June 05, 2003

SAN FRANCISCO
PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Thursday, June 5, 2003
1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Shelley Bradford Bell, Edgar E. Boyd, Michael J. Antonini; Lisa Feldstein, Sue Lee, William L. Lee

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Kevin Hughes

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT BRADFORD BELL AT 1:40 p.m.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Gerald Green - Director; Larry Badiner -Zoning Administrator; Judy Boyajian, Deputy City Attorney; John Paul Samaha; Costolino Hogan; Diane Lim, Yvonne Ko, Jamilla Vollman; Paul Lord; Teresa Ojeda; Daniel Sider; Tina Tam; Ben Fu; Nora Priego - Transcription Secretary; Linda Avery - Commission Secretary

A. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE

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

1. 2003.0339C (K. AMDUR: (415) 558-6351)

625 LARKIN STREET - southwest corner at Willow Street (between Eddy and Ellis Streets); Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 0740 - Request for conditional use authorization to modify the conditions of approval of Case No. 85.22EC as set forth in Motion No. 10328, which authorized the construction of a new 5-story building containing up to 8 dwelling units, approximately 6,000 square feet of commercial space and 11 parking spaces. The proposal is to convert a portion of the 2nd floor of the building, which currently contains office space, to three dwelling units. The building would subsequently contain a total of 11 dwelling units. Approximately 2000 square feet of office space would remain on the 2nd floor. The subject property is located in an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined: High Density) Zoning District, the North of Market Residential Special Use District #1 and an 80-T Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 15, 2003)

(Proposed for Continuance to July 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 10, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Hughes

2. 2003.0165D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

3976 - 25^TH STREET - north side of 25th Street, between Sanchez & Vicksburg, Lot 019, Assessor's Block 6536 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2002.11.07.0995, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also includes the construction of a new two-family dwelling) in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Proposed for Continuance to July 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 10, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Hughes

3a. 2002.1220CV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

999 GEARY STREET (990 POLK STREET) - southeast corner at Polk Street, Lots 006 and 007 in Assessor's Block 0716 - Request for conditional use authorization to (1) construct a 12-story, 106-foot-high building containing up to 143 dwelling units for low-income senior citizens and (2) reduce the number of required residential parking spaces within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District. The project is proposing to provide 15 off-street parking spaces where 29 spaces are required.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Proposed for Continuance to July 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 10, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Hughes

3b. 2002.1220CV (M. LI: (415) 558-6396)

999 GEARY STREET (990 POLK STREET - modification and usable open space and dwelling unit exposure variances sought. The proposed project is the construction of a 12-story, 106-foot-high building containing up to 143 dwelling units for low-income senior citizens within an NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and a 130-E Height and Bulk District. The rear yard modification and usable open space and dwelling unit exposure variances will be considered by the Zoning Administrator.

(Proposed for Continuance to July 10, 2003)

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to July 10, 2003

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Hughes

4. 2003.0445D (J. TULLY: (415) 558-6372)

2821 STEINER STREET - west side between Green and Vallejo Streets; Lot 007 in Assessor's Block 0559 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2002.12.20.3981 proposing to add a 177 sq. ft. addition to the rear first floor and a 21 sq. ft. addition to the rear second floor of this three-story, single-family residence in an RH-2, Two Family Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Discretionary Review Application Withdrawn

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. Consideration of Adoption - draft minutes of May 1, and 15, 2003.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Approved with Corrections:

Minutes of May 1, 2003:

- Page 8, Item 8: Correct Action should read: Approved as amended: 1) make antenna more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood by providing a screen around the equipment that will be textured to match the penthouse. 2) Abandonment should apply to both owner and project sponsor and should be unused or otherwise abandoned.

- Page 10, Speaker Andrew Nielsen stated measurement in diameters not in inches.

- Page 12, Item 13: Correct Action should read: Approved as amended: delete: ..."selling bagels and associated products."

Minutes of May 15, 2003:

- Item 21, Commissioner Sue Lee voted NAYE instead of AYE.

- Spelling of various speakers shall be corrected.

