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

Skip to page body
City and County of San Francisco

February 23, 2006

February 23, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO

PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers - Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

Thursday, February 23, 2006

1:30 PM

Regular Meeting

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

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: William Lee

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT SUE LEE AT 1:49 P.M.

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Dean Macris – Director of Planning, Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator, Sarah Dennis, Jonathan Purvis, Mathew Snyder; Michelle Glueckert, Glenn Cabreros, Kate Conner, Nannie Turrell, Jon Lau, Linda Avery – Commissioner 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.

South Bayshore Area Plan - General Plan Amendments - The South Bayshore Plan covers the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street, Highway 101, the San Francisco/San Mateo County line, Hunters Point Shipyard, and the San Francisco Bay. The Commission will consider a Resolution to Adopt Amendments to the General Plan that include text and map revisions to the South Bayshore Area Plan.

Consideration of a Resolution to amend the General Plan of the City and County of San Francisco pursuant to Section 340 of the Planning Code, and to adopt related CEQA findings and Planning Code Section 101.1(b) findings. The proposed amendments include text and map revisions to the South Bayshore Area Plan that clarify policy language and respond to changed conditions in the area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

(Proposed for continuance to March 2, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

2. 2005.0898D (M. WOODS: (415) 558-6313)

2715 SACRAMENTO STREET - south side between Pierce and Scott Streets; Lot 015 in Assessor's Block 0633 - Mandatory Discretionary Review, under the Planning Commission's policy requiring review of dwelling unit mergers, of Building Permit Application No. 2005.08.12.0152S, proposing to convert the building's authorized use from nine units to five units, in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project with modifications

(Proposed for Continuance to March 9, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

3. 2006.0046D (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

137 PORTER STREET - east side south of Benton Avenue; Lot 018 in Assessor's Block 5826 - Neighbor-initiated Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.09.14.2861 proposing the construction of a three-story, two-family dwelling in an RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) Use District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District and within the Bernal Heights Special Use District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Take Discretionary Review and approve the project as revised.

(Proposed for Continuance to March 16, 2006)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

4. 2005.1270DDD (M. SMITH: (415) 558-6332)

4231 & 4234 24TH STREET - south side between Diamond and Douglass Streets, Lot 044 in Assessor's Block 6505 - Requests for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2004.07.19.9187, proposing to construct a one-story vertical addition on a nonconforming mixed-use building, located in a RH-2 (Residential, House, Two-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Pending

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 12, 2006)

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATIONS WERE WITHDRAWN

5. 2005.0842D (A. LIGHT: (415) 558-6254)

1135-1139 GREEN STREET - in Assessor's Block 125, Lots 115-116 - Request for Discretionary Review on Building Permit Application No. 2005.06.16.5311 to construct a new subterranean basement and five car garage under three existing two-story townhouses. A garage entrance door would be inserted into the far-east side of the existing masonry retaining wall along the Green Street frontage. A curb cut will also be constructed. The subject property is in an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three Family) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

(Continued from Regular Meeting of December 15, 2005)

(proposed for indefinite continuance)

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Continued as proposed

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

B. COMMISSIONERS' QUESTIONS AND MATTERS

  1. Consideration of Adoption

Commissioner Hughes:

  1. In the September 22nd minutes on page 3, under Director's Report, it reads, in response to a couple of the Commissioners concerns/delights about spending time with staff into the late hours.

Commissioner Secretary:

  1. I think that was said facetiously.

  • Draft Minutes of September 8, 2005.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

  • Addendum Draft Minutes of September 15, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

  • Draft Minutes of September 15, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

EXCUSED: Olague

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

  • Draft Minutes of September 22, 2005

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

7. Commission Comments/Questions

Commissioner Antonini:

  1. In the 3-1/2 years that I have been on the Planning Commission, I can't remember a time when we've had more very significant policy matters before us at one time with the Eastern Neighborhoods rezoning, industrial PDR use, C-3 and Mid-Market parking, Inclusionary Housing, etcetera
  2. I think what I was asking is that it's been my experience that during most of the hearings we have testimony from many of the same people over and over again. I think they testify very well and we are appreciative of it.
  3. For the general public who may watch this, I would appeal to you to make sure that you keep aware of the process.
  4. Make sure that the people who speak for you are really representing your views, and if they purport to represent certain groups and you're one of these groups, are they really representing your feelings?
  5. I find a lot of people who come up will do a couple of things -- sometimes they leave San Francisco; or sometimes they just drop out of the process. They have a feeling that they don't have any control over what's done; that the process is too difficult; that their voices doesn't mean anything.
  6. I guess if there's one thing I've learned is that even a single e-mail or a single phone call or a single testimony can have significance.
  7. I would urge you to try to become aware of the process; aware of what's going on and make your voice heard because the shape of the City to come will be determined by who testifies and who brings forth issues. If you have questions, don't hesitate to call. Personally I'll take calls at any time from people and return them and try to answer questions.
  8. I think that's part of our duty as public servants to be able to answer the questions the public has.
  9. So, the bottom line is that you can control things, but you have to be involved.
  10. This is a particularly significant time to be involved with the huge numbers of people we have moving into San Francisco, particularly new homeowners, but also renters. I mean, to make sure that your voice is being heard.

C. DIRECTOR'S REPORT

8. Director's Announcements

Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator

  1. Director Macris has a cold and we urged him to go home.
  2. The only other announcement I have is while you were going over Commissioners Questions and Matters, Commissioner Hughes brought up the issue of staying late and the delight thereof. And I would just remind you that that issue came up as we were talking about ways to expedite your hearings.
  3. I sent a memo out on that and we would love to discuss a way to expedite these hearings. Ways to take public comment, such that other bodies take them. Anything we can do we'd love to talk to you, because we know you're here late and we all sometimes get frustrated.
  4. If there are ways we can move it along, I would urge you to at least consider some of those ideas.

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

Board of Appeals:

Larry Badiner – Zoning Administrator. There was nothing at the Board of Appeals that would be of particular interest to you at this time.

Board of Supervisors – Dan Sider or Department staff reported

  1. There was no meeting at the Board this week.
  2. However, there is one issue that I'd like to clarify; that we reported to you on last week -- that is the issue of C-3 Parking.
  3. Last week the C-3 Parking ordinance was heard at the full Board of Supervisors. The item was heard for a second reading.
  4. As we discussed last week, there was an amendment put forward to establish an effective date for the legislation. Because of that amendment, the ordinance will require an additional second reading at the Board and we expect that to occur next week.
  5. So, again, just to clarify, the item is still before the Board. It has not moved on to the Mayor or anyone else. We will continue to report back to you on the status of that item.

10. (S. DENNIS: (415) 558-6314)

Director's request to appoint a Technical Advisory Committee to advise him in the preparation of a technical consultant report supporting the formulation of inclusionary zoning and related housing policy. The Commission may consider adopting a motion related to the Committee.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Meeting held. No Action taken. Following are the recommended people for the committee:

Inclusionary Housing Study

Technical Advisory Committee

Calvin Welch, Project Director,

Council of Community Housing Organizations;

Barbara Gualco/Raymai Dare, Mercy Housing;

Oz Erickson, Emerald Fund Inc;

Ezra Mersey,

Jackson Pacific Ventures;

Steve Vettel,

Farreli Martin and Brain;

Sarah Karlinsky, Policy Director, SPUR,

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association;

Fernando Marti, Asian Neighborhood Design;

Chris Durazo, Community Development Director, South of Market Community Action Network / SOMCAN;

Lydia Tan, BRIDGE Housing Corporation;

Radhika K. Fox, Senior Associate, Policy Link;

Brad Paul, Senior Program Officer Neighborhoods, Haas Jr Foundation,

Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund


Staff

Sarah Dennis, Planning Department

Doug Shoemaker/Martha Brown, Mayor's Office of Housing

Susan Cleveland Knowles, City Attorney's Office

D. GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT – 15 MINUTES

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

SPEAKERS:

Joe O'Donohue

  1. I am here to address an issue that we were here some weeks ago on Golden Gate.
  2. What is happening in this country is that people, regular people, have been disenfranchised by bureaucrats from government. They are being impacted in a negative way by the indifference and the arrogance of bureaucrats. This has happened on Golden Gate Avenue and Lyon.
  3. Weeks ago we brought what has happened on this building and nothing has been done about it. Tenants are moving nearer and nearer to eviction. It is an absolute disgrace. An absolute abomination. It represents the failure of government.
  4. You can talk about extractions, but in the meantime human suffering is happening right in front of your eyes.
  5. All this Commission has to do is to direct the Director of Planning, as has been done in the past, to suspend the permit at that building at Golden Gate Avenue and bring it back for review.
  6. What has happened in this permit is an extraordinary benefit has been granted to a project sponsor.
  7. An extraordinary benefit that allows that project sponsor to withdraw two units, three units from rent control. In fact, four units from rent control in the building and substitute them for three other units.

Michael McKnight

  1. There are several issues of the permit but I am going to talk about the fire escape rear deck issue and removal of my apartment and several other apartments in the building.
  2. The fire escape is more like a staircase than a deck, and provides a safe access to the back doors as well as access to the rear garden.
  3. The new owners were informed about the neighbor's agreement to the right to use the back garden and fire escape.
  4. Now, they want to remove the fire escape deck claiming it encroaches on the adjacent property.
  5. The whole area was always treated as one property and used and shared between everyone. An easement was effectively in place.
  6. They claim the fire escape deck has a legal permit from 1993.
  7. The result of removing this fire escape deck is to block up our back doors and hang metal fire escapes on the front of the building, seriously impacting the neighborhood and violating the design guidelines.

John Tynan

  1. I live at 1998 Golden Gate Avenue. I've lived there 12 years.
  2. I actually filed the appeal against Plan 8. I've been in litigation with them two years.
  3. Since they bought the property they've tried to evict me claiming my ground floor unit is illegal, which it is not suppose to be part of the ground floor unit, it's two units.
  4. Even after I filed the appeal and when I got the reply from the owners, it came to my attention all the other neighbors were affected by this issue of how they were removing their back decks, which is essentially the fire escapes; how my upstairs neighbors' apartment was going to be split into two apartments; and my apartment was going to be turned into storage.
  5. Basically what's happening is they are removing rent-controlled housing.
  6. As far I am concerned, I think somehow the housing is totally favoring the owners here.

MariAnne Beck

  1. I live with my husband in apartment 3 of 800 Lyon Street
  2. This will impact long-time tenants of the property. For example, in our apartment where we have lived since 1993, they describe the proposed work as providing new kitchen and bathroom for fourth story apartments number 11 and 12.
  3. They claim there are two apartments when in fact there is only one.
  4. This of course would force us out of the apartment and give them the opportunity to rent the two new apartments at four times the rent collected currently on the space.

Richard Moore

  1. I live at 804A Lyon Street. I've been a resident here 12 years.
  2. The scope of the work that they are going to do on the building totally impacted the whole building.
  3. I was just really surprised to see that with no explanation at all they were totally sealing off the backside of the building.
  4. These units are very slim. There is no side exiting at all. So if there were ever a fire on the backside of the building, it would make it really hard to get out of the building.
  5. That is my main concern for my neighbors and myself.

Judy Berkowitz, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods

  1. RE: Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation process.
  2. The Coalition voted to pass a resolution urging you to schedule a public hearing on the several amendments of the whole, which have been introduced since you last heard this item on October 20th.
  3. The second thing we voted unanimously on was to communicate immediately to the Board of Supervisors that you intend to hold public hearings and to urge the Board to take no action on the proposed ordinance.
  4. The reason we are asking these things of you is, as I have said, there are several items that you are possibly not aware of or at least have not been before you because of the extensive renovation of the ordinance since October 20th.

Hiroshi Fukukda

  1. RE: Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation process.
  2. I think there are some very important amendments that have been added and should have been referred back to this Commission for a hearing.
  3. I urge the Commission to hear the amendments of the whole. They are very important ones.
  4. I also urge you to communicate to the Board of Supervisors your intent to hold a hearing.

Marilyn Amini

  1. RE: Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation process.
  2. Also speaking about the Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation process legislation.
  3. The Section 312 B is a very significant amendment to the Planning Code and it was not property put before you.
  4. You did not have the time the code allows you for hearing, nor has the community been able to respond to that significant amendment.
  5. Please, ask that you put it on your agenda for next week.

John Bardis, Chairman of the Land Use and Housing Committee of the San Francisco Coalition of Neighborhoods.

  1. RE: Better Neighborhoods Planning and Implementation process.
  2. Schedule a public hearing to air out how this whole process has failed to provide you with the input regarding what's been happening at the Board on the amendments to the Planning Code. They have been introduced with amendments of the whole.
  3. For the purpose of being able to provide your input, ask the Board to just hold off making any decision on the legislation until they hear your recommendations at the proper hearings.
  4. I strongly urge you to really look carefully at how this process, which is supposed to be a planning process -- Better Neighborhood planning and implementation -- a planning process is supposed to include people, supposed to provide a better input from the public, and how really it has become a twisted pretzel regarding that whole aspect.
  5. I urge you to action and to call for a hearing next week and ask the Board to hold off until you have the hearing and can make recommendations.

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

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

SPEAKERS: None

F. 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. 2005.0675C (J. PURVIS: (415) 558-6354)

2591-2593 SAN BRUNO AVENUE - east side north of Burrows Street; Lot 022 in Assessor's Block 5438 - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Section 161(j) to add one dwelling unit and a third story to an existing two-unit-over-commercial, two-story building, with no off-street parking. The site is within the NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Use District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

MOTION: 17190

12. 2005.1055C (M. SNYDER: (415) 575-6891)

881 Innes Avenue - d.b.a.  Albion Brewery - southwest side between Griffith and Fitch, Lot 013 in Assessor's Block 4654 - Request for Conditional Use authorization to allow the re-establishment of a brewery and water bottling plant (previously considered a non-conforming use) under Planning Code Sections 178(d). The subject property is within an RH-1(S) (House, Residential with Minor Secondary Unit) District, and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

David Black

  1. I'm here on behalf of the owner and applicant Cathy Smith
  2. I just received some letters that you now have before you, a few minutes ago myself.
  3. From what I can gather it was not really any legal issues.
  4. It was going through the validity of the conditional use authorization itself, or more ancillary to that.
  5. They had one question about what a conditional use permit really means.
  6. But what I guess is a little bit troubling is the fact that these issues I saw in the correspondence are issues that were raised and addressed by the project applicant representative at a meeting with IBNA on February 4th.
  7. We had the understanding they would be in support of the project.
  8. Obviously, if the Planning Commission is concerned by any of the issues that are raised, we would be happy to address them.
  9. We have been good neighbors throughout the process and will continue to do so.
  10. If there are outstanding issues the members of the community have, we will continue to sit down and talk with them and address those concerns.
  11. We respectfully request that the motion be adopted as proposed today.

Paul de Jong

  1. I just wanted to stay for the record, I am one of the former tenants and I didn't actually want to vacate that property. It took some powerful real estate agents to get us out of there. We were just artists there.
  2. It didn't have to happen that way because it is currently under a caretaker instead of the owner of the building living there.
  3. There was no reason to get the tenants out of the building for this process.

Forest Gray

  1. One of our biggest concerns is that there was no public notice about this.
  2. I really do not understand how it's appropriate that this would be on the Consent Calendar.
  3. To my knowledge, no neighbors, considering this is a house, it's a residence; none of the neighbors surrounding this house have been informed about this activity.
  4. I would appreciate having this item continued to a later date so we can have more public input.

Michael Hammond

  1. I am a resident in the neighborhood.
  2. I have a business in the neighborhood.
  3. I've been active in the Neighborhood Association.
  4. It is true that our neighborhood has a policy of supporting residential use only.
  5. I support that policy.
  6. However, the unique character of this project and the restoration of the historical brewery at that site, I think warrants an exception to that policy.
  7. My understanding is that this is going to be a very minimal production operation.
  8. It's going to restore a lot of the existing historic fabric that is there, and I think it will be a general over all benefit to the neighborhood. And I, like many others, support this activity.

Christina Nia

  1. I'm generally in support of this use, but I would like to have more information and ask questions. I would support a further hearing.

Stephen Bruce, President, San Francisco Brewers Guild

  1. We are interested in preserving the heritage of this brewery location.
  2. I just found out about this project very recently.
  3. I have some questions about the conditional use permit.
  4. We want to see the capital preserved as much as possible, and make sure that the San Francisco Brewery Heritage is taken into account in terms of use of the space.

ACTION: Approved as amended: Conditions of Approval, item 1, This authorization is for the reestablishment of a brewing/bottling plant and associated minor accessory uses, such as tasting and touring, in general conformity with the plans labeled Exhibit B, dated February 15, 2006. A major expansion such as a restaurant or a brew pub shall require an additional authorization.

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

13. 2005.0838C (M. GLUECKERT: (415) 558-6543)

1135 Evans Avenue - between Middlepoint Road and Keith Street; Lot 014, Assessor's Block 4602A - Request for Conditional Use authorization under Planning Code Sections 711.83 and 790.80 to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of three panel antennas, two GPS antennas and related equipment. The antennas and equipment are proposed in Location Preference 2 (Preferred Location – Co-Location Site) according to the Wireless Telecommunications Services Siting Guidelines, as part of Verizon Wireless' telecommunications network within an NC-2 (Small-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

SPEAKERS:

Espanola Jackson

  1. Opposes the project.
  2. I don't know who put this here saying it is small commercial.
  3. There is no commercial within that district area.
  4. There is nothing but homes over there. Malcolm X School is right in that area.
  5. There are people living there with a lot of children there.
  6. I talked to you earlier about the toxins that are in my area, in that area there.
  7. Someone needs to go and ride around and look, and you will see.
  8. The only commercial is 100 Whitney Young Circle at the top of the hill.

ACTION: Without hearing, continued to March 16, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

G. REGULAR CALENDAR

14. 2004.0400D (G. CABREROS: (415) 558-6169)

730 GREAT HIGHWAY - east side between Balboa and Cabrillo Streets; Lot 003 in Assessor's Block 1595 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application Nos. 2003.05.29.5813 and 2005.10.18.5856 proposing to construct two three-story, two-unit buildings (four units total) on the vacant subject lot in an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low-Density) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District. The subject lot is bounded on three sides by the Ocean Parc Village Planned Unit Development.

Preliminary Recommendation: Do not take Discretionary Review and Approve

(Continued from Regular Meeting of January 26, 2006)

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

15. 2005.1144D (K. CONNER: (415) 558-6914)

9 DE SOTO STREET - west side between Holloway Avenue and Urbano Drive; Lot 011 in Assessor's Block 6929 - Request for Discretionary Review of Building Permit Application No. 2005.10.14.5613, proposing to add a second story addition to a single-family dwelling in a RH-1 (D) (Residential, House, One-Family, Detached) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

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

SPEAKERS:

Discretionary Review Requestor

  1. This action was taken in order to have my protest read into the record.
  2. I recognize that this is a foregone conclusion.
  3. I urge that the contractor take all precautions to contain hazardous materials and/or construction materials.

Lonnie Lawson – President of the Ingleside Terrace Homeowners Association

  1. We represent 750 households and are considered a prime area for people to make purchases.
  2. As a result of making those purchases and in order to retain the existing footprint, they have the opportunity to go up in order to accommodate space for their families.
  3. We are not against that. We urge that.
  4. But the most important thing that we are concerned about is that whatever structure is modified that it compliments the existing structure rather than be another form of a box.
  5. We take pride in the fact of having the houses that we have.
  6. But the most important thing is to simply think in terms of being a good neighbor because we will be living next to each other. That can either be hell or it can be heaven.
  7. There will be others coming before you and we ask that you remember that we are concerned about conformity and consideration for those persons that are living next to you.

Joel - Architect for the project.

  1. We have written letters to the DR Requestor about their issue on dust and contaminants.
  2. Our proposal is actually to construct a barrier between the subject property and the DR requestor next door.
  3. The scaffolding that extends above the existing roof level is covered by a plastic sheeting. It keeps the dust contained on the subject property. It doesn't migrate to the other side.
  4. We plan to do a full abatement of the building to get rid of any hazardous material in compliance with code.
  5. The existing houses surrounding the project site inspired the design for this vertical addition.
  6. The addition has sloping roof and dormers and is designed to minimize the impact of the second story and to keep the scale down.
  7. It is also designed to minimize the impact on the neighbors.
  8. There is quite a bit of space between the neighboring houses and we feel that the design does conform to the Design Guidelines.
  9. We request that you approve the project and deny the Discretionary Review.

Property Owner

  1. I just wanted to make clear since they raise this issue, that I have no interest in contaminating the neighborhood I love.
  2. I have lived there for 12 years.
  3. I'm a native San Franciscan. My children were born while we lived in this house.
  4. We are not interested in not abating hazardous materials.
  5. We are not interested in affecting anybody's health.
  6. All we are trying to do is meet the growing needs of my family and that's it.
  7. We sought the best architect we could find and are aware of the issues of conforming with neighborhood character and making sure that what we build fits in and does not have a huge impact.
  8. We will continue to do that and we will continue to be as good a neighbor as we can.
  9. We are happy to continue to talk to our neighbors throughout the project.

ACTION: Took Discretionary Review and approved with the requirements that Project Sponsor erect scaffolding that provides covering to minimize/contain dust during construction.

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

ABSENT: Alexander, W. Lee

16. 1996.546E (N. TURRELL: (415) 558-5994)

BAYVIEW HUNTERS POINT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ZONING EIR - Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's (SFRA) proposed Bayview Hunters Point (BVHP) Redevelopment Plan, and possible future amendments to the India Basin Industrial Park (IBIP) and Bayview Industrial Triangle (BIT) Redevelopment Plans, and related rezoning. The Project Area is located in the southeastern quadrant of the City and County of San Francisco in the area generally bounded by Cesar Chavez Street to the north, US 101 to the west, San Mateo County to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The proposed redevelopment program would institute tax increment financing for the area added to the Hunters Point Redevelopment Project and for the Bayview Industrial Triangle Redevelopment Project, and would rezone land in the Bayview Hunters Point area. The total allocation of net new floor area within the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Area would be approximately 2.2 million square feet by 2020. The potential mall at Candlestick Park would comprise approximately half of this new floor area. Approximately 6,200 net new employees would work in the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Area. In addition, the Redevelopment Area would see an increase of approximately 3,600 new dwelling units by 2020. The northern section of the Project Area is zoned Heavy Industrial (M-1) and Light Industrial (M-2). The Third Street commercial corridor is zoned primarily Neighborhood Commercial (NC-3), with pockets of Heavy and Light Industrial zoning on the northern and southern edges of the corridor. Residentially zoned land is located east and west of Third Street. Residential, Industrial and Neighborhood Commercial zoning classifications are in the Hunters Point Shoreