June 15, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Calendar

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, June 15, 2006

2:00 PM

Regular Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: President Sue Lee; Vice President Dwight Alexander; Michael Antonini; Shelley Bradford-Bell; Kevin Hughes; William Lee; and Christina Olague

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 2:15 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning; Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator; Amit Ghosh; Jonathan Lau; Jonas Ionin; Isolde Wilson; Michael Jacinto; Mat Snyder; Moses Corrette; Elaine Tope; Ben Fu; Dan Sirois; Glen Cabreros; Kate McGee; Linda Avery – Commission Secretary

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. 2006.0661D (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

889 NORTH POINT STREET - south side between Larkin and Hyde Streets; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0026 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.03.10.6437, proposing to build a new four-story three-unit building. The proposal is to subdivide the vacant lot into three separate parcels and build a new residential building on each new parcel. The corner building (2998 Larkin Street) will have two dwelling units and the two adjacent buildings to the east (899 North Point Street and 889 North Point Street) will have three dwelling units each, for a total of eight dwelling units. This Discretionary Review is only for the building at 889 North Point Street. The property is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District, NOWAT (Waterfront Special Use District No. 2), and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

2. 2006.0087D (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

2290 VALLEJO STREET west side between Fillmore and Webster Streets, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 05577 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2006.02.06.3803 proposing to merge two single-family dwelling units into one single-family dwelling in a structure located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and disapprove the proposed project.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

3a. 2005.1090CV (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14^th AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008, 015A and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.3(f) and 303 to allow the establishment of a child-care facility providing less than 24-hour care for up to 25 children by licensed personnel and meeting the open-space and other requirements of the State of California and other authorities. The proposal includes the conversion of the ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool will also use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue and a portion of the rear yard of 1366 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The site is within an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

3b. 2005.1090CV (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 & 1366 14th AVENUE - east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lots 008, 015A and 015B, in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Variances from Planning Code Sections 135 (usable open space) to allow the elimination of required usable open space for the single-family dwelling at 1362 14th Avenue and 159(a) & (b) (required off-street parking not on the same lot as the structure) to allow the required off-street parking (for the single-family dwelling and proposed preschool) to be provided on a separate lot approximately 30 feet to the south. The proposal is to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The new preschool will also use the entire existing rear yard of 1362 14th Avenue and a portion of the rear yard of 1366 14th Avenue as Outdoor Activity Space as required by the California State Code for Child Care. The proposal will maintain the existing dwelling units located at both addresses (total of 2 units) and the building footprints will remain the same. The proposal will be subject of a concurrent hearing before the Planning Commission for a conditional use authorization to allow the establishment of a preschool in a residential district. The properties are located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

4. 2006.0688D (S. Mendrin: (415) 558-6625)

1362 14th AVENUE, east side between Judah and Irving Streets; Lot 015A in Assessor's Block 1768 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2006.04.07.8544 proposing to convert the existing garage and ground floor area of 1362 14th Avenue into a preschool, to be operated by Saint Anne's School. The property is located in an RH-2 (Residential House, Two-Family) District, and 40-X Height/Bulk District.

(Proposed for Continuance to June 22, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Steve Williams

ACTION: Continued as proposed

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

5. Consideration of Adoption –

Draft Minutes of Regular Meeting of January 12, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: Antonini

6. Commission Comments/Questions

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

Commissioner Bradford-Bell

First, I have to acknowledge Gerald Green in the audience.
When I started on this commission four years ago, Gerald was just a font of information.
You helped me get through all the insanity of this.
It was a great joy working with you and fighting with you.
You and your family, you guys are the greatest.
Your mom, all of you.
You are my family.
If I got nothing out of planning, I got my family and Gerald Green.
I would stand by you and fight again if I had to.
I did want to say comments.
Has it really been four years since Willie Brown asked me to take a seat on the Planning Commission?
Planning Meetings were known as combative; the public was vicious and they were tough public servants.
Filled with reservations, I didn't know if my claws were sharp enough to withstand this battleground.
I went with confidence to support the Mayor, the desire to serve San Francisco and the commitment to make sure everybody was heard.
I had a responsibility to do this job the best I could.
That meant starting from a position of respect.
Respect of the hard work of the dedicated staff; respect for my fellow commissioners; and respect for professionals – the developers, the community organizations, Judy, Marilyn, and the great poet Joe O'Donaghue.
But most importantly, respect for the public who sometimes didn't understand what the process was about and are so frightened by the process that they were reduced to tears when they spoke before us.
They had never spoken before us except that something in their lives was going to change and it was necessary for them to face their fear.
Everyone's view must be heard.
My good fortune was to be with six good people.
I remember when a man six-foot, four stood before us in tears because his home of 25 years had been Elissed and he had no idea where he would live – its at those times when we get the importance of affordable housing.
We need to have processes that allow new development and make visible the invisible.
We need to address all of the citizen's needs as we plan the future of the city.
It is important to hear all voices.
We heard disturbing analysis of the job market in San Francisco and the expected loss of families in the next 10 years.
Why can't we move our residents from homelessness to the transition of affordable housing?
People talk about the work that the commissioners put in each wee.
I have admitted to Matt Gonzales that I was wrong, wrong, wrong when I said commissioners shouldn't be paid a salary.
I don't believe anyone works as hard as our staff, most especially Linda Avery.
I couldn't have done it without her.
She's smart and Planning is lucky to have her.
They write the recommendations and motions, attend the meetings, prepare case material and listen to other things on several projects at one time. They all have fast approaching deadlines.
Planning staff is the cream of the city's workers.
They work in an environment influenced by the politics of the city and the economy all the while trying to move projects through application of the Code, the Department policies and impacts from neighborhoods.
Everyday on every project they deserve our support and they always had mine.
It sounds so easy, yes. But when we mix in the human element, that's where the drama starts.
We work our hardest to hear all the sides to think hardest and deepest on who will be affected with our decision.
That's when the job is the hardest.
That's when an environment of mutual respect serves us best.
That's when having someone like commissioner Hughes was so important.
We were often afraid to let him speak because we knew he would go on and on awhile.
Kevin is fair, attentive, kind, and I think he talked a lot because he wanted to mess with us.
If all I got was Kevin's friendship, that alone would have made it worth the late nights.
I want to thank Commissioner Antonini for showing me that all Republicans are not bad.
Mike was always supportive of me. Always and completely dedicated to this Commission.
He's only missed two or three meetings in the last four years.
Now that I'm stepping off, I'm on your side – you should have more meetings.
He would not miss any of them.
He's been on me and I have been able to lean on him for support.
Thank you, Mike.
Before I get lost, let me not forget two people that started with us – that's Lisa and Edgar.
Lisa, Edgar, Sue, Bill, Kevin, and Mike – we were the Commission that started in 2002.
I've been fortunate to serve with all of my fellow commissioners.
My deepest thanks goes to Mayor Willie Brown who recognized my ability to do this job.
I'm thankful for the public who thought we were important enough to write us and speak in public.
To me, your gift was of awareness.
Learning by listening, we are open to more knowledge and resolution.
I will continue to watch the Planning process in San Francisco thanks to the dedicated hard work of SFGTV.
Our city's TV is the greatest. You don't have this level of access everywhere.
It has become a vital part of open government in San Francisco and I think we are lucky o have our SFGTV team.
As I watch, I hope to see some of the things I wanted to happen. Things like a state-of-the-art Planning Department.
We should be current on Technology.
Every year the budget should have technology that doesn't get cut. Our staff deserves the best.
I think we need to go to the neighborhoods and the districts. We should have a meeting with the Board of Appeals. I'm sorry I missed the one we did have.
I hope Appeals and Planning will do a joint meeting because it gave an opportunity to share different perspectives.
Holding a joint Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meeting is still an important thing to do.
There is a good relationship between the supervisors and commission and a joint session would give the public the opportunity to address these two bodies in a unique way.
We must think transit first if we are truly a transit first city.
I dream of the area being a transit area with transit services, wide bike lanes, and walkable neighborhoods with parks.
A good transit system will reduce the number of cars and car owners in the area.
With the rise of gas, public transit and taxis are making more sense.
As I prepare for my final meeting next week, I hope whoever replaces me represents the needs of the residents of Bayview Hunter's Point.
This community will be watching.
To have Bayview in a redevelopment process and not have them represented on the Commission to me would be tragic.
I know the Mayor believes in Bayview and I'm confident he will appoint someone who will have full representation of San Francisco.
To serve this city is my greatest joy.
To serve these people is my blessing.
I can only hope I have made a difference for I have been made different by the experience.
Thank you San Francisco for the last four years.

Commissioner Antonini

Well, thank you.
I wasn't prepared, but I want to thank Shelley Bradford-Bell for allowing me to serve with her for the last four years.
I think she's typical of the entire commission where there is a lot of respect and thought that goes on and a lot of individual consideration of each other and that's why you see the Commission in all sorts of different voting patterns because this is a commission that looks at each project and gives it it's own individual attention rather than lumping them together and voting them out.
Shelley has been a leader in that regard.
I hope that whoever replaces her, we will continue in that same way.
It's prophetic you mentioned about wanting more meetings.
I thought that July 6^th was a calendared meeting when we made our calendar.
I do appeal for the future because some of the sessions in the last few weeks, I remember tiring. It is hard to concentrate if you have to put items in. If there is a way of balances, and that may mean meeting more, I will do that.
Thank you, Shelley.

Commissioner Bill Lee

Shelley I think the city owes gratitude to you.
When the Charter went through the mix of the Planning Commission, people didn't know what to expect of us.
There was anticipation that we would have long personal battles among each other.
When you were elected president, you brought us together to make sure that we were able to build a consensus.
I think also, you represent the Bayview Hunter's Point well. Even though you don't live there, you work there and I am confident you will still take leadership in that area.
The roll of government and the commission is to represent those who can't represent themselves.
The black community in Fillmore, the population is down to 6% from the latest census.
You have done your best as the voice for the African-American community and other minorities to make sure that the African-Americans get their fair share.
San Francisco owes you gratitude and I will miss you.
Thank you and good luck in the future.

Commissioner Olague

I wanted to thank you, Shelley, for all of your help.
It was a hard transition to this. You were helpful to me.
It will be a huge absence.
Your voice around transit first issues, people of color, and the elderly.
We will miss having you here.
Good luck and good luck in Paris.
We will miss you.
I have one item to request.
Is there an official statement from the Department on the Hastings parking garage project?
Is the Department making comments about the draft EIR on the Hastings parking garage project?

Director Macris

Commissioner, I have written a letter to Hastings indicating to them that there are serious planning questions related to their project.
The question of whether or not they should be subject to local control is still an open question and we have been talking to the City Attorney about this.
We have also commented on their draft EIR in a separate letter to them.
I have not heard back about their response to our local control issue.
I would be glad to send the commissioners copies of the letter I did send.

Commissioner Hughes

Shelley, 2002 was a long time ago.
During that period of time there was a large backlog and things were from time to time fairly well polarized as far as the issues that were on calendar.
As Commission president for the first two years, you had the ability to take that high tension, polarized feel out of the issues and bring it back to why we are here; to what the roll of the commission is; what the Planning Code is; and more importantly to what is the human element involved. What is the intent of the Code, of the commission, of a citizen oversight group(which is the roll that we fill)?
I remember being relieved to have you here to move it in that direction because you did it so well and so effortlessly.
It helped me personally see where the issue is and see it clearly devoid of some of the politically charged atmosphere, especially in the early years.
You were fantastic.
It has been a privilege and a pleasure to be able to serve with you up here over the last four years and to have gained your friendship, and enjoyed your friendship and I look forward to doing that in the on-going years.
Thank you very much, Shelley.

Commissioner Alexander

I always like to get the last word.
I want to say a personal thanks to Shelley.
When I came on the Commission she was Commission President and was in the midst of a difficult issue. But in the middle of that she took the time to talk with and acclimate me to what I was going to face. I appreciated that.
Stepping into this seat, I don't think anyone has any idea what it means.
I think Shelley did it with grace.
I think she made tough decisions and has represented her community and her convictions on issues very well as a commissioner.
I think she will be missed and her presence will be missed in deliberations, certainly on topics on transit first and affordable housing and how we continue to house the citizens of the city and how we make space for the other competing land uses.
Shelley, your presence will be missed and I want to thank you for what you did for me and what you meant to me on this commission

President Sue Lee

You don't have the last word.
As a member of the class of 2002, I think the seven of us who were initially appointed by our appointing authorities had an opportunity to set a new tone for the city and I think we did.
A big part of that is due to Shelley's leadership.
I can only hope the classes to follow us, the commissions after us will do the same so that the Planning Commission isn't a pawn and will play the policy roll it deserves to play in the city.
Thank you very much, Shelley.

Commission Secretary Avery

Thank you commissioners.
I'll thank Commissioner Shelley Bradford-Bell later.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

7. Director's Announcements

None

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

Zoning Administrator reported

There was nothing at the Board of Appeals
At the Board of Supervisors:
C-3 parking was finally passed 9 to 1. Alioto-Pier voted no and Ma was absent.
The sign relocation inventory was passed 10 to 0 with Ma absent.
We had a change in the fees to recognize the $75,000 that we collected three to four years, which dropped the fees. Noticing requirements was pulled out and will be added to another piece of legislation. So the fees passed on first reading and that is moving ahead.
One Bellgrave was an appeal filed by Steve Williams. It is a proposal to construct 200 square feet of area for a total of 400 square feet on two levels. The appeal was withdrawn. It was not found to be substantive.
At the Land Use Committee tomorrow there will be the 57 Ashbury landmarking. That is the Richard Larson residence.
The Japantown SUD will be there and there is a request for a hearing on 150 Otis Street. That's the building across from our office. The hearing is for the status of homeless housing at 150 Otis. It's informational, but I thought you might be interested in it.

9. 2006.0074 U (J. LAU: (415) 558-6383)

Delegation Agreement for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project - Informational item. The Commission will hear a presentation on the draft Delegation Agreement between the Planning Department and the Redevelopment Agency regarding the implementation of the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Plan.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Informational only. No action.

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

SPEAKERS:

Robert McCarthy

Regarding the discussion last week on the appropriate process to review the billboards and Mr. Badiner's memorandum explaining that the Commission has the power to recommend to the Board of Supervisors and the supervisors have the power to make amendments if they want to change the process.
I have a strong position that the commission form of government works good since 1932.
If you want to ensure public propose you do it at a commission hearing where everyone explains it.
You would have to initiate yourself to look at this issue and calendar it for the commission to send it to the Board.
I would also like to take a couple of seconds to discuss former President Bell.
I want to say Shelley that you are the best of what public service is.
You never forgot that it's about serving the public.
You have been accessible to all stakeholders.
A little animated in dialogue.
You have made yourself available and prepared.
You have always been gracious and heard everyone's argument.
They say God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is no, but we respect that.
I want to thank you. You served wonderfully.
You were just an incredible important voice to give perspective to so many things, representing the views of renters and those who want transit first.
I thank you on behalf of my colleagues for your service to the city.

Patricia Vaughey

The billboard legislation still does not address those people that enter contracts that the billboard belongs to them.
I think this thing was piecemealed by the large corporations for a reason – to get around all of you.
Small people have a right to due process as well as large people.
This legislation is denying them that right.
You have to start at this commission taking control and I hope today and next week you take control.
Start with the billboard legislation and take on the fact these young families are being chased out of here by big business that wants high-rise condos for their personal profit.
Yu don't have to listen to the department all the time.
I see manipulation all over the place.
I really believe that we have to be smarter and wiser and not come back to what was the Feinstein Administration where the small people were left out and we spent 20 years correcting it.
I want you to take initiative.

Sue Hestor

On page 9 of your calendar you have Page Street on there four times and have different case numbers.
Why?
Staff tells me that it is instruction from you to separate the demolition from the new construction.
20 years ago the Planning Department had an E case number and a planning case number and they were different.
Then they merged them and separated them with a string of letters. You can have a case that has 8 or 9 letters and they mean something.
When you have case numbers like this Page Street files get lost.
None of the cases are anywhere near each other.
The Planning Department has had a problem with records being retrievable especially when they are split in so many places.
I'm not sure you wanted them to split the numbers like this.
Please tell them to do it the old way.
It's always hard to see an old commissioner go.
You've finally figured out the process and you don't get hoodwinked anymore.
In the fourth year you asserted yourself and you told the staff what you want.
I'm sorry that the three of you are going to be gone.
You have grown a lot. I respect your opinion even though at times we don't agree with each other.
I'm sorry you are gone and I hope you well.
And for Commissioner Bell, after this I can call you up and say, let's meet in Paris.

Tim Kelly

I was able to catch Commissioner Bradford-Bell's statement on the Internet before coming down here.
I wasn't aware this was the point, but I would like to add my voice to congratulating this whole commission and Mrs. Bell in particular for really having done a great service to the city of San Francisco.
During my time on the Landmarks Board, I've had the pleasure of working with a number of different commissions.
Congratulations and best wishes to all of 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.

Sue Hestor

Regarding item 12, 340-350 Fremont Street.
I asked for visuals on what the project would look like. On page 10 they say we are giving you information we typically give you. I thought it was a silly response. They say we show what you see as a pedestrian.
I do think when you have tall buildings the EIR should have the picture that shows the tall building.
Second, this is a document that is from another EIR. On page 15, I asked how are you or what are you doing about building the neighborhood community? The answer was basically referring back to the plan itself. But the plan was adopted a year ago.
The projects being considered are substantial and I think that information in an EIR should deal with things like how you have built open space, pedestrian improvements, and community centers.
One of the fears I have is that the monitoring process for a plan is hearings like this.
We haven't had a hearing on the Downtown Plan for 10 to 15 years.
We haven't had a hearing for the Van Ness Plan in forever.
You have grandiose expectations on a major plan.
You really should use the hearings on an individual implemented project to say, where are we?
I think that is a valid question on an EIR and staff disagreed. And staff controls the shots. You control the shots.
Where do we look to find out what's the real world?'
What were your expectations a year ago? And how are we building a neighborhood?

CONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS AND FINAL ACTION – PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

10. (J. Ionin: (415) 558-6309)

Dwelling Unit Merger Policy - Mandatory Discretionary Review Policy for Dwelling Unit Mergers - Planning Department presentation of new guidelines, policy objectives, and implementation alternatives for Planning Commission consideration.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

NOTE: On January 26, 2006, following public testimony, the Commission closed public hearing and continued the matter, by a vote +5 –0. Commissioner Hughes and W. Lee were absent. Public hearing remains open to address any new information presented.

NOTE: On May 4, 2006, the Commission passed a motion of intent to approve as modified; by a vote +6 –0. Final Language on 6/1/06.

NOTE: On June 1, 2006, the Commission continued this item for further consideration to June 15, 2006; by a vote +7-0.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17264

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.

11. 2005.1129C (I. WILSON: (415) 558-6163)

1161 POST STREET - South side between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street; Lot 012 in Assessor's Block 0694 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 209.8(d) and 303, to allow a commercial establishment on the second floor of the building. The proposal is to change the use of the building to a full-service restaurant on the ground floor with karaoke rooms on the basement and second floor. The property is located within an RC-4 (Residential-Commercial Combined, High Density) District, Van Ness Special Use District, and a 130-V Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with conditions.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Bradford-Bell

MOTION: 17265

REGULAR CALENDAR

12. 2005.0552E (M. Jacinto: (415) 558-5988)

340-350 Fremont Street - Certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report: The proposed project would involve demolition of two existing marine labor union halls and construction of a 40-story, 400-foot-tall building containing 380 residential units, with up to 380 off-street parking spaces located on five levels of below-grade parking. The project would provide about 108 bicycle stalls, two off-street loading spaces, approximately 20,400 square feet of onsite open space, and additional publicly accessible open space at an off-site location. The 350 and 340 Fremont Street buildings, constructed in 1956 and 1962 respectively, are considered historical resources under CEQA for their associations with maritime union history. The project site is located mid-block on the west side of Fremont Street between Folsom and Harrison Streets (Assessor's Block 3748; Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9). The site is within the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential use district and a 400-R height and bulk district. This Draft EIR is tiered from the Final EIR for the Rincon Hill Plan (Case No. 2000.1081E; State Clearinghouse No. 1984061912).

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: EIR Certified

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

MOTION: 17266

13a. 2004.0552X (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

340-350 FREMONT STREET - west side between Harrison Street and Folsom Street, Lots 006, 007, 008, and 009 of Assessor's Block 3748 - Request under Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and an exception to allow: (1) greater than one parking space for every two units (Planning Code sections 151.1 and 309.1(b)(1)(B)); (2) dwelling unit exposure (Planning Code Sections 140 and 309.1(b)(1)(D)); (3) tower separation (Planning Code Section 270(e)(4)); and (4) the provision of the required usable open space off-site (Planning Code Sections 309.1(b)(1)(G) and (H) and 309.1(e)(2)). The project is to demolish the existing two buildings (340 and 350 Fremont Street) and construct a residential project that would consist of a tower reaching 400-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouse and screening). The project would feature a publicly accessible pedestrian path on its north side that would be aligned with townhouse units. The project would include approximately 330 dwelling units and approximately 330 parking spaces. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and a 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Representative of 340 Fremont

We are on the west side of Fremont Street. This site was planed for a single tower.
379 and 399 are across on the east side of the street.
The project designed before you is consistent with the [Rincon] Plan.
We created excellent architecture at the ground level. We designed a human scale and a network of mid-block open spaces. At the city level, we created the slender tower.
We worked with department staff for six months and made significant modifications to the architecture.
The design incorporates a level of scale and detail in the lower building levels and minimizes the façade interpretations.
We created a inviting landscape to open space and the tower has slenderness and adds a presence to the skyline.
The project creates a quality of space and neighborhood.
It provides housing downtown and a contribution to affordable housing.
It will donate approximately $20 million dollars to the city and to the Rincon Neighborhood through transfer and property taxes and affordable housing in the South of Market Community Fund.
We think Fremont was envisioned and studied in the plan through a process that is complete.
We are proud of it and we request your final approval.

Sue Hestor

I didn't hear anyone mention the PG&E facility next to this site. It's the building that looks like gigantic gray corduroy. It's huge.
People that live in the townhouses, except the people that have an opening to Fremont Street, are going to be at the bottom of a light well. It is going to be ugly and no direct sunlight.
Where is the staff analysis? Where is the discussion from the developer's architect? Is this good policy?
There are exceptions to the plan for cars and parking.
I really want to hear and I want you to ask questions on what kind of a life do people have looking out on an 8 to 10 story wall that is blank and it's not unattractive, it's just beige massive.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

MOTION: 17267

13b. 2004.0552V (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

340-350 FREMONT STREET - west side between Harrison Street and Folsom Street, Lots 006, 007, 008, and 009 of Assessor's Block 37487 - Request for a Variance to vary the specification for front entry stoops; Planning Code Section 827(d)(5)(C) requires that along the subject portion of Fremont Street, residential entries have front stoops that have a height of at least three-feet on average. As proposed, the required townhouse units along Fremont Street would be at grade. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 13a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

14a. 2006.0358X (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

355-399 FREMONT STREET - northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 - Request under proposed Planning Code Section 309.1 (Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District) for Determinations of Compliance, and exceptions to allow greater than one parking space for every two units (Planning Code sections 151.1 and 309.1(b)(1)(B)), dwelling units exposure (Planning Code Sections 140 and 309.1(b)(1)(D), and to the tower spacing and sculpting requirements (Planning Code Sections 270(e)(3) and 309.1(b)(1)(A). The project is to demolish the existing three buildings (375 Fremont Street, 385 Fremont Street and 399 Fremont Street) and construct a residential project that would consist of a tower reaching 400-feet (exclusive of mechanical penthouse and screening) that would be sited at the corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street; the project would also consist of a podium structure that would align Fremont Street and Harrison Street and would feature townhouse units. The project would include approximately 432 dwelling units and up to 432 parking spaces (one half of which would be independently accessible). The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Michael Burke, Attorney for the project sponsor

Last year the Commission had a vision for what should occur on that side of the street, that is the vision of a tall, slender tower on the corner of Harrison and Fremont Street.
We are seeking from you the ability to make your vision real and we hope we met it.

Rick Keating, Project Architect

As a pedestrian, you don't see the tower. You are more involved with materials and things on the street.
As a user, from inside the building, it's something different.
The character you've driven into the planning is giving you something that is unique.
They are not massive towers. They are slender.
They catch the light in different ways.
We created a crystalline building that has faceting and character within its spirit. These are seen from the Bay Bridge.
[Through pictures, he went on to describe how the building looks next to other buildings, how it influences the light shining on and through the narrow shaft and vertical elements.]
The plan provides for a wide sidewalk on Fremont that offers us an opportunity to do a double row of trees.
The idea of having housing facing the street was an exciting opportunity and we took it to rethink the way houses are to step down.
The way we have created the doors and patio, you have a handrail and landscaping and a stoop. This gives you a great opportunity for interaction with people living in their house that will activate the street.
It captured what we love about the rhythms on the streets.

Andrew Brooks

I manage the Bay Crest condos and residents of the Rincon Hill Association
I want to talk about quality of life issues.
I've been in the area since 1991.
Bay Crest was one of the first put on line in the area..
The area that it incorporates in Rincon Hill today has not received streetcar improvements, traffic improvements, electric, managerial, any civic upgrades since the late 30's. We have telephone poles on the sidewalks. We have over hanging municipal railway lines and old railroad tracks in the ground.
It's a very raw urban experience when you get outside the buildings.
We are doing what you wanted us to do. You wanted us to move back to the city. You wanted us to live downtown and walk and create a new urban environment. We are doing that.
We are in danger of collapsing within ourselves. There is no infrastructure to support the number of people that are living there.
I've heard commissioners and staff say that it is not our issue to worry about city support services.
It has got to start somewhere.
The city in general did not support the hill. There are no city support services available.
We are under gridlock from 2 p.m. everyday to 7 p.m. And on weekends it's from 11 at night to 3 or 4 in the morning.
This is not because of the Bay Bridge reconstruction; it is because of the activity in the South of Market area.
My challenge to you is to work with us and get the streetscape and area improvements up and going.

Sue Hestor

Staff hasn't reported the debate about loading areas in this building.
The garbage will be pushed out mechanically to the street for pick up because there is not a loading dock.
This building will have a number of pickups and deliveries because a lot of people work at home.
You have a demand for loading and you don't have enormous loading facilities.
I have asked before if we could have an understanding of how pedestrians would move on the blocks.
Doesn't the Planning Department think that you have to worry about how are you going to implement the pedestrian improvements?
Commissioners, can you tell me how the pedestrian circulation works if you are on one side of the street and want to get on the other, especially if it's during the 10 hours a day where it is gridlocked?
It's shocking to me to have five deaths in a three-block area.

ACTION: Approved

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

MOTION: 17268

14b. 2006.0358V (M. SNYDER (415) 558-6891)

399 FREMONT STREET - northeast corner of Fremont Street and Harrison Street, Lots 001E, 002, and 006 of Assessor's Block 3747 - Request for a Variance to vary the specification for front entry stoops; Planning Code Section 827(d)(5)(C) requires that along the subject portion of Fremont Street, residential entries have front stoops that have a height of at least three-feet on average. As proposed, the required townhouse units would feature ramps that would lead to stoops that would be less than three-feet above grade on average. The subject property is located in the Rincon Hill Downtown Residential District and an 85/400-R Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 8, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 14a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

15. (M. CORRETTE: (415) 558-6295)

Inner Mission North Survey Area I and II - INNER MISSION NORTH CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY PHASES II, III and IV. Adopt a motion endorsing the Inner Mission North Cultural Resource Survey consisting of:

Inner Mission North Context Statement;
Areas 1 and 2: 7 DPR 523D, District records.
Area 1: Phase II, 419 California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
523B Survey Forms;
Area 2: Phase III, 173 DPR 523A forms; Phase IV, 173 DPR 523B forms;

The Inner Mission North Survey Areas 1 and 2 are bound by Dolores to the west, Folsom Street to the east, Duboce Avenue to the north and 18th Street to the south. The Survey includes the following Assessor Parcels:

Area 1

No Block/Lot - California Volunteers Monument at the foot of Dolores Street. Block 3532, lots: 003, 004, 004A, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 012A, 019B, 025, 043, 044, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055, 056, 056A, 057, 058, 059, 060, 062, 064, 065, 065A, 068, 069, 071. Block 3533 lots: 007, 008, 011, 013, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 022, 023, 026, 026A, 029, 031, 032, 033, 033, 034, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 044A, 046, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 051A, 052, 055, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061, 063, 064, 065, 066, 067, 068, 069, 070, 070A, 072, 073, 075, 076-081 (Formerly lot 12), 082, 083, 084 (formerly lot 45). Block 3534 lots: 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 006A, 007, 010A, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, 017A, 017B, 017D, 017E, 018, 019, 020, 022, 024, 025, 025A, 025B, 025C, 025D, 025E, 026B, 027, 028, 031, 031A, 032, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 040, 041, 043, 047, 048, 049, 050, 056, 058, 063, 064, 065, 068, 095-100, 103, 104, 105. Block 3544 lots: 003, 004, 006A, 008, 010, 011, 013, 013A, 015, 016, 017, 79,80,81. Block 3545 lots: 018A, 019, 022, 022, 023, 024, 025A, 026, 027, 028, 029, 032, 033, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 050, 055, 057, 058, 059, 062, 063, 064, 066, 067, 068, 069, 070, 071, 073, 074, 077, 078, 079, 082, 083, 085, 086, 087, 088, 089, 090, 091, 092, 092A, 093, 094, 096, 097, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114-117, 118-119, 120,121. Block 3547 lots: 004, 005, 007, 008, 018B, 019, 027. Block 3548 lots: 019, 020, 021, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 031, 032, 036, 036A, 039, 040, 041, 044, 045, 047, 049, 050, 053, 054, 055, 056, 057, 058, 058, 059, 060, 061, 062, 064, 065, 068, 069, 070, 071, 072, 073, 074, 077, 078, 079, 081, 082, 083, 084, 086. Block 3553 lots: 022, 032, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 052. Block 3554 lots: 002, 003, 007, 008, 012, 030, 031, 032, 032A, 033, 033A, 034, 035, 036, 037, 040, 043, 045, 046, 046A, 047, 051, 052, 055, 056, 057. Block 3555 lots: 002, 004, 016, 017, 018, 021, 022, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 028, 029, 031, 031A, 031B, 031C, 031D, 031E, 031F, 031G, 033, 034, 042, 044, 045, 047, 048, 049, 050, 051, 052, 053, 054, 055A, 055B, 058, 063. Block 3556 lots: 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 016, 017, 018, 019, 020, 021, 023, 027, 030, 033, 035, 037, 038, 039, 048, 230-236, 57, 58, 59. Block 3557 lots: 008, 008A, 009A, 009B, 010, 011, 012, 013, 014, 015. Block 3567 lots: 034, 035, 036, 037, 039, 040, 041, 042, 044. Block 3568 lots: 001, 059, 059, 061, 062, 063, 064, 066, 067, 049. Block 3569 lots: 050, 051, 075, 076, 077, 078. Block 3570 lots: 047A, 047C.

AREA 2

Block 3548 lots: 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 087, 088. Block 3549 lots: 018B, 018C, 019, 020, 024, 025, 026, 027, 029, 030, 031, 032, 034, 035, 036, 037, 038, 039, 040, 041, 043, 045, 046, 047, 050A, 051, 053, 054, 056, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061, 062, 063, 064, 065, 085, 086. Block 3552 lots: 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 014, 015, 018, 020, 021, 023, 026, 027, 029, 029A, 029B, 030, 031, 034, 038, 045. Block 3553 lots: 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 034, 036, 037, 038, 040, 061, 062. Block 3568 lots: 002, 003, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012. Block 3569 lots: 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 011, 012, 014, 015, 016, 016A, 017, 017A, 017B, 017C, 017D, 018, 020, 021, 028, 038, 039, 040, 041, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 047, 048, 052, 053, 054, 057, 058, 059, 060, 061, 062, 066, 068, 069, 082, 085, 086. Block 3570 lots: 001, 002, 004, 008, 009, 009A, 010, 011, 012, 014, 015, 015A, 016, 017, 018, 020, 022, 023, 042, 043, 044, 045, 046, 048. Block 3571 lots: 004C, 005, 006, 007, 008, 014. Block 3574 lots: 018A, 018B, 019, 020, 021, 023, 024, 029, 040, 041, 042, 047, 052, 064, 065, 067, 069, 070, 071, 072, 073, 074, 075, 085, 089, 090, 099, 113. Block 3575 lots: 005, 006, 007, 008, 009, 010, 011, 012, 013, 016, 018, 019, 022, 023, 027, 028, 029, 030, 038, 044, 048, 047, 051, 057, 059, 060, 063, 064, 065, 066, 090, 101, 102, 103.

The Planning Commission will consider the following actions:

1. Endorse the revised 2005 Inner Mission North Cultural Resource Survey Context Statement.

2. Endorse draft DPR 523D forms for:

a. Guerrero Street-Fire Line National Register eligible district

b. Ramona Street National Register eligible district

c. Hidalgo Terrace California Register eligible district

d. South Van Ness Avenue-Shotwell-Folsom Streets California Register eligible district

e. Inner Mission commercial corridor locally significant area

f. Inner Mission reconstruction locally significant theme

g. Inner Mission 1906 Earthquake Survivor theme

3. Endorse the Inner Mission North Areas 1 and 2 findings consisting of California Department of Parks and Recreation Survey Forms for 593 properties within the survey area (DPR 523A, 523 B, 523D and 523L) pursuant to Article 10 of the Planning Code.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adoption

SPEAKERS:

Christopher Plank

I want to take this opportunity to commend the Planning Department for their efforts.
I've sat on the Task Force since '99.
In my responsibility as architect historian, I do these surveys all the time – most recently Dogpatch.
Until recently, San Francisco was short changed survey efforts.
It's about time we get to a point where we do the surveys. They are critical in preservation efforts.
The San Francisco Planning Department has completed a valuable body of research in the waterfront and Market Octavia areas and deserves commendation.
As a professional in the field, I hardily endorse their quality and respectfully hope you endorse this survey.

Tim Kelly

I'm speaking as a historic consultant and am familiar with the process. I was the President of the Landmarks Board when the survey work began and for quite a bit of the time as it's been going on.
I would like to urge your endorsement of the monumental work that the Planning Department has done.
This is the first major step into rational preservation planning in the city.
I hope you will agree.
I hope you will endorse it.

ACTION: Approved adoption

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

MOTION: 17269

16a. 2005.1081D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

1860 PAGE STREET - north side between Shrader and Cole Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 1226 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.05.23.3168 proposing to demolish an existing two-story-over-garage single-family dwelling in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Medium-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

Kelton Finney, Project Engineer, UTS Engineers

We wrote the soundness report for this building.
Based on the guidelines by the Planning Department, the building is unsound if it indicates that the necessary upgrade cost exceeds 50% of the replacement costs.
We analyzed the building and found structural hazards in the building.
Across the board, it is under framed in almost every area – the roof, ceiling, attic, both floors and the foundation.
We worked corporately with staff.
We met with the planner to discuss the findings in this report.
At the request of staff we removed several items from the upgrade cost.
By the Planning Department's policy, the building is considered unsound.

Yaku Askew, Project Architect

We are proposing a new five-unit building with family size two and three bedrooms.
The floor plan is the contemporary open plan lifestyle with access to light and air.
The design provides a mix of private balconies.
We are enhancing the housing by the diversity of sizes and types, which attracts tenants to the neighborhood.
We are providing parking for each of the multiple bedroom units.
We feel the project is in a friendly neighborhood and adjacent to a thriving retail center.
We feel if there is a situation for a parking variance, this is a wonderful example of that.
The design concept is based on the block and the surrounding neighborhood and uses a modern interpretation.
We are adhering to the Residential Design Guideline principles.
We are using cornices to have strong shadow lines.
We provide a recessed garage and entrance on the ground floor.
The windows will be recessed and the facades provide depth.
There is a required stair penthouse to the roof on a slopped roof to minimize impact.
We worked with the adjacent buildings and matched the light walls on both sides.
We hope to incorporate sustainable design practices by using ample light.
We are using energy saving tankless water heaters.
We incorporated landscape plants and the required trees along Page Street.
We worked closely with the Planning Department and the neighborhood.
Our most recent set of revisions came from the neighbor at 1815 Page, who is here to support the project.
We strongly hope that you decide to uphold the Planning Department's recommendation and not take discretionary review.

Robert Weaver, DR Requestor

I reside half a block away from the project.
I want to address the parking variance.
We are a mix of single-family dwellings and most have no parking. We park on the street.
This project is a block away from the Boy's and Girl's Club.
We have an enormous parking problem in this neighborhood.
The last thing I want to see is something in the neighborhood that will increase the parking problem.
The ordinances say one parking space per unit. But we know that if you have adults living in a flat there will be more than one car per flat.
We are going to add to the parking problem.
To assume that you will have one unit and hope that the person will not have a need for a car especially with the closing of the local grocery store is not realistic.
You will not have shopping unless you go someplace.
I ask that the parking variance request be denied.
As far as the project: I understand that if I were a neighbor I'd have a grave desire to have the property demolished. The property has been in bad condition for a time.
There are properties being renovated to address the character and maintain the character of the neighborhood, which is what the Planning Code is about.
I don't think this project does that.
I require you do something with this project so it is more in line of the look of the area.

Carolyn Squeri

I manage the little apartment building to the east of the project.
Initially I had concerns about the project.
We raised our concerns and I wanted to acknowledge that the sponsors addressed them.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved demolition

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

16b. 2006.0057D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

1860 PAGE STREET - north side between Shrader and Cole Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 1226 - 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. 2005.05.23.3172 proposing to construct a new four-story five-unit building in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Medium-Density) 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 May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved project

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and Olague

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: W. Lee

16c. 2006.0663D (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

1860 PAGE STREET - north side between Shrader and Cole Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 1226 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.05.23.3172S, proposing to construct a new four-story five-unit residential building, with four independently accessible parking spaces in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Medium-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and approve the project.

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved project.

AYES: Alexander, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and Olague

NAYES: Antonini

ABSENT: W. Lee

16d. 2005.1080V (E. TOPE: (415) 558-6316)

1860 PAGE STREET - north side between Shrader and Cole Streets; Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 1226 - Request for Off-Street Parking Variance, per Section 151 of the Planning Code for construction of a new four-story, five-unit dwelling, with four independently accessible parking spaces in an RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Medium-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

(Continued from Regular Meeting of May 18, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 16a.

ACTION: Zoning Administrator closed public hearing and granted the variance

17a. 2005.0713D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET -north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin Streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's Block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application No.2005.03.11.7350 to demolish an existing single-family dwelling (the project also proposes the construction of a new single-family dwelling) in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS:

David

I'm here on behalf of the June family.
I hope this will be the simplest matter you deal with today, the removal of an unsound single-family home that is being replaced by a single-family home to house a six-member family.
This is an unsound building based on the conditions of the wood and termites. It's a modest home in a modest area.
I think it's appropriate.
I don't have anything further to add.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved demolition

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: W. Lee

17b. 2005.1070D (B. FU: (415) 558-6613)

710 SILLIMAN STREET - north side between Dartmouth and Bowdoin streets; Lot 006 in Assessor's block 5917 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the planning commission's policy requiring review of new construction as a result of housing demolition, of building Permit Application no. 2005.03.11.7348 for the new construction of a single-family dwelling in an RH-1 (Residential, House, One-Family) District with a 40-X Height and Bulk Designation.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of June 1, 2006)

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 17a.

ACTION: Did not take discretionary review and approved project requiring a NSR for retention as a single-family dwelling

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: W. Lee

18a. 2005.0328D (D. SIROIS: (415) 558-6313)

554 LONDON STREET - north side, between Russia & France, Lot 009, Assessor's Block 6272 - Mandatory Discretionary Review under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of housing demolition, of Demolition Permit Application 2005.01.13.3188, to demolish an existing single-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 20, 2006

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

18b. 2005.0332D (D.SIROIS 558-6313)

554 London Street - north side, between Russia & France, Lot 009, Assessor's Block 6272 - 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. 2005.01.13.3192, proposing to construct a three-story, single-family residential building with two off-street parking in an RH-2 (Residential, Two-Family) District and in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to July 20, 2006

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

19a. 2005.0089DDDDDDDDDDDE (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2121-2123 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side between Greenwich and Filbert Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0094 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Demolition Permit Application No. 2005.02.24.6183 proposing to demolish an existing four-story, two-unit building in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

Beate Boultinghouse

My husband and I live adjacent to the north of 2121-2123 Leavenworth Street.
People standing behind me have come to voice their opposition to the project.
This is a visible and sensitive location.
It would remove affordable housing. It is out of scale and proportion with the neighborhood or two-story mid-block buildings and is in conflict with the Residential Guidelines.
It's located in the crooked part of Lumbard Street
The mid-block buildings are two to three stories with the corner buildings being larger.
The building in question is a sound building.
Mr. Cambell asserts that.
It is 50 years old and was maintained by the previous owners.
It had one owner until Mr. Campbell purchased it in 2002.
The original owner rented two units in the building.
To the dismay of the neighbors, Mr. Cambell left the building to become an eyesore to the neighborhood.
He hopes to claim it as unsound and should be demolished.
Despite the attempts to ruin the building, to make it appear to be derelict, it is still sound.
Its removal will remove Indian fig trees.
Numerous garages will prohibit trees from being planted on that side of the block.
Mr. Cambell proposes the replacement of the trees with 15-gallon trees.
We know how long it takes for trees to mature.
This has been taken off the market for four years to allow it to decay.
The building is sound and should not be destroyed. Nor should the mature trees be destroyed.
Help save our neighborhood.

Suzanne

My husband and I own a Julia Morgan. It's a 1909 building and located adjacent to the property on Filbert Street.
We purchased at the end of '02 and have been restoring it and adding a garage.
There are three units in the subject building.
From a flyer Mr. Campbell passed out, he acknowledges that the building is a three-unit structure that has been vacant since '03.
Although he knows it is a three-unit structure, for purposes of demolition he wants you to believe it is two units.
I have testimony from persons who happily rented there at affordable housing costs attesting to three units.
He gutted the interiors and removed all three kitchens without a permit and left it along for three years.
The building is not worthless. It is a solid building. There is a huge legacy here.
If the demolition is allowed, you remove three affordable family sized units.
The new units will not rent as affordable.
The neighborhood will support restoring the units and putting them back on the market.