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

ABSENT: Boyd, Hughes

The following item was taken out of order. Followed item 11.

6. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

- This week he had a letter published in the Chronicle about good editorial in that paper. This letter was a personal one and did not reflect the Planning Commission as a whole.

- He did receive various letters on the Housing Element and will be responding to these letters with his comments.

Commissioner Feldstein:

- The Planning Commission receives an enormous amount of correspondence and she reads every single piece of correspondence she receives so she requested that correspondence be submitted to them early on.

- The Planning Commission has made various requests to staff and she would like to have a means of keeping track of these requests.

Commission Secretary:

- She responded to Commissioner Feldstein's requests as follows:

Re: Correspondence

- She has made it a policy that if the public gets correspondence to her eight days prior to the hearing, then the Commission will receive it a week in advance. If the public does not meet the deadline, then the Commission will receive it late as well.

Re: Action List

- She keeps an action list of all requests made by Commissioners. This list is distributed to the Director, Zoning Administrator and management staff so they can respond to those requests. She will make this document available to Commissioner Feldstein.

Commissioner W. Lee:

Re: Housing Element

- He believes that there is not enough information from the Redevelopment Agency and how they will rezone certain areas. This ties into the Transbay Terminal, Supervisor Peskin's proposal for Secondary Units, and the whole Eastern Neighborhood/South of Market areas.

- He would like overlays to show what is the impact of the new proposed housing element; another overlay regarding the Eastern plans south of Market and Bay View Hunters Point; and other overlays from the Mayor's Office of Housing, Redevelopment Agency and Transportation Authority.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

Re: Budget

- On June 11, 2003 the budget process begins. Unfortunately, he is unable at present to give any information about it to the Commission.

- He will give a presentation on June 12, 2003, and include what came out of the Budget Committee.

- This is the first chance for the department to speak on what the department has been asked to carry out and what the department cannot carry out.

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

BOS -

- There was no action taken on Planning matters at the Board of Supervisors during the last two weeks, as neither the full Board nor the Land Use Committee has met since the week of May 19, 2003.

Appeals to be heard or filed at the Board of Supervisors:

Tuesday, June 10, 2003:

Re: 2690 Harrison Street

- The Conditional Use Appeal of the 54-unit residential project at 2690 Harrison Street will be considered.

- June 10, 2003 is the final day that the Board can take action on the appeal of the Planning Commission made on March 20, 2003, which had a vote of +6-1 (Commissioner Feldstein voted No). The matter was heard before the Board of Supervisors on May 13, 2003, but then action was continued until this coming Tuesday when a member of the Board requested that a mediation session take lace between the appellants and the project sponsor. Planning staff is currently looking at the plans that were approved.

Re: J-10 Wharf Project

- Fish processing tenants of this pier have filed an appeal of the statutory exemptions from CEQA review for the emergency demolition that was issued on April 15, 2003.

Re: O'Shaugnessy Dam Negative Declaration Appeal

- The appeal has been filed by the group Restore Hetch Hetchy and the Sierra Club.

Board of Supervisors Hearing of June 17, 2003

Re: Secondary Units Environmental Exemption Appeal

- The Planning Department's environmental review exemption to the secondary unit legislation has been appealed by two groups: The Coalition to Protect our Neighborhoods and the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.

- Assuming that the Board upholds the Department's exemption on June 17, 2003, the Secondary Unit ordinance is to be considered by the Planning Commission on June 26, 2003 when the Commission will have the opportunity to make a recommendation to the Board on the merits of the ordinance.

Re: 1017 Ocean Avenue

- A Conditional Use appeal was filed by 20 percent of the surrounding property owners for this project to install three wireless antennas on this three story, multi-use structure as part of Verizon's wireless network. The site is located in an NC-2 District.

Board of Supervisors Hearing of June 24, 2003

Re: 40-50 Lansing Street

- This is a Conditional Use appeal of an 82-unit residential project filed by five members of the Board of Supervisors (Daly, Ammiano, Gonzales, Sandoval and Maxwell).

Re: 3725 Buchanan Street

- This is a Conditional Use appeal to authorize 8 antennas. The Planning Commission heard this item on May 1, 2003. About 20% of the surrounding property owners filed the appeal.

Board of Supervisor's Hearing of July 8, 2003:

Re: 948-950 Lombard Street

- This is an appeal of the Planning Department's Categorical Exemption from environmental reviews. This Willis Polk Historic house is to be moved by 10' on the lot with a rear yard addition. It has received eight Discretionary Review requests from surrounding neighbors.

BOA:

Re: 2651 Lombard Street - Billboard

- This case was not before the Commission, but it is an interesting case.

- There was a billboard on the site owned by a major billboard company. The company decided to remove the billboard after not being able to come to an agreement with the owner on the current rent.

- The property owner wanted to put a billboard. Proposition G forbids new billboards.

- The Zoning Administrator ruled that a mere replacement was not a new billboard.

- The question was: "who has the right to own the billboard?"

- The billboard companies thought that they owned the billboard since they own the structure that the billboard goes on. The owner thought that they had the right to own the billboard because land uses run with the land and not with the ownership.

- The Zoning Administrator was upheld +4-1.

- The Zoning Administrator felt that the use ran with the property and that the property owner has the right.

Patricia Vaughey

RE: Zoning Administrator's report:

- Many of the billboard companies do not want to pay $400.00 a month, they can only pay $200.00 a month.

- The question is "who owns the billboards?" She believes that the Conditional Use goes with the life of the property not who the tenant is.

D. REGULAR CALENDAR

9a. (G. GREEN/C. HOGAN: (415) 558-6411/558-6610)

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 3.5 TO INCREASE FEES RELATED TO PERMIT AND OTHER REVIEWS.

Consideration of approval of proposed amendments to increase fees intended and designed to allow the Planning Department to generate the revenue necessary to cover the cost of carrying out the Planning Department's mission.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the draft resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed ordinance be adopted as presented.

SPEAKER(S):

(-) Patricia Vaughey

- There are no enforcement fees.

- The biggest problem in the Planning Department is that there is a lack of enforcement.

- Senior Citizens own a lot of property in San Francisco but they cannot afford to pay Discretionary Review fees.

- Many of the neighborhood activists seem to be taking on the task of enforcement instead of the Planning Department.

(-) Tom McDonough

- He owns a solar energy company.

- There is need to use technology more.

- It is very expensive to do business in San Francisco.

- This should be more efficient and streamlined.

(-) Kirk Scott

- He is concerned with Discretionary Review fees and building permit fees.

- There are legal problems with establishing nexus fees and Discretionary Review fees.

- If the DR fees are increased, there will be less and less frivolous cases.

- What kinds of benefits accrue? Community benefits or individual benefits?

(+) Joe O'Donaghue

- Developers are not being impacted directly; it is the consumer.

- One of the things that the Commission should be taking into consideration is the incredible cost that the Board of Supervisors has imposed on the Commission without any cost benefit to the Commission or any cost reimbursement.

- The Board of Supervisors have become a defacto Planning Commission.

(-) Maria Souza

- She is concerned with the increase of Discretionary Review fees because many of the residents of the Richmond District have fixed incomes.

- She suggested that if a DR project prevails, they should be the ones to carry out the fees.

- If fees will be increased, this will create an incentive to approve those project and those issues.

(-) Marilyn Amini

- She is concerned about Discretionary Reviews.

- It is unfair for people who cannot afford to pay the increase in fees.

ACTION: Approved as Amended: The Ordinance Discretionary Review language was amended to state that the Department will charge $200 for the first two hours of staff time.

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

ABSENT: Hughes

RESOLUTION: 16591

9b. (G. GREEN/C. HOGAN: (415) 558-6411/558-6610)

ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 31, ARTICLE IV TO INCREASE FEES FOR SERVICES.

Consideration of approval of proposed amendments to increase fees intended and designed to allow the Planning Department to generate the revenue necessary to cover the cost of staff time needed to conduct environmental review of proposed development projects and all the costs of supporting said staff .

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the draft resolution recommending to the Board of Supervisors that the proposed ordinance be adopted as presented.

SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for item 9a.

ACTION: Approved as Amended: The amended ordinance language related to the refund of $230 fee paid for the Board of Supervisors appeal of Environmental Reviews (wherever it appears in the amendment of the Administrative Code).

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

ABSENT: Hughes

RESOLUTION: 16592

10. 2002.1093C (J. VOLLMANN (415) 558-6612)

1420 HAIGHT STREET - north side between Ashbury Street and Masonic Avenue; Lot 005 in Assessor's Block 1232 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization pursuant to Sections 719.40 and 719.21 of the Planning Code to allow expansion of the existing ground floor retail use, Shoe Biz, into the second floor space and mezzanine of the existing two-story building located in the Haight Street Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The proposal also includes remodeling the front facade, relocating a light well and raising a portion of the roof seven feet to incorporate clerestory windows.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Terry Lindal - Project Architect

- He is available for questions.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Hughes

MOTION: 16593

11. 2003.0281T (P. LORD: (415) 558-6311)

Consideration of an ordinance amending Planning Code Section 312 to require that a change in use to a retail coffee store, as defined in Planning Code Section 790.102(n), or to a pharmaceutical and personal toiletries use, as defined in Planning Code Section 790.102(c), or the addition of prescription drug service where none previously existed within 3 years of an application for an addition, be subject to the notification and review procedures of Section 312, and making a finding of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and the General Plan.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adopt the draft ordinance and the associated Planning Code text amendments.

SPEAKER(S):

(+) Marianne Love - Legislative Aid to Supervisor Gonzalez

- The supervisor has received numerous phone calls and letters stating that they had not received notification of this change.

- That is the only reason for this legislation.

(+) Name unclear

- They would just like to have more transparency with what is going on in their neighborhood.

- People just want to be notified.

(+) Joe O'Donaghue

- This is the perfect example of quantified fees.

- If the Board of Supervisors has requests similar to this one, fees should be provided to the Planning Department.

(+) Patricia Vaughey

- She supports this legislation.

- This legislation should include liquor licenses and bars.

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Hughes

RESOLUTION: 16594

3:30 P.M. 4:00 p.m.

12. 2000.465M (T. OJEDA (415) 558-6251)

HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN - Additional public hearing on the proposed update and amendments to the General Plan put forth in the Housing Element Final Draft for Public Review released February 10, 2003. Proposed revisions will update and amend the Residence Element adopted in 1990 and include an assessment of housing needs, new policies to increase housing production such as higher residential densities along appropriate transit corridors and downtown neighborhoods; encouragement of housing development in neighborhood commercial districts; reconsideration of residential parking requirements; and policies supporting construction of new family housing. The Housing Element Final Draft for Public Review incorporated modifications based on comments and other feedback received by the Planning Department on the first draft published in August 2002.

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

(First Public hearing held on May 1, 2003)

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Marilyn Amini

- She believes that this case should be continued because this item was advertised to be hard in the Board of Supervisor's Chambers.

- There are a lot of graduations today and people might not be able to come to the hearing.

Re: Merits of Case

George Williams - SPUR

- SPUR has been working with the Planning Department to approve policies that meet the needs of the City of San Francisco.

- SPUR supports the final draft of the Housing Element.

- SPUR requests that the Planning Commission approve the housing element and the rezoning efforts.

Susan Vaughn

- She is representing Transportation for a Livable City.

- She is in support of the Housing Element because there is a lot in this document that provide solutions to problems and issues facing the City.

Patricia Vaughey

- Before the Planning Commission passes this Housing Element it should be changed back to what it was.

- The affordable housing issue should be straightened out.

- It is important to look at what the City is doing and what the City is doing wrong and then start correcting and implementing.

Penelope Clark

- She lives on Russian Hill.

- Sites with heavy density and no parking already exist throughout the City.

- People have lives outside of what public transportation can provide.

- Providing parking more efficiently is a very important issue.

- If this is not looked at it will seriously damage the quality of life in San Francisco.

Pat Devlieg

- She lives in the Excelsior District. She uses public transportation a lot.

- The density in this district is increasing without having more developments.

- She feels that people are stuck in a "parking hell."

- For neighborhoods to restrict the amount of parking and construct developments without parking will be damaging to the City.

- There should be some accommodation for affordable housing but the proposal is too dense.

Ernestine Weiss

- She has been preaching about affordable housing for a long time.

- She suggests building housing along the transit corridors.

- She feels that this can be done.

- This City will be a ghost town if all this planning is not implemented soon.

Joe O'Donaghue

- If this Housing Element is implemented it will be a disaster.

- Where are the subsidies going to come out of?

- It is important to calculate formulas and not set projections on hopes and ideas.

Grace Kiely

- She feels that there are flaws in the Housing Element.

- No research has been done on where people that have left the City have moved.

- She believes that these people have purchased homes in other cities of the Bay Area.

- When people purchase homes it provides taxes and these taxes provide money for services.

- This document needs to be looked at more closely.

Richie Hart

- He is quite confused with this document because there is no consistency within the tables and charts.

- It seems as if San Francisco is "anti business."

- It is important to let private developers build affordable housing.

Shawn Gorman

- He lives in Potrero Hill and has been involved in housing issues for many years.

- It is important to change the policies as well as televising the hearings because it is a way to educate people.

- Three bedroom units can be built in this city. The problem is that most of the areas don't allow it.

Archie Occhipinki

- He has been involved in housing in San Francisco for many, many years.

- It is important to go back to density and not provide so much parking.

Redmond Lyons

- This policy and objective has failed for about 30 years.

- He would like to see more than what is in this document. He would like to have a system in place where a developer wants to build something; goes through the proper procedures and within 9 months they should be able to start construction.

Dave O'Keefe

- He is a small builder in San Francisco.

- It is pretty clear that the policies in the past that were implemented did not work, otherwise this item would not be before the Commission.

- Making only eight major changes to the old policies as the way to "fix what is broken here" is really a "pipe" dream.

Araceli Lara

- She works for Mission Agenda.

- She is concerned that the Commissioners should think about affordable housing and that this document should be implemented.

- It is urgent that affordable housing be implemented because there are a lot of people that live in difficult situations.

- It is important to include housing for families in this Housing Element.

Jan (did not state last name)

- She lives in a hotel in the Mission.

- She would like the Commission to support the Housing Element. She moved here from Hawaii and has been living in an SRO hotel.

- This Housing Element addresses the needs of family housing.

Miriam Munoz - St. Peter's Housing Committee

- She is a mother with four children.

- Landlords take advantage of low-income families.

- She lives in a place where there are cockroaches and rats.

- Tenants are afraid to complain because landlords have very good lawyers.

- Pass the Housing Element.

Libby Benedict

- She is a homeowner in San Francisco.

- She is speaking on behalf of the Francisco Heights Residents Association.

- The proposed document ignores parking and transit inadequacies and does harm to existing neighborhood character.

- Her organization was not invited to participate in the process of this document.

Barbara Austin

- She is a native San Franciscan.

- What concerns her is that neighborhoods were involved in discussing housing issues, but with this document many neighborhood associations were not involved.

- This document is going to affect a lot of people for a long time.

- She feels that there will be no rent control if secondary units are legalized.

- Perhaps legalizing secondary units would be allowed only in certain districts.

Greg Hylton

- This document is social engineering.

- He has no problem with low-income housing in San Francisco, but the Housing Element is not the solution.

- You are creating transit corridors that do not have any definition.

-This document will create opportunities for people to take advantage.

- Many jobs have been lost in San Francisco because many large companies have moved out and are not coming back.

Beatrice Laws

- She has lived in San Francisco since 1953.

- She was startled that this document was before the Planning Commission today since she only found out about it two days ago.

- She asks that the Commission direct the Department to give further notice so more people will be notified.

Rosalind Orcutt - Mission Agenda

- She lives in an SRO Hotel.

- If it weren't for Mission Agenda she would not be here.

- She has been able to receive assistance from them.

- There is no affordable housing in the Mission District and it is very much needed.

- She is happy to know that the Commission is looking at this document that will affect the City for the next 10 years or so, and hopes they will adopt it.

Julius Countryman - Mission Agenda

- He moved away from San Francisco many years ago but he has moved back.

- He is currently homeless. It is important to have affordable housing.

- Adopt the Housing Element.

Maria Sousa

- She grew up in San Francisco.

- She feels that this draft is not ready to be approved until certain amendments are done.

- It is not correct to work on a document internally and then present it to the public as if being complete.

- Having meetings with eight neighborhoods is not sufficient. The Department should meet with all neighborhoods.

Ron Miguel

- His neighborhood was never contacted to participate in the development of this document.

- If this document is passed the way it is, the Commission will have hearings until midnight.

Aurora Grajeda - Mission Agenda

- The Mission District is a very wonderful neighborhood.

- If the Commission does not do something about affordable housing, this will be damaging to the City.

- She understands that there is no perfect plan but this document has a lot of problems.

Kate White - Housing Coalition

- She is here to urge the Commission to support the Housing Element.

- It is important to have affordable housing for immigrants.

- There are a lot of items that the coalition supports like secondary units, etc.

- This is just a policy guideline document and she realizes that there is still a lot of work to get these items implemented.

Jay Bradshaw - Carpenter's Union

- The Carpenter's Union totally supports the Housing Element.

- The union supports anything that allows affordable housing.

- The union also supports subsidized housing.

David Lupo - Carpenter's Union

- He submitted a binder with a letter from the Executive Director of the Union and with various examples of projects that were constructed by cutting corners. Cutting corners could be dangerous to the people living there.

Herminia Espina - Sixth Street Agenda

- She lives in bedrooms with various families.

- She hopes that the Commission will support housing for seniors and affordable housing.

Porfiria Abago

- She would like the Commission to support affordable housing.

Timothy Tittle - Mission Agenda

- He lives in a place that is infested with cockroaches and rats.

- It is important to take seniors and affordable housing into consideration.

- Adopt the Housing Element.

David Lopez

- Affordable housing is really important in San Francisco.

- The problem is not out there on the streets. The problem is within the offices where decisions are made.

- He hopes that money hasn't dulled hearing or hardened harts.

- The Housing Element should be passed.

Meagan Sullivan

- She lives in the Richmond.

- She would like to oppose the Housing Element.

- She does not support increasing density in transit corridors.

- The final draft is not realistic in regards to parking and traffic.

Hiroshi Fukuda

- The Housing Element is a blueprint to converting San Francisco to a real City.

- He feels that San Francisco is a real City and it is a great place to live.

- Families have left San Francisco because there is no affordable housing.

- He believes that the new housing element will continue this pattern.

Mike DeCastro

- He lives in St. Mary's Park.

- He is here to oppose the provisions in the Housing Element.

- The Department has to go back to the drawing board.

- There are a lot of things in this document that will negatively affect the City.

Lois DeCastro

- She lives in St. Mary's Park.

- She opposes the provisions in the Housing Element.

- These provisions are bad for families and will negatively affect the City.

- There is no provision to increase single-family homes in San Francisco. Where are families supposed to go?

Joyce Calagos - San Francisco Organizing Project

- She lives in Crocker Amazon.

- She believes that density can work for a City.

- Affordable housing will allow more jobs because there are other needs.

- Density can be distributed throughout the City; it does not need to be in just one spot.

- She supports the Housing Element.

James Collins

- He lives in an SRO Hotel.

- He is working with the Mission Agenda.

- The Housing Element should be approved now.

Did not state name

- He supports the Housing Element.

- It is important to have affordable housing for families and seniors.

Rolando Carrasco

- He has been living in San Francisco for about 23 years but the rent is too high.

- He is 63 years old.

- It is important to build affordable housing because rents are very high.

Myriane Zamora - St. Peter's Housing Committee

- There is a great tragedy in her community because there are a lot of people with bad health, mistreated by landlords, and don't live in decent housing.

- She works for the St. Peter's Housing project and she sees a lot of people being abused.

- All this is based on the scarcity of affordable housing.

- Don't delay in passing the Housing Element.

Rosa Cerda - St. Peter's Housing Committee

- The situation where she lives is very difficult. She realizes that sometimes it is not the fault of the landlords, but the people who write up the contract with these landlords.

- It is important to have inspectors to come and look at these living situations and fine people that allow these living conditions.

Bill Murphy - Mission Agenda

- He works with Mission Agenda.

- He is here to support the Housing Element.

- He lives in an SRO hotel.

- It is important to promote affordable housing, allow zoning amendments, and residential developments along transit corridors.

- There is no need for luxury condos.

Catherine Edney - Sixth Street Agenda

- She is ashamed of her City. She currently works as a social worker.

- She strongly urges the Commission to support the Housing Element.

- She does not understand what the delay is to implement this document.

Calvin Welch

- He supports the Housing Element and hopes the Commission will approve it and implement it as soon as possible.

- Increased density does not automatically become affordable housing.

- There are a lot of neighborhoods where the real working class is living.

- There are issues that are current and not future.

Ana Gutierrez - San Francisco Organizing Project

- San Francisco has been lacking one of the very basic commodities - housing.

- People who cannot afford decent housing get traumatized, especially children.

- San Francisco is a City for all.

- Allow density, but affordable.

Rick Nichols - Mission Agenda

- He is in support to affordable housing as well as the Housing Element.

- He lives in indecent conditions and there are a lot of seniors who live that way also.

- He supports affordable housing.

Monica Losa - Mission Agenda

- She works with Mission Agenda.

- She hopes that the Commission will concur with a lot of provisions in the Housing Element.

Susan Marsh

- He read a letter from an activist who is in support of the Housing Element.

Sue Hestor

- The refining of the Housing Element should start now to address the ambiguities.

- If this is delayed, the same testimonies will be heard over and over.

- Low income people are the ones who will be paying for the delays of the Housing Element.

- Staff needs to put aside project specific zoning and stop processing these projects and start getting this Housing Element implemented.

Marty Borrego - Mission Agenda

- He has been in different housing, different programs, etc.

- There are places where there are 5 or more people living there.

- He hopes that the Commission has heard the voices of all the people who have testified that need affordable housing.

Heidi Gregorio - Mission Agenda

- She used to be a homeowner but now she does not have that any more and has to start all over.

- She lives in an SRO hotel and has discovered how difficult it is for people who want to own their home.

- She supports this document and hopes that the Commission will approve it as soon as possible.

Barbara Meskunas - Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

- She does not support any provisions in this Housing Element.

- Some of the Commission attended community meeting in her neighborhood.

- She urges the Commission to look at this more closely.

Ada Chan - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

- People fear change and Planning is a long time endeavor.

- The Commission has heard at this hearing that about 2/3 of the population of San Francisco needs affordable housing.

- People have been struggling to keep the middle class in the City.

- She urges the Commission to vote for family housing.

Eric Quezada - Mission Anti-Displacement Coalition

- All housing is not good housing, and all density is not good density.

- There should be community benefits if there will be allowable density.

- He supports this Housing Element and he is proud of all the people that spoke today.

Charles Pits - Mission Agenda

- This plan should be moved forward. However, nothing is mentioned about blighted housing.

- If something has not been occupied for a year, something should be done with that.

- If a loft is built and it cannot be rented out within a year, then something should be done with that also.

Judy Borkowitz

- She is here representing the Mission District and the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.

- She would like to thank the Commission for attending the many meetings held regarding the Housing Element.

- She is here to speak about the environmental review process.

- It is inadequate to not have an EIR for the Housing Element.

- She would like to have a timeline on the environmental review process. She suggests that the environmental review be completed before the next hearing on this issue.

John Bardis

- This has been a long hearing--appropriately so since there is a housing crisis.

- It is disappointing to see that the hearing would be convened and not have something specific in regards to an action on the Housing Element.

- It is unfortunate that there is a process that has been going on today for about five hours and most of these hours have dealt with various departments giving their presentations. This is quite unfair.

- He urges the Commission to have the environmental review process completed.

Carolyn Wood - Miraloma Improvement Club

- It is has been instructive listening to the testimonies.

- She read a letter from the Improvement Club stating the needs of the neighborhood and the importance of an environmental review process.

Marilyn Amini

- Regional transit is very important and should be included in the Housing Element.

- As she was looking at the Housing Element she noticed how the publicly assisted or subsidized housing has not been included in the numbers.

- There is still a lot of information that needs to be included in this document.

ACTION: Public Hearing closed for today. The public hearing remains open for future hearings.

E. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW HEARING

At approximately 6:48 PM the Planning Commission convened into a Discretionary Review (DR) Hearing to hear and act on Discretionary Review matters.

13. 2002.0557D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

473 LELAND AVENUE - south side between Loehr and Sawyer Streets, Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 6258 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application Number 2002.01.03.8121, which would demolish an existing single-family dwelling. A new single-family dwelling would be constructed under a separate building permit application. Pursuant to Planning Commission Policy, any residential demolition requires a mandatory Discretionary Review Hearing. The property is located in an RH-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to continued June 19, 2003.

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

ABSENT: Hughes, W. Lee

14. 2003.0293D (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)

1525 FOLSOM STREET - east side between Norfolk and 11^th Streets, Lot 053 in Assessor's Block 3521 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Number 2003.02.05.6758, a proposal to convert the second story of an existing two story building from that of storage into a dwelling unit. The construction of a new rear deck, stairs, and garage are also proposed. The property is located in an SLR (Service / Light Industrial / Residential) Zoning District, the IPZ (Industrial Protection Zone) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution Number 16202, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review to approve the project with conditions.

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 19, 2003.

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

ABSENT: Hughes, W. Lee

15. 2003.0261D (T. TAM: (415) 558-6325)

4018 MORAGA STREET - north side, between 46th and 47th Avenues, Lot 25 in Block 1897 - Discretionary Review request on Building Permit No. 2002.12.12.3407s to allow a new third-story vertical addition and a two-story rear horizontal extension to an existing two-story, single-family dwelling. The property is located in the RH-1 and 40-X Height and Bulk Districts.

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

SPEAKER(S):

Re: Continuance

Bob Baum - Project Architect

- There are a lot of neighbors who are here in support of this project. They might not be able to come on June 19, 2003. They were asked to stand to show the Commission the number of people present for this project.

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 19, 2003.

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

ABSENT: Hughes, W. Lee

16. 2003.0344D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

1222 REVERE AVENUE - north side of Revere Avenue between Hawes and Ingalls Streets, Lot 026 in Assessor's Block 4762 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's Policy requiring review of all residential demolitions, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2002.11.20.1933 proposing to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation

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

SPEAKER(S): None

ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to June 19, 2003.

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

ABSENT: Hughes, W. Lee

F. PUBLIC COMMENT

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

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

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

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

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

Sue Hestor

Re: Items on the Calendars

- The Continuation of the Major Alteration Legislation has been dropped off the July 17, 2003 calendar.

- It is important to have a single hearing date on the Residential Design Guidelines' second hearing and the Demolition Policy's second hearing.

- It is difficult to do demolition policy, residential design guidelines and alternations without having heard this all together.

Judy Berkowitz

Re: SFGTV Broadcasting

- Most of the Commissioners have received faxes regarding broadcasting on the web and on television.

- Starting July 1, 2003, this will actually happen.

- She would like to ask the Commission to request SFGTV to have audio restored on the archives.

John Bardis

Re: Correspondence on the City's economy

- He would like to know what is the Commissioner's understanding regarding the economic engine that drives the City's economy and what are the most significant industries that make up the City's economy.

- He will be submitting correspondence regarding this and hopes that he might be able to get some answers from the Commission.

Adjournment: 9:55 p.m.

THESE MINUTES ARE PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2003.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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