOT 059) - Motion to Waive Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Impact Fees per Section 318.3(f) - The Planning Commission approved a project at 45 Lansing Street on March 15, 2007, that includes approximately 227 dwelling units. Planning Code Section 318.3(b)(i) requires payment of $11.00 per net occupiable square foot of residential development for the Rincon Hill Community Infrastructure Fund prior to issuance of site permit. The project would require a payment of approximately $3,000,000. The project sponsor has entered into a Waiver Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and City Attorney, to secure the formation of a Community Facilities (Mello-Roos) District and to take all necessary steps to support the construction of a portion of the public improvements, equal to the value owed by the sponsor, and described in Planning Code Section 318.6 and in the Rincon Hill Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Although previously on calendar September 6, 2007 and continued to October 11, 2007, this item has been re-advertised to be heard and considered on September 20, 2007)

SPEAKERS

Tuai Catalano, Reuben and Junius – Project Sponsor Representative

- We are very excited to be here today; the project sponsor is very close to pulling the site permit on this project and the waiver agreement is one of the last pieces that needs to be in place before we can do that.

- The construction on this project is going to start very soon.

- We are available for any questions that you may have.

Silvia Johnson

- I just want to see if I know the persons for a lot of these projects.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: W. Lee

MOTION: 17489

5:00 p.m.

Item 21 was taken out of order followed #16

21. 2005.0159E (Tape IIIA; IIIB) (D. Sokolove: (415) 575-9046)

Water System Improvement Program - Hearing to Receive Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is sponsoring a proposed program, which consists of a series of facility improvement projects and a water supply strategy that, together, implement the SFPUC's service goals and system performance objectives for the regional water system in the areas of water quality, seismic reliability, delivery reliability, and water supply through the year 2030. The proposed program runs through several California counties, including Tuolumne, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. Additional hearings will be held throughout the proposed program area.

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

Note: Written comments will be received at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on October 1, 2007.

SPEAKERS

John Barbey

- My concern is that I have not seen the documentation. This was not tremendously well noticed.

- I understand that there was a small notice in the Examiner, which is nearly impossible to obtain in its paper form.

- I hope you are safe guarding the water supply to San Francisco for increasing housing in the City. We are a very vulnerable big city.

Steven Miller

- The PEIR should more clearly emphasize the critical importance of completing the WSIP to protect the public health and safety of the 2.5 million people that live in the Bay Area.

- There is a greater than 60 percent chance of a major earthquake before the year 2032 and following it the flow of water to communities could be disrupted for 30-60 days.

- The WSIP is necessary to protect the people in this area for the catastrophic consequences of the water system failure.

Guynn Mackellen

- The Sierra Club members were here earlier and left all their public comments and others have sent cards indicating their support for water conservation and recycling.

- There are a total of 800 comments and clearly many people are not pleased with the current plan to allow more water-heavy landscaping at the expense of our wild life and national treasures.

Tony Gantner, District 3 Democratic Club

- Our club is deeply concerned about any action taken by the PUC that would allow more water to be diverted form the Tuolumne River.

- It is our understanding that the draft EIR does not properly identify and address the impacts of taking more water from the river and that such diversion will be for customers outside of San Francisco.

Cindy Charles, Conservation Chair for the Golden West Women

- The plan as it stands increases the water diversion to extremely high levels.

- This water system is already compromised and to further divert more water is just unthinkable.

Tomer Hasson

- I support the seismic upgrade in most of the water system improvement plans.

- I do take issue with the water diversion. 60 percent of it is already diverted for urban and world use and you are treating an additional 25 million gallons a day from the river going for outdoor use.

- The demands of growth can be met by conservation, efficiency buildings, and recycling measures. These measures could eliminate the need to divert more water from the river by 74 percent.

- Revisit the draft EIR and the concept of global warming.

Eric Wesselman

- The San Francisco Public Utility Commission is proposing to take an additional 25 million gallons of water out of this river each and every day. That is not even for San Francisco and over half of the river is already diverted.

- The draft is based on fundamental flood analysis that does not look at the relationship between the prices of water moving in the future and the demand for it. This needs to be re-evaluated.

Jennifer Clary, Water Policy Analyst for Clean Water Action

- We have been tracking this program for more than five years and we support the bound to rebuild the system. It is vital that we have a reliable water supply.

- We have various concerns about the adequacy of the document and we will submit an extensive written comment and hope you get a chance to look at it.

Jenna Olsen

- This document is inadequate for all the reasons you have heard tonight. It did not even consider an option that would not have to taken more water out of the river.

- San Francisco should be a leader and show the way in water use efficiency, conservation and environmental restoration and sustainability.

- More people would have been interested in this if it had been better noticed.

John Rizzo, Former Chair of Sierra Club California

- We are opposing the 25 million gallons per day of additional water grab from the river and we will be submitting comments in conjunction with the other environmental groups as one package.

- Additional review is necessary to bring the growth numbers up to 20-30 and also to review the impact of ABAG projects.

- It cannot be concluded that the draft EIR done for the General Plan adequately covers the growth allowed by the increased water supply.

Joan Girardot, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhood

- Because an EIR is an informational tool for decision makers, besides being accurate, adequate and complete; it should be clear.

- A historic table should be included in the document. The growth outside of the City should be clarified in the document that it is going to the suburban areas. The outdoor water usage in the City is from our Rec. & Park Department.

- It would be very helpful to have a table in the document that lists the capital usage per day of all the 28 customers in comparison with the citizens of San Francisco.

- I want clarification of the usage by the residents of San Francisco because we are doing our job and also about clarification about water recycling.

Bernie Choden

- We have adequate water supply and infrastructure.

- Until there is mitigation regarding conservation measures and a change in the City's political policy to accommodate the 200,000 proposed growth and commercial expansion, this Commission and staff needs to be directed to mitigate its issuance of permits that allows further growth.

Ann Clark

- Submitted written comments and that are going to address three main issues: Water delivery cost and finance; contracts to be looked in an environmental and sustainable way; and global warming to be very carefully studied.

Shawna

- It seems that we do not have a necessary understanding of how to preserve our water supply and that is one of the most sacred things that the City's duty is to do.

- There is a great deal of public concern and we need to think far into the future before we take action.

Emeric Kalman

- Yesterday, the San Francisco Landmark's Preservation Advisory Board had on the agenda an announcement about this item for today's hearing.

- That announcement says that the written comments are due on October 16 and the announcement in the Examiner gives only 10 days to study this long document. The public needs more time to do that.

Silvia Johnson

- We do not have to worry about the water on the mountains. I have written comments.

- We need more time to read this and this needs to be reviewed.

Gimbo

- My concern would be that improvement does not usually mean taking something away but that it is something that you want to preserve.

- I do not see how taking water out of a river is going to improve a water system program.

Denise Dore

- I think we need to restructure our water usage as well as our energy usage.

- Resources are becoming less as the population grows.

- I am against this. We do not have to take water out of the river and we can look for alternatives.

ACTION: Hearing held to receive public comments. No action is required of this Commission.

7:00 p.m.

22. (Tape IIIB; IVA) (S. Dennis (415) 558-6413/ S. Shotland (415) 558-6308)

THE VISITATION VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN (The Plan) - Informational presentation on the Plan. The Planning Department has been working with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on a plan for redevelopment and reuse of the Schlage Lock property located in the City's Visitacion Valley neighborhood in the southeast quadrant of San Francisco. The informational presentation will present an overview on the following topics: 1) Project history, Planning Department involvement and the planning process 1999-present; 2) Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Project; 3) Draft Development Controls and Design Guidelines report; and 4) Process for adopting the Redevelopment Plan and related actions. Staff will also present a tentative schedule for future Commission hearings and actions. At the informational presentation, staff will recommend a schedule for public hearings at which hearings the Commission will consider a) Certifying the EIR and making CEQA findings; b) initiation and adoption of conforming amendments to the General Plan; c) initiation and adoption of a Planning Code amendment; d) a General Plan Referral on the Redevelopment Plan and Development Controls and Design Guidelines document.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action requested – informational hearing.

SPEAKERS

Tom Evans, Planner with The Redevelopment Agency

- After the concept plan was put together in 2002, the community was trying to negotiate with the property's owner facilities to work on redevelopment but they were not moving forward aggressively.

- Supervisor Maxwell's Office was contacted to look into whether the Redevelopment Agency could come in and help with that issue - something that is not usually what the community comes in to ask for.

- As we are pursuing and watching the negotiations between the land owners, we are hoping that the stiff arm of the Redevelopment Agency will not have to be used on this site.

- We think that there are important tools that can help the community benefit along with the development.

Jonathan

- I just want to reiterate our interest in seeing this plan move through and have an expeditious review of the CEQA and Planning level.

- We will have a considerable clean up at this site and we look forward to presenting a plan.

Silvia Johnson

- I have been looking forward to the mapping for the planning zone and trying to work on the redevelopment myself.

- I think it is okay for right now and invite you to stay on schedule.

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

I. PUBLIC COMMENT (Tape IVA)

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))

SPEAKERS

Joan Girardot

- Over the years you have permitted thousands of units of housing and thousands are in the permitting and construction stage.

- I have not heard any question asked here of where we are going to get the water for all these new developments.

- It is interesting because other cities have an ordinance for you to permit developments you would have to have a certification from the Utility Commission that you have enough water to provide for the developments.

- I thought that this table showing the historic water consumption might be of interest to you.

- The City believes that it can accommodate for all developments that are permitted to get water from recycling conservation, ground water, and the Plumbing Code.

- Basically, the big question on the table that the City is negotiating now is the master water sales contract with the suburban because they want 25 million gallons more per day.

- The City does not have a responsibility to agree to sell more water and everybody in the City ought to be thinking if it is reasonable to expect recycled water to accommodate all the growth and development in the City, or should we not be looking to save more water?

Adjournment: 9:24 P.M.

THESE MINUTES WERE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, November 15, 2007.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Moore

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 www.sfgov.org. 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 10:00:30 PM