9. (LORI YAMAUCHI)
UCSF INSTITUTIONAL MASTER PLAN - Informational presentation on the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Amendment on Hospital Replacement. UCSF proposes to amend its LRDP to recommend future clinical uses and development at Parnassus Heights, Mission Bay and Mount Zion in order to replace some of UCSF Medical Center's inpatient facilities now at Parnassus Heights and Mount Zion.
SPEAKER(S):
Bruce Spalding - Vice Chancellor - University of San Francisco
- He gave a general presentation on the history of the University.
- They are currently proposing a major amendment to the University.
- He is here to answer policy questions.
Lori Yamaguchi - University of San Francisco
- She gave a PowerPoint presentation on the project's overview which consisted of the 1) Long Range Development Plan; 2) the current UCSF Medical Center Facilities; 3) the case for new hospital facilities; 4) planning process to date; 5) potential hospital replacement sites; 6) site selection evaluation criteria; 7) community participation in the planning process; 8) options evaluated and long term vision to 2030; 9) clinical programs at each site; 10) second phase recommendations; 11) discussions with the Department of Public Health; and 12) Environmental Impact Report.
John Bardis
- This is a very interesting presentation.
- There is more information that could have been provided.
- There is an institutional master plan ordinance that is "on the books" right now.
- It would be appropriate for the Commission to respond to this and make public this response in order to make a more balanced picture.
- This would be in the best interest of the University.
Julie Milbourne - San Francisco College of the Arts
- They love UC and it will go a long way to turn Mission Bay to a wonderful neighborhood.
- She thanked them for this.
ACTION: Hearing Held. No Action Required by the Commission.
10a. 2004.0884D (G. NELSON: (415) 558-6257)
1517 IRVING STREET - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor's Block 1771 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1124, proposing to demolish a one-story (over uninhabitable ground floor), single-family dwelling in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The two-family dwelling is located at the front of the lot. There is a related proposal (2004.0855D) to construct a four-story, three-family dwelling with three off-street parking spaces.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the demolition
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jeremy Paul - Representing Project Sponsor
- This is a three unit building on an underdeveloped lot.
- Mr. Patrick Buskovitch did the soundness report and he is here and available to answer questions.
- The size and scale of the surrounding buildings are similar to the one proposed.
- There is a dentist office that had some concerns regarding the construction.
- He gave a PowerPoint presentation on the details of the interior floor plans of the units.
- The site is no longer providing sound housing.
(+/-) Dr. Calvert Chang
- He is a property owner on the block.
- He welcomes the development of the site.
- He is only concerned at the actual height of the building.
- The building will be 20 feet higher than his building and by 3:00 he will be in total shadow.
- He just asks for a slight scale back of the building.
(+/-) Bruce Ng
- He also owns property on the block.
- He agrees with Dr. Chang.
- There is graffiti at the location so he welcomes the construction.
- He would like a solid wall put up during the construction instead of a chain link fence.
- There are concerns between a light well and an adjacent building. There should not be access from that light well.
MOTION: To take Discretionary Review and disapprove the demolition.
AYES: Alexander, Bradford Bell, Olague
NAYES: Antonini and S. Lee
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
RESULT: Motion failed
ACTION: Hearing Held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to February 24, 2005 to allow the absent Commissioners the opportunity to participate in the final action.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
10b. 2004.0885D (G. NELSON (415) 558-6257)
1517 IRVING STREET - south side between 16th and 17th Avenues; lot 047 in Assessor's Block 1771 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of new residential building in association with residential demolition, of Building Permit Application No. 2004.04.13.1125, proposing to construct a four-story, three-family residential structure with three off-street parking spaces in the Inner Sunset Neighborhood Commercial District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. There is a related proposal (2004.0884D) to demolish the single-family dwelling at the rear of the lot.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the new construction
SPEAKER(S): See Speakers for Item 10a.
ACTION: Hearing Held. Public hearing closed. Item continued to February 24, 2005 to allow the absent Commissioners the opportunity to participate in the final action.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
Items 11 and 12 a-c were called and heard together.
11. 2004.0560E (J. NAVARRETE: (415) 558-5975)
787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET) - Appeal of Preliminary Negative Declaration - The proposed project is the construction of a five-story, approximately 50-foot tall, 29,653 gross-square-foot (gsf) residential building with 56 single room occupancy (SRO) units. The ground floor would contain a lobby, a manager's office, a community room for the residents and 8 SROs. The second through fifth floors would include 12 SRO units on each. No off-street parking or off-street loading would be provided. A 900-square-foot roof deck would be provided as common usable open space meeting the requirements of the Planning Code. The project site is 6,124 square feet in size and currently used as a 20-space surface parking lot, located on the northeast corner of Brannan Street and Gilbert Street in the South of Market District. Pedestrian access to the building lobby and the community room would be through one door mid-lot on Brannan Street. All of the units would be rental units designated as permanently affordable to households with income not exceeding 50% of the City's median income. The project site is zoned SLI (Service Light Industrial) and is within a 50-X height and bulk district. Conditional Use authorization is required for SRO units in the SLI district, and parking, rear yard, and permitted obstruction variances would be required for the proposed project.
Preliminary Recommendation: Uphold Mitigated Negative Declaration
SPEAKER(S):
(-) Gerrie Scott - CCSS - Citizens for Cleaner Safer SOMA
- They are working with various agencies to clean up the area.
- The Negative Declaration is incorrect on various accounts.
- She has been given several plans so she is a bit confused.
- She has been given documents that have been "whited out" and then written over.
- She is concerned with the garbage cans that will be left on the street.
- She does not know why the project sponsor would not have the garbage company pick up the various garbage cans.
(-) Sue Hestor
- There is no parking control in the area so this is an environmental issue.
- The environmental documents need to deal with reality and not standards.
- The City has been lax on putting signs up in the area.
- The analysis of parking problems in this document is not accurate. Garbage is an environmental issue.
- The 20-day notice for the Conditional Use has been ignored.
(-) David Lupo - Capenter's Union - Local 22
- Is the project sponsor prepared to report on who will be doing the construction on this project?
(-) Bill Graziano
- He and his father have a business in the area.
- He knows the real problems of traffic in the area but this document seems to ignore them.
- He knows several businesses that have left the area because of the parking situation.
- Instead of a roof deck there should be real open space. The unit in the back could be eliminated.
- Maybe the amount of required housing could be reduced.
(-) Nathan Letts - CCSS
- He has been a resident of the area for four years.
- There are a lot of parking problems on that street.
- Recently a restaurant was approved and it has caused more traffic in the area.
- There is also a trash problem in the neighborhood.
- Having an inside pickup of the garbage cans would be a good idea.
(-) Scott Krager
- He has been in the neighborhood for many years.
- When the Hall of Justice was built, they did not provide any parking in the area.
- He has gone to a lot of meetings with the Parking and Traffic Department to express his concerns about the area.
(-) Bruce Wineberg
- He has been in the neighborhood.
- He knows that the problems of traffic and garbage are large.
- All the bail bonds, the Hall of Justice, etc. takes up all the parking and even the sidewalks.
- This situation will make the problem much worse.
(-) Anusha Chari - CCSS
- She walks home in the early evening and safety is her concern.
- There is very little lighting in the area.
- She is concerned that the project will not have a supervisor living on the premises.
(-) Bob Anderson
- There is a lot of information that is missing from the EIR.
- Garbage is an absolute problem in the area.
- Indoor garbage receptacles would be a good idea.
- The size of the building is too large.
(-) Richard Morro
- The project will affect negatively the neighbors because of shadows.
(+) did not state name
- Land has always been an issue.
- He does not believe that in an SRO building there will be tenants with too many cars.
- There are many SRO buildings that do not have trash all over the place.
- This project is a very good project and will add to the community.
- Not everything should be blamed on the type of building.
(-) Barton Devirsion
- He has owned a business in the area for the last six years.
- There are actually about 30 parking spaces being lost.
- It is difficult to run a business in the area.
- The businesses were there first and there should be some consideration.
(-) Timothy Rose
- He is representing the tenants of a building in the area.
- There are no windows on the east and west side of the building.
- Covering the windows will get rid of half of the light into the units.
(+) Randy Shaw - Director of Tenderloin Housing
- They work very well with the people on Gilbert Street regarding the garbage.
- Their only concern was that they did not want more garbage trucks come through this small street creating more noise and traffic.
- The building next door is not a residential building.
- There is not that many people that own cars.
- These are studio apartments and not SROs.
- The entire project will have people that quality to live there if they have lived in an SRO for more than one year.
- It is unfortunate that [some of you believe that] people that live in SRO units are people that will be going through garbage cans.
- This is an opportunity to expand their housing program to the homeless.
(+) Valery Simpson - General Manager of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic
- There are people that live at the hotel and she hears them speak about moving into a studio apartment.
- There is a class called working class homeless because people work but cannot afford a decent place to live.
- There are many people who are ready to live normal lives.
(+) Wendy Tompson - Support Services Manager for the Tenderloin Housing Clinic
- There are many people who cannot afford regular apartments.
- This project will make this possible.
- She was homeless before. She was eventually employed by Tenderloin Housing and has been able to move up.
- She was still not able to afford a market rate apartment.
- There will be people that will be reuniting with their children.
(+) Alice Barkley - Representing the Tenderloin Housing Clinic
- There will be an onsite manager that will be paid by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic.
- People have had adequate notice of this project.
- The units will be 100% affordable.
- The garbage will be in the garbage room.
- She is available for further questions.
(+) Anthony Faber
- He is in favor of the project.
- This is a great project.
- It is difficult to live in an SRO because a bathroom has to be shared.
(+) Bill Murphy
- He is a former SRO tenant. He is currently at a shelter.
- He needs a place that is not dingy, dark, with an elevator that does not work, etc.
- Most SRO tenants do not want to stay there all their lives.
- This project will provide these people with a place to live in units that have their own bathrooms.
(+) James Collins
- He was a former tenant of a residence hotel.
- For he and his neighbors to have their own bathroom and kitchenette was a great thing.
- People need to have their own apartments.
(+) Joe Shipman
- He has gotten used to living in SROs.
- He would rather pay a parking ticket than see a homeless person.
- He does not see a parking issue in the area.
- He feels sad for the people that might not get lighting.
- People need housing and he would not mind getting into his own apartment.
(+) Stafford Parker
- He was born and raised in San Francisco.
- He is a single father and would love to live in his own apartment and use his own private bathroom.
- He has been to the project site and there are a lot of amenities in the area.
- He hopes that the Commission will approve this project.
(+) Joseph Brown
- He lives in a studio in a hotel.
- He is working right now and trying to stay in the working field.
- Although he has low income he would be able to afford the proposed apartments.
(+) Aurora Grajeda
- She is a resident of the Mission Hotel.
- There are few people at SROs that own cars.
- She has never known what it means to have your own kitchen and bathroom.
- If there is a chance to build a little bit of housing it should be done.
(+) Meredith Walters - Central City SRO Collaborative
- All she hears about is how much people living in SROs want to move into their own apartments.
- It means a lot to have a bathroom and a kitchen.
(+) Otto Duffy
- He lives in a residential hotel.
- The people who will be able to have their own apartments are people that have navigated trough difficult situations.
(+) Prince Bush - Tenderloin Housing Clinic
- He does not go through garbage cans.
- He does not own a car either.
- He does not know where all these stereotypes are coming from.
- He knows that there are not enough affordable housing units so it is important to approve this project.
(-) Patrick Page
- He lives on Brannan Street.
- He is not anti the project.
- There are people that did not know about this project.
- The size and scope of the building is too large.
- He is not clear why a penthouse would be built on an SRO building.
(+) Bruce Allison
- He is a sixth generation San Franciscan.
- There are a lot of amenities in this area; there is public transportation, medical facilities, etc.
- He hopes that he will be a resident of these apartments.
(+) Loren (did not state last name)
- SROs are a difficult environment for women.
- She currently lives in a small room with a cracked sink and it is roach infested.
- It is not considered safe for women to keep her door unlocked or walk a hallway at night.
- Many people are attached at SROs.
- The rents at the hotels average about $800 a month.
- Many people are paying more than half of their income.
- She hopes that this project will be approved.
(+) Jim Meko - SOMA Leadership Council
- He has spent considerable time at this location.
- He has spoken to the adjacent neighbors and after much dialogue had full support from them.
- The problem with parking is caused by the Hall of Justice.
- A lot of the garbage issues are just excuses to not have low-income people living in the area.
(+) Joe O'Donoghue
- He lives on McAllister and knows of garbage noise from the garbage trucks and people getting cans and bottles out in order to sell them.
- The people that move into this transitional housing will probably not own cars until they move out to better and bigger things and be able to afford their cars.
- There are lot-line windows that are illegal on the adjacent building.
(-) David Lupo
- He wants housing that is going to last.
- The contractor should be unionized that will pay their workers correctly with quality materials.
(-) Bob Anderson
- He is a former homeless person and SRO tenant.
- He is very disappointed with the entire proceedings.
- Parking is a huge issue in the area.
- Density and height of the building are issues also.
(+) Mark Anthony
- He is thankful for Mayor Newsom and his policy of care and not cash.
- He sees this project as a next step to his recovery.
- He feels very lucky that the hotel he lives in has a new manager who was able to clean up the place.
- These studio apartments would be the next phase for a lot of people.
(-) Gerrie Scott
- The good of the building is good for the neighbors.
- People have rights so they should not have to be exposed to garbage and flies.
- This buildings should be well designed that will send Mayor Newsom's program of Care not Cash forward.
- People who use a wheelchair should be able to have access to their building, but it would be difficult to have the garbage cans there.
- New construction downtown advocates should be allowed a bicycle unit, a manager's room, etc.
(-) Scott Crader
- He has seen the lack of supervision in this type of project.
- The project is too large for the footprint.
- He was not notified about this project.
- This project is in a bad location. It is not productive.
(+/-) Rob Moyera
- He is not opposed to the project at all.
- He is just opposed to blocking natural light.
- He is just asking for a modification of the project.
(-) Anusha Chari
- She has been stuck by the fact that people who are in support of the project have done a good job to portray the appellant as a "bad guy."
- Why not have a good design if this project is going to be a blueprint for future similar projects.
- All the testimonies are diverting from getting a properly designed building.
(-) Sue Hestor
- There are people in the room who do not want low-income people in the neighborhood.
- There has to be a decent site for this project, otherwise the project needs to be "tweaked."
- The site was a parking lot and people in the neighborhood were able to park there.
- Artists deserve light into their homes.
- It is important to make this project fit into the site.
(+) Charles Breninger
- Development has become very successful.
- The area is growing.
- This is a good location for this project.
(+) Joe O'Donoghue
- There should be a variance issued.
- There will be 55 units of housing without any money from subsidies.
- This project should be a model for housing because it is very unique housing.
- The project will be built with quality construction materials.
(+) Alice Barkley
- She submitted a letter to the Commission regarding the Conditional Use and the Variance.
- The project will be rental housing.
- The garbage will only come out when it is ready to be picked up, there will be a manager because it is required by law.
- The building code has required that if a building has property line windows, there shall be a light and air easement.
- The project will have a union contractor.
(-) Timothy Rose
- The business owners in the area are not against the project; they are just against the size of the building.
- Many people have moved away from San Francisco in order to find affordable studios.
(+) Randy Shaw
- If there were modifications to the building, the project would not be able to go forward.
- There is no flexibility right now.
- He hopes that the Commission understands this crucial issue.
(-) Barton Deversion
- He does not know how there will be so many units in the building.
- This is the first time that he has heard that the building is being given to the Tenderloin Housing Authority.
- He is concerned with the quality of construction.
ACTION: Negative Declaration Upheld
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
MOTION: 16940
12a. 2004.0560EKCVD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET) - southwest corner of Gilbert Street; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 3784 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization to allow the construction of Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units in a Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District pursuant to Planning Code Section 817.16. The proposal would construct a new five-story building containing fifty-six SRO dwelling units, each of approximately 400 gross square feet, on a vacant parcel currently used for parking. The property is within an Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District, an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 11.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
MOTION: 16941
12b. 2004.0560EKCVD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET) - southwest corner of Gilbert Street; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 3784 - Request for (1) a Modification of rear yard requirements pursuant to Code Section 134(e)(1) and 307(g), and (2) Variances from [a] permitted obstruction limits for bay windows set forth in Code Section 136(c)(2)(B) and 136(c)(2)(D) and [b] off-street parking requirements set forth in Code Section 151. A Variance from parking requirements is required because no off-street parking spaces are proposed while the Code would require three spaces. A Variance from permitted obstruction limits is required because bay windows of a maximum depth of three feet and maximum width of sixteen feet are proposed while the Code would limit maximum depth of some bay windows to two feet and maximum width to between nine and fifteen feet. A Modification of rear yard requirements is required because intermittent yard spaces of no more than five feet in depth are proposed while the Code would require a rear yard of at least fifteen feet. The proposal would construct a new five-story building containing fifty-six SRO dwelling units, each of approximately 400 gross square feet, on a vacant parcel currently used for parking. The property is within an Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District, an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 11.
ACTION: The Zoning Administrator closed the public hearing and granted the variances and modification of the rear yard requirements.
12c. 2004.0560EKCVD (D. SIDER: (415) 558-6697)
787 BRANNAN STREET (aka 785 BRANNAN STREET; aka 100 GILBERT STREET) - southwest corner of Gilbert Street; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 3784 - Mandatory Discretionary Review of a project which would create housing within an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ), as required under Commission Resolution 16202 for all such projects. The proposal would construct a new five-story building containing fifty-six SRO dwelling units, each of approximately 400 gross square feet, on a vacant parcel currently used for parking. The property is within an Service/Light Industrial (SLI) Zoning District, an Industrial Protection Zone (IPZ) as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 16202, and a 50-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve Project.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 20, 2005)
SPEAKER(S): Same as those listed for Item 11.
ACTION: Did not take Discretionary Review and approved the project.
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
13. 2004.1106D (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)
252 HOLYOKE STREET - east side between Felton and Burrows Streets; Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 5976 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2003.09.19.5209, proposing vertical and horizontal front and rear additions to the single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (House, One-family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve as proposed.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance
Amad Larizadeh
- He agrees with the continuance.
- He feels that they are close to coming to an agreement.
John Major
- He is also in agreement with the continuance.
ACTION: Without hearing, item continued to February 17, 2005
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
14a. 2004.0420MR (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN - Consideration of adoption of proposed amendments to the General Plan under the provisions of Sections 340 and 306.3(b)(3) of the Planning Code. The proposed amendments would incorporate the Bicycle Plan in whole by reference into the General Plan and amend sections of the General Plan that are relevant to bicycling, including the Transportation Element and Downtown Area Plan, according to the goals of the Bicycle Plan. The San Francisco Bicycle Plan is the result of a two-year collaborative planning process involving the Department of Parking and Traffic, the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition and many other agencies and organizations.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Resolution
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
Re: Continuance - Heard during Items Proposed for Continuance category at the beginning of the calendar.
Marilyn Amini
- She believes that this case should be continued further.
- The notice of the hearing was not included in the Independent.
- People who are accustomed to read the announcements of the hearings did not get the full information.
- She discovered that there is money that was set aside for double lanes.
- Steps could have been made to send information to neighborhood organizations.
Re: Continuance - Heard at the call of the item.
Marilyn Amini
- She submitted a request from the San Francisco Coalition of Neighborhoods as well as the West Portal Neighborhood Association. They were not aware that this hearing was going to take place.
- With Planning Code amendments there is a certain period of time that needs to be met for the case to be publicized.
- The bike plan was not put into the public file at the Planning Department until recently.
Lia Shaham - San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
- She does not support a continuance.
- The bike plan has been available since September of last year.
- They have presented this plan to more than 100 neighborhood groups.
- There were 11 neighborhood workshops and 400 people attended the meetings. These meetings were held throughout San Francisco.
- For people who could not attend the meetings there were surveys which were available online or by mail.
- The information submitted was incorporated into the plan.
Mary Miles
- Can she speak to the continuance and to the merits of the project?
- She specifically asked for notice on action of the bicycle plan and before the environmental review. She received nothing. She knew about this when she went to the Planning Department for something else.
- This plan is very important and it will have significant impacts in every neighborhood in the city.
- She supports a continuance.
Burt Hill
- He lives in Twin Peaks and attended the meetings held. He knows people from the West Portal area that attended the meeting as well.
- He does not support a continuance.
Andy Thornley
- They have held meetings at City Hall and discussed this matter publicly.
- There have been meetings held at libraries as well.
- There are no funds to do extensive outreach but to the extent that they were able to, they communicated this issue.
- He does not support a continuance.
Tom Collin
- Although he drives his car more often than his bicycle, he supports the plan.
- There are some neighborhood associations [that claim of] never having been notified about this plan or this hearing yet the accusations are not really fair and/or accurate.
- He is not in support of a continuance.
Rob Anderson
- He never heard of any bicycle coalition meeting in his neighborhood.
- There are a lot of problems with public outreach.
- He does favor a continuance.
John Daniel
- He lives near Bernal Heights.
- Any delay will cause a certain number of injuries if proper bike lanes are not instituted.
- He does not support a continuance.
Re: Merits of the Project
(+) Oliver Gajda - Department of Parking and Traffic
- The program is new to San Francisco.
- This plan began in 1992.
- There has been a lot of public comment on this program.
- The plan has a two-part format: 1) policy framework and 2) network improvements.
- The plan will be in conformity with other plans: San Francisco Master Plan - Transportation Element and the MTC Regional Bicycle Plan.
(+) John Daniel
- He lives in the Mission Bernal Heights Neighborhood.
- It is a matter of life and death to move forward on safety for bikers.
- He owns a car but also tries to get around on a bike.
- He hopes that more people will ride their bikes when these changes are implemented.
- The car population is increasing as much as the human population.
- There were people who were here earlier but could not stay and are in support of this program.
(+) Chet Anderson
- He lives in the Marina.
- He tries most of the time to commute on a bike.
- He rides around the City [on his bike] and gets his friend to also when they visit him in San Francisco.
- He hopes the Commission will move forward on this.
(+) Chuck Bierwirth
- He is in favor of the bicycle plan and should not wait any further.
- The City will be a safer place to live.
(+) Jeff Swinerton
- He has been a bicycle rider most of his life.
- He urges the Commission to approve this program.
- The bike plan has the right way to increase the level of safety needed for bikers.
- The bike plan has provisions for many things.
(-) Mary Miles
- She urges the Commission to not adopt this plan today.
- There are numerous reasons to not approve this plan. For example, there was no environmental review.
- Legally this plan should not be exempt from environmental review.
- CEQA requires an environmental review.
- There will be several impacts on this.
(-) Rob Anderson
- Bicycle riding is dangerous.
- According to the DMV there were thousands of registered car owners. This is a reality.
- He does not own a car. He uses public transportation and walks.
- There will never be enough transportation modes for bikers in San Francisco.
- It is quite obnoxious for a person to come to the Planning Department and have quite a difficult time to get public information.
(+) Tim Colin
- The main part of the objections seems to be procedural.
- There are far more car pedestrian collisions than car bike collisions.
- He strongly urged the Commission to approve this plan.
(+) Leah Shahum
- This is a policy action.
- There are no specific changes in the document.
- This policy is about giving people that want to bike the ability to do it safely.
- He hopes that the Commission will pass this policy.
(+) Maureen Gaffney
- The goal of San Francisco Bay Trails is to add trails to various locations.
- ABAG was very involved in the creation of the bike plan.
- She supports this plan.
- She urges the Commission to adopt this plan.
(+) Andy Thornley
- The notion that this is a radical plan is wrong.
- The Commission has the opportunity to approve a fantastic and wonderful thing.
- This plan should be part of the General Plan.
- San Francisco has always been looked at as a beacon for changes and improvements in human life.
(+) Bert Hill
- He is 56 years old and has been biking all his life.
- He has been doing this safely.
- There are a vast majority of the people in the hearing room who biked when they were kids and many do not do that anymore.
- This will allow turning San Francisco into a safe and healthy city.
- All of the aspects of this plan are for safety.
(-) Marilyn Amini
- Various speakers spoke about the massive public outreach yet there was still information that was not available to the public until recently.
- The plan conflicts with the transit first policy.
- When there are reduced lanes for cars there will be impeded traffic.
- There will also be congestion with MUNI.
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
RESOLUTION: 16942
14b. 2004.0420MR (J. SWITZKY: (415) 575-6815)
SAN FRANCISCO BICYCLE PLAN - The Commission will consider a resolution to adopt General Plan conformity findings for the San Francisco Bicycle Plan: Policy Framework.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approve the Draft Resolution finding the San Francisco Bicycle Plan: Policy Framework in conformity with the General Plan, as amended.
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)
ACTION: Approved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
RESOLUTION: 16943
15. 2004.0656C (S. SNYDER: (415) 558-6543)
3579 FOLSOM STREET - southeast corner at Chapman Street, Lot 42 in Assessor's Block 5627 - Request for Conditional Use Authorization under Section 121 of the Planning Code for the creation of one lot with a width of less than 25 feet in an RH-1 (House, Single Family) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and the Bernal Heights Special Use District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Disapproval
(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 27, 2005)
SPEAKER(S):
(+) Jeff Rosen - Representing the Project Sponsor
- There have been a lot of permits and reports approved for this location.
- After paying the fees and picking up his permits, the project sponsor was told that the permits were done in error.
- There are similar lots of the same size, which have been livable.
- The lot has just been for neighbors to park their cars.
- There is a more beneficial use for this lot.
- The house will be a small starter home.
- The project sponsor owns the lot.
- There will be no negative impacts to any of the neighbors.
- There is no reasonable reason to disapprove the project.
(+) Stephen Abrams - Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering
- He has done various traffic studies in this area.
- There are no access safety or emergency vehicle access issues.
- A traffic engineer is not necessary to prove that one unit will create traffic issues.
- There are some existing conditions that will not be changed or worsened.
- The same site distance will be available in the future.
- The only reason people are complaining is that people use the lot for parking their cars.
- There is no reserved parking for neighbors in this area.
(-) Wesley Leung
- He owns the house that is next to the lot.
- Traditional traffic analysis might not tell the complete story.
- The street is very steep so any type of construction will have a significant impact.
- If a house were to be built on this lot, it would be very difficult to design it.
(+) K.Y. Chiu - Project Engineer
- The building on the side of the house should not even have a window.
- Both sides of the house will be setback.
(-) Barbara Underberg
- This project seems to keep coming up.
- The streets and the lots in that area are designed quite strange.
- There is a traffic problem in the area.
- There is a plan for improving the roadway.
(-) Gretchen Scoltchy
- She lives right across the street from the lot.
- She does not support the project because of safety situations.
- She has witnessed a number of almost accidents that happened because of the design of the streets.
(-) Jerry Milmne
- This project has been denied many times.
- The project should be beneficial to the neighborhood and it is clearly not.
- This project should be denied.
- The project will exacerbate the density of the neighborhood.
- Chapman Street is barely the width authorized by the fire department.
- Any construction on the lot would have an affect on the residents.
- This permit should be denied.
(-) Patricia Hughes
- She has lived in the area since 1978.
- Of the two buildings that the project sponsor built only one was approved.
- The area is very dense already.
- It is a very small lot.
- The lot is not full of trash.
- The project sponsor put up a very high fence around the vacant lot.
ACTION: Disapproved
AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford Bell, S. Lee, Olague
ABSENT: Hughes and W. Lee
MOTION: 16944
16. 2004.0849C (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6315)
1720-1730 FULTON STREET - north side between Central and Masonic Avenues; Lot 30 in Assessor's Block 1175 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Sections 303 and 352 of the Planning Code to modify a condition previously imposed in Motion No. 14807 for Case No. 1998.0318C (the approval of the Petrini Plaza), The proposal would modify Condition No. 30 of the Motion to allow the project sponsor to merge two small storefronts at the Petrini Plaza for leasing to a financial service establishment (Washington Mutual Bank), rather than to a local independent merchant. The project is within an NC-S (Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