John

I live at 2130, across from the site.
I'm a member of an organization called Leavenworth Street neighbors. We formed based on Mr. Campbell's first project in '03 and acted as a group to preserve our neighborhood history,
He hired a public relation firm to get support for his project and embarked on misleading and inappropriate collecting tactics.
One neighbor asked to see the plans. He said he would show her if she signed her support. She declined.
I have letters that I can show you full of misleading conditions that he wrote himself.
A year earlier he inspected the site and claimed it was sound, but in this letter he says it was faulty.
Mr. Campbell used a PR agency to get outside support instead of negotiating with the neighbors that are affected.

Dana Smith

My wife and I bought into the Grenage Terrace in early '84.
We were impressed with San Francisco when we arrived from Europe.
This is the best investment we ever made.
We love everything about this neighborhood including the neighbors.
My first interface with Mr. Campbell was in April 0f '03 when he and his architect made a presentation to us in Grenage Terrace about his aspirations.
It was presented to us as a single-family building and it included himself as being that family.
I was concerned about the foundation. On a 30-degree slope coming to our corner of the property, they have to deal with the water.
We hope this does not pass.
We want the single space that the current footprint represents.
The air around us is precious. The light is precious. The gardens that we found when we came to Grenage Terrace plus the other gardens on the rising terrace behind it are precious.
At one point my wife called up one person in his operation and asked if we could salvage the roses and bring them to Grenage Terrace.
Unfortunately he said no. That we couldn't unless we support the project.
At this point I ask you if Mr. Campbell had taken a little bit of the money that he used to hire the consultants and put $150 a month into maintaining the house and the flowers and gardens were taken care of, what would it have been like today?

Michelle Pruitt

I'm with the school district in Russian Hill.
I'm a 15 year resident of Leavenworth and I live across from the project.
I'm not proud of the fact that we will compromise our neighborhood by allowing Mr. Campbell's building.
People visit from all over the world to see the crooked street.
We must preserve this aspect of our city.
Despite the high cost of San Francisco, I stay on Russian Hill because people are proud of its character.
Letting the project in will pave the path for buildings that do not honor the architecture on our street.
This is a price I am unwilling to pay.

Representative of Bill Campbell

In '04 he wanted to add a floor to a different project – one that retained the building and expanded it south.
Before the project was withdrawn, Mr. Campbell reached an agreement with the neighbors on either side – a written agreement with the two owners as well as the neighbors in the rear.
We got written agreements with three of the most impacted neighbors in the area.
Neighbors from up the hill opposed.
Views from the lower units are blocked by the existing building.
The project before you is the same height as the existing building.
If the rear owners can convince you to reduce the height and scale of the building their views could be improved.
These owners are not trying to preserve their view, which is not permitted; they are trying to improve them.
This property will unify the block and be consistent at the street front with other buildings on the block.
There is nothing unusual about occupying the full lot at this site.
This building is a mess. The foundation is crumbling.
This is Mr. Campbell's second time through the system trying to approve this project.
He has gone on 25 neighborhood walks and talked to other neighbors.
He has 59 letters of support.
It is a well designed project.

Jonathan – Project Architect

[Using power point, he showed the existing structure and its surroundings. He pointed out how this is the biggest eye sore in the neighborhood and that it could not remotely be considered historic. He showed how it doesn't meet current residential guidelines and is inconsistent with all the architecture on the hill.]
The building is 57.7 feet high from the sidewalk and was built in 1956.
It extends 75 feet into the lot and has side yards filled with retaining walls and stairs – not public open space.
The new design draws on the architecture of the neighborhood.
It sets back 10 feet and addresses the street wall.
It has gable roofs, brick base, stucco, wood, and copper trim details.
The rear is one and a half foot shorter. We are adding 180 square feet to the mid-block open space. We have parking for 10 cars, which is 67% over the required minimum.
We have three units that are consistent in size with the neighborhood.
It's picking up the architecture in the neighborhood. In scale it is compatible. The open space is increased. We have matched all the light walls.
Our features are consistent with the neighborhood and we will use high quality materials to build the building.

Chris

I'm President of the construction group.
If the project is approved I'll be the primary contractor.
I'm also an investor in 2121 Leavenworth.
Mr. Campbell and I have been a developer team for years in San Francisco.
We mostly do major remodels and home reconstruction in San Francisco.
We have a proven record of working with neighbors as well as doing quality developments.
We do it safely and professionally.

[Name not given}

I will begin by acknowledging we have not developed a soundness report because none is required.
The cost of the building exceeds criteria for affordability.
We looked at the existing foundation. At the basement level, it's subterranean. The existing concrete is failing badly. There is no drainage. The drainage issues are not being addressed by the foundation.
This foundation needs to be replaced regardless of what project is approved for this site.
A new foundation would improve the safety of the site.
Stabilization issues involved in a new foundation for a new project are similar requirements we would require in replacing the existing foundation.
We have to address the shoring and underpinning.
I think everyone can agree it is not in our best interest to allow million dollar homes to slide down the hill.
We share the same goal of safety.
We will engage a highly respected technical engineer and undertake a monitoring program. We welcome peer review.
We want transparency and want to work with neighbors.

Leonard

I'm part owner of the building.
It's not true that I am the thug that is strong arming neighbors over the past year.
I have done 30 outreach walks. I've rung 60 doorbells and met with merchants.
Outside of the opposition, the general feeling I got from the people is that they like the new buildings and are eager to see it come to the neighborhood and dismayed that this much time has gone by.
The building is beautifully designed near to the ground level.
It will be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
I urge you not to take DR on this wonderful project.

Bill Campbell

I along with a few friends purchased this building in August of 2002.
It was the second project we started together as friends.
It looks like it will be the last one to complete.
We underwent a process over a year and a half in tying to et neighbor buy-in to build a single-family home I could move my extended family in.
It took us a year and a half to reach an agreement that honored their key concerns.
The building that they signed off on is represented by these plans.
We have kept the 57 feet off of the sidewalk.
That building expanded to the south and is bulkier, more massive and got a higher roof than our current design.
It is true that when I came to the DR hearing, I was surprised at the level of opposition. I was almost dumbfounded.
With an additional month, we had two additional meetings. I was unable to figure out a way to preserve a single-family home that would house my family and meet their demands.
I gave up after a month of trying and decided I would drop back and design what many of the neighbors wanted.
From the letters filed stating that the average unit was 1600 square feet on Russian Hill, we designed two buildings with three units each.
The low was 1600, the middle 1900, and the upper 2,300.
I went back and had meetings with the neighbors on the new plans and discovered that apparently they would not do either.
It has been two years since the first suspended hearing.
This has turned into a frustrating experience. Enlightening and I learned a lot, but frustrating.
It is unclear to me what could be done.
Six new units, reducing the bulk on the street, protecting light and air to the neighbors to the south, north and east & , and as you heard Jonathan say we are using materials that fit with the neighborhood.

Milly

My husband James and I lived in our house for 41 years.
Our property is directly adjacent to the west of 2121 Leavenworth. He would be with me but he had a serious stroke a few months ago.
The reason we were objecting to the first project was because he had a 12-foot sky light right in our face.
We tried to get him to mitigate that light at least 80% but he wouldn't do it. He would sign off 50%. We have a covenant of 60 feet.
I had to sign away a 14-foot flew to get agreement with him.
I wish that he would tell you the truth.

Penelope Clark

I have not heard from the developer since April of last year.
We are dismayed. We felt there should be more effort to contact the neighbors.
The original agreement had side setbacks where the older buildings have property line windows.
I think these should be respected and the design guidelines should setback some of the lower stories more so there is good light and air for the existing buildings.

Michael Fury

I agree we stick by the rules.
When it wasn't an issue it was a three-story building. Not that it's an inconvenience; it's a two-story building.
The building was unattractive nine years ago and it's an eye sore and a bed for rats.
Neighbors are in favor of improvements but we don't want the cure to be worse than the disease.

David Kimball

My wife and I have lived in the neighborhood since '92.
We are opposed to replacing a three-unit building with six units that's out of scale and mass with what is there today.
I hope we can get back to three units.

Angela Strand

- I live at 2130 Leavenworth.

I developed the flyer and would have used a different picture if it was provided.
I will try not to be emotional, but I am angry by the distortions by the team who get paid by the hour by the developer.
There are a great deal of people in the neighborhood like myself who will not be directly impacted economically. We are here because we feel this building is too big.

Morlena Morris

I live at 2130 Leavenworth.
I know my neighbors. They are lovely.
We are here with no hidden agendas.
We banned together because it is a proper cause and we will be affected by it.
We are a military family and are delighted we can afford to move in the area.
I will be affected if this is approved.
I will lose all of the sunlight in my apartment.
This is not an exclusive suburb. It is a beautiful area that people travel from all over the world to see.

Mary Inman

I own buildings on Filbert.
I'm one of the persons that would benefit, but oppose it.
I would financially gain from this.
I oppose it because of the reasons people gave today.
This is a three-unit building.
There is a way this could have worked with us. The idea that it took four years is because they got angry and didn't get something the first time by building something that would capitalize from the gains.

Steve Pantelik

I live at 2111 Leavenworth Street
The people affected by this are here.
They will live in the neighborhood for the next 20 years.
It means something to people here. That is why I am away from my three children to be here.
This is a chance to have a positive effect on the neighbors.
It's too large.
Reading from a letter from a person who had supported it: I'm writing to express my wish to be taken off [the support list]. It appears the scope of the process has changed.

Bill Hellendale

I'm moving to the neighborhood.
All I want to do is present a photo of the condition in which Mr. Campbell is keeping the property.
[On the overhead, he showed a picture of the property that included the front entrance that was not in a well-kept condition.]

ACTION: Public hearing closed. Item continued to August 3, 2006 to allow meetings between the project sponsor and neighborhood. Project Sponsor is required to secure site and clean up around existing building. The public hearing will remain closed unless new information is introduced

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: W. Lee

19b. 2005.0387DDDDDDDDDDD (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

2121-2123 LEAVENWORTH STREET - west side between Greenwich and Filbert Streets, Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0094 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2005.02.24.6188 & 2005.02.24.6189 proposing to construct two, five-story, three-unit buildings in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS: Same as those listed for item 19a.

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, and Olague

ABSENT: W. Lee

20a. 2006.0422EMTZ (K. McGee: (415) 558-6367)

THE EXECUTIVE PARK SUBAREA PLAN, A PART OF THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT AREA PLAN – Assessor's Block 4991, Lots 65, 74, 75, 85, 86, 239, 240, 241, 278, 279, 282, 346, and 418. The Commission will consider a Motion of Intent to Initiate amendments to the General Plan. The new Executive Park Subarea Plan will replace, in whole, the existing Executive Park Subarea Plan, part of the Bayview Hunters Point Area Plan in the General Plan, and sets forth objectives and policies to aid the area's transition into a residential neighborhood. The Subarea Plan addresses land use, streets and transportation, urban design, community facilities and services, and recreation and open space elements. The project also includes amendments to the Planning Code and Zoning Map, as described below.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt the Motion of Intent to Initiate an amendment to the General Plan that revises the Executive Park Subarea Plan.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued indefinitely

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

20b. 2006.0422EMTZ (K. McGee: (415) 558-6367)

THE EXECUTIVE PARK SUBAREA PLAN, A PART OF THE BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT AREA PLAN - Assessor's Block 4991, Lots 65, 74, 75, 85, 86, 239, 240, 241, 278, 279, 282, 346, and 418. The Commission will consider a Motion of Intent to Initiate amendments to the Planning Code and Zoning Maps 10, 10H, and 10SU, consistent with the Executive Park Subarea Plan. The project proposes to change the zoning within the site from a C-2 Zoning District to an RM-3 Zoning District and to change heights within the site, which currently range from 40 to 200 feet to heights that range from 40 to 240 feet. In addition, the project proposes related amendments to the Planning Code consistent with the Executive Park Subarea and proposes the establishment of the Executive Park Residential Special Use District, which will outline additional planning controls including controls on use, development, design, parking and permit review. The project also includes amendments to the General Plan as described above.

Preliminary Recommendation: Adopt a Motion of Intent to Initiate Amendments to the Planning Code text and Zoning Map.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Without hearing, continued indefinitely

AYES: Alexander, Antonini, Bradford-Bell, Hughes, S. Lee, W. Lee, and Olague

7:00 P.M.

EASTERN NEIGHBORHOOD DRAFT SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS – This analysis was submitted to the Department as an initial consultant draft for planning staff comment. It is made available at this time as a result of a public request, however it has not had the benefit of staff review.

The purpose of today's hearing is to receive public comment to assist staff in its review of the document.

Preliminary Recommendation: No action required.

THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE SPOKE DURING THE 12:00 P.M. HEARING ON THIS MATTER:

SPEAKERS:

Fred Snyder

We also did a study of the neighborhood and wonder if this consultant had a copy of it to work with because I do notice there are some discrepancies from what we found.
Where is this going? There is no real summary on how it is going to pertain to the zoning, how it will relate.
I don't really see how it relates to the zoning.
Also, the NEMIZ has been in this debate for six years and the concern I have is that next to us the South of Market neighborhood was taken out of the process but we were kept in it. We are very similar to Potrero Hill and Showplace Square in our economic viability and what people make per year. Yet we we're included in the Mission when we are really, I think, in another economic group.
I don't know how this will be worked out or how you are going to apply it to the zoning. I don't think it is correct.
I don't want to be put in a place that we are being compared to economic situations that are not in our neighborhood.
I have a lot of questions.
I really need to understand this better on where we are going and how this is going to affect us in the end.

Chris Durazo, SOM CAN

For those of use who asked for this study last year, I feel that we didn't have enough time to review it and I'm asking for a two-week extension to be able to review this.
I'm also a member of the 6^th Street PAC, which is a significant portion of what the study oversees. I'd like to bring this back to our first meeting of the Board, which will meet on the 26^th.
In sifting through it I am concerned that it did not have a full enough analysis on the South of Market. It was under many people's impression that it would cover both east and west because this is the basis for both the west SOMA re-zoning and the east SOMA re-zoning and we were hoping this would be the most comprehensive document to look at socio-economic impacts.
Also, I thought it was very Mission focused. It felt like SOMA was an afterthought process.
It didn't have any narrative around the economic strength or weakness of South of Market.
Those are things that are very disconcerting because we have probably very similar socio-economic problems that we face in terms of community development and supporting our residents through any massive re-zoning changes.
If there is a second part to the drafting of this, it needs to have more focus on South of Market chapter by chapter as it does for the other neighborhoods.
I am concerned about the summary of findings.
What is the process?
Confusion either leads to people being angry or indifferent.
Either one kills our community.
We want to make sure this is clearly laid out and how it is going to be incorporated back into the re-zoning process.

Ewin Lewis, Local 2, Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union

I echo what the previous speaker said about needing more time.
I unfortunately just learned about this draft a couple of days ago.
There is a wealth of information here and a very valuable document.
Combining this with the research going on in the Mayor's Office of Economic Planning – the Economic Strategy Plan – It's clear that the service sector of this city in particular, which is the source of most new jobs in the city is extremely reliant on these neighborhoods for the purposes of housing. This is the community for many, many service sector workers in the city. According to this document, 15% of all hospitality industry workers live here.
And it is the lower income service sector worker that is more inclined to live here rather than commute here from out of town.
In that vein, I'd like to see more analysis than I've seen here.
The re-zoning here yes, but also the impacts of economic development throughout the broader city as they are affected by the impacts of housing and rental housing in particular.
Many of our members are unable to afford housing, certainly at the prices they are going now.
I'd like to see a lot more research done on the rental housing and the base that is providing for our city's economic growth.
On the question of next steps and where this is going, one question that sticks out in my mind is how this process and how this document interrelate with the economic strategy plan that is going on per Prop I that is coming out in the coming months?

Jazzie Collins

I'm a member of Western SOMA Citizen Planning Task Force.
I want to ask for an extension as Ms. Durazo just did for the Task Force to review and have a discussion on the impact and the study itself.
Western SOMA is not included in the overall analysis of this and the socio-economic impact.
Yes, SOMA is poor in finances, but we are also rich with property.
Therefore, all of SOMA needs to be included with the eastern neighborhoods.
Let's not include just part of the city, we need to include all of the city.
We request a two week continuance so all members that are in the community can dissect this, analyze it and bring it back and have a formal opinion that is suitable for this commission.

Sara Carlinsky – Policy Director for SPUR

After completing an initial review of the study, SPUR feel that the report does a reasonably good job of providing data to inform the analysis of base line conditions in the eastern neighborhoods.
I agree with Ms. Durazo that it is a confusing document however and we made some recommendations on how to better organize and focus the document.
SPUR also has seven sets of recommendations to help improve the study.
Of the three most important, the most important of these is that the study needs to clarify the difference between impacts caused by the proposed zoning from the pre-existing social and economic problems unrelated to the zoning.

Calvin Welch, Council of Community Housing Organizations

I wish to thank staff and this commission for holding this public hearing and most of all for producing this document.
Although I will be critical of the content of the document, I embrace the fact that for the first time in a very long time the department has attempted to take a look at the socio-economic impacts of a major re-zoning study in a critically important part of the city.
There are three great problems with this study.
The first is the reliance on the 2000 census data, which is inexplicable to me.
More recent data is available.
The 2000 census data is anomalous census for this part of the world. It measures reality of 1999, which is at the heart of the .com boom. So you get some very odd relationships and very odd facts that were temporary and no longer obtaining in those neighborhoods.
I think you aught to take a look at more recent data.
Second, this study fails to recognize the reality that the eastern neighborhoods is the principal source of sites for low and extremely low-income permanently affordable housing.
There is no discussion, which leads one to believe there is no recognition of that fact, which is staggering.
I would say that fully 60% of the low and very low income, and 80% of the supportive housing that has been built in the city in the last five years has been build in these neighborhoods.
How can a commission contemplate re-zoning, up-zoning these neighborhoods for market-rate housing without any discussion at all of the impact it will have on the sites for affordable housing.
Currently, in this year's budget, the city has allocated $126 million dollars for the development of affordable housing.
I dare say that 90% of that will be spent in these eastern neighborhoods.
You must analyze the nature and impacts of these zonings on affordable housing in the future if this is to be a useful study.
Finally, what is the relationship of this study and the findings of this study to the EIR, to the economic development study being done, and to study that was just done by the Task Force on the Arts.
All of which is critically important and has to be wielded into some sore of unified reality to inform us all.

Sue Hestor

Talked about the lack of analysis of what happened between 1995 and 2005 in these neighborhoods.
It treats Western SOMA in a very weird way. It just is number of units. There is nothing saying income, sales price, who occupies these units, how that relates to the income and sale of housing prices in the neighborhoods in which they were built. I did it on 2660 Harrison. I can analyze the data. Its public data. Its Planning Department and Assessor's data. It's no big secret.
But what is the impact of having 3000 units of housing being built in exactly these neighborhoods? Is it because it's the only place they are allowed?
You don't have any information on what has happened and what its impacts have been in terms of housing composition.
It doesn't attempt to get you the basic information so you know what has already happened. That is a huge deficiency.
Also, you don't have any discussion of how business service determinations were used/abused in these exact same neighborhoods to allow offices for the .com boom and what has happened in terms of those sites.
Almost half of the people in the Eastern Neighborhoods with earnings earn less than $25,000 per year. That is a driving issue in these neighborhoods. The population is a low-income population that works in hotels, food service, and transportation services. They are a vital part of the city. And they are human beings that deserve to not be run out of town.
One of the things that you can ask of the occupants of the sites that have live/work housing on them is how many have business licenses and what are the occupations that are being done there? It is a requirement through NSR's for live/work projects. If you have 3,000 job sites, what is the composition of the work being done in those? That [information] is something you get from the business reports filed with the city. It is not public information, but you can get it or your consultants can get it. So tell us how this area was stressed out from about 1995. That will give you information you can use as you're looking at the plan.

Peter Cohen – Asian Neighborhood Design

I think that the Housing Element should be used as a key reference point in the analysis of housing conditions, production and need rather than just sort of an evaluation of the current state of affairs of current market conditions.
The Housing Element is the adopted policies of the city whether we like them or not.
I think it is helpful to look at them as the benchmark or reference point in this study in terms of analysis and conditions.
There is policy guidance we can look to and use.
This can clearly be related to the needs analysis of the Eastern Neighborhoods. These are things that need to be tied together through this study.
The last is the process of how this is scoped. The process the Department has for this housing nexus study is quite functional. This scoping never had the advantage of those involved vetting from the beginning and sort of filtering things out. I feel that it is going to take a lot of in coming fire, which is not fair, because it did not receive the thoughtful and broad scoping that it should have had in the beginning.
I don't know where you intend to go from here, but perhaps assembling some thinking on re-scoping and fine-tuning from other folks outside the Department would be helpful.

Barbara – Senior Action Network and Senior Housing Action Committee

I've come to ask you to postpone a real hearing on this until we've had more input from leadership in our senior community and the people who live in this area for perhaps a month.
Apart from that, I would suggest that there be a discussion to how we can revise the draft and incorporate it with the suggestions from Calvin Welch, Sue Hestor, and Peter Cohen.

Steve Vettel – Morrison and Forester

The report says when looking at the existing employment base in the eastern neighborhoods that 86% of employees work in management, professional, sales, office and service occupations while 13% work in traditional blue-collar occupations.
I was surprised by that very small number.
But what that said to me was it would be useful to re-look at that assumption that the economic development strategy for the eastern neighborhoods aught to be protecting traditional blue-collar employment if that sector is not offering employment to very many people in the eastern neighborhoods.
Perhaps we aught to use this analysis to look at the question of what is the appropriate economic development policy for the eastern neighborhoods? Is the only policy objective to protect traditional blue-collar employment if that employment is not providing jobs for many people in the eastern neighborhoods and it continues to shrink regardless of land use policy? But aught there be other economic development goals that are looked in the eastern neighborhoods – whether that is strengthening Mission Street as the viable commercial corridor that provides more jobs for people; whether that is looking at the 24^th Street corridor; other potential economic development objectives that might be informed by the study that the Mayor's Office of Economic Development is doing.
Rather than assuming and saying that we've made the policy decision that our goal is to protect PDR, let's use this data to re-examine that goal and re-examine those assumptions and figure out if there are other economic development goals that aught to be pursued as opposed to saying that policy decision is made and set in stone and this study is going to be used to justify it.
Let's use this analysis to continue to examine that assumption and that issue and come up with the right policy direction.

Matt Drake

It would be nice if they had a map on here so you would know exactly where the lines were being drawn.
Western SOMA is not in here and it should be included. It is contiguous with Eastern SOMA and the Mission. They have a lot of similarities. It is referenced throughout but not included.

THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE SPOKE DURING THE 7:00 P.M. HEARING ON THIS MATTER:

SPEAKERS:

Bob McCarthy

I think what we saw earlier was be damned if you do or damned if you don't.
Put into context, this is the first of many hearings.
That is helpful.
It gives us a chance to make comments.
I hope that the next meeting is scheduled in a month.
I have a couple of observations I think is important to look at.
One of the major concepts of the rezoning of the Eastern Neighborhood is the neighborhood alleged to have a change of character and demographics in '99 and 2000.
There is a dramatic change in'95.
We need current information.
What the impact is on housing positively and negatively.
And that is available.
The second observation I would like to make is I remember I was an observer and sometime in 2002 when there were proposals about controls that there was a survey done by the city.
I'm not familiar with the city survey or the survey that was put together by the Coalition for American Justice and Jobs.
There were allegations that there was a significant difference in the survey done by the Department and the Coalition.
It seems to me, and I recall there was a suggestion that the Department review the other study and determine whether or not the Department study needed correction or point to the Coalition where they had mischaracterized things.
I'm sure, given the limited resources it has not been done.
I think that would be helpful so we can argue policy and not the facts.
I hope that would happen.
I think it is important you have perfect information or as close as we can get.
Again, the observation I have is the PDR definition needs to be sharpened.
When I read this report we have a new category called INFORMATION.
I'm trying to read all the definitions and the new category and the old ones and I'm having a lot of trouble.
The statistics are contradictory.
I read a paragraph and by the time I get to the bottom, they don't seem to match.
But then maybe I'm not good at math.
Then finally, in both the Department's large presentation as well as this presentation they talk about the new technology and the new technology that will be done in the industry and job growth sector for the city, and that somehow got merged into this PDR space concept and they are not.
I think the one thing I agree with the study is on the bottom of page 83 and top of page 84 where they are talking about if you want to look at the new technology there should be a separate category.
One of the things that have happened in the last five years is new technology, especially during the .com boom period.
This department has categorized a lot of the technology-based industry as office use.
You need to spell all of that out before you figure out how much land you need for what the report calls the traditional PDR.

ACTION: Public discussion only. No action taken.

I. 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))

None

Adjournment: 9:08 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION ON September 7, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: None

ABSENT: Alexander

NOTE: Per Section 67.18 of the Administrative Code for the City and County of San Francisco, Commission minutes contain a description of the item before the Commission for discussion/consideration; a list of the public speakers with names if given, and a summary of their comments including an indication of whether they are in favor of or against the matter; and any action the Commission takes. The minutes are not the official record of a Commission hearing. The audiotape is the official record. Copies of the audiotape may be obtained by calling the Commission office at (415) 558-6415. For those with access to a computer and/or the Internet, Commission hearings are available at www.sfgov.org. Under the heading Explore, 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 10:00:22 PM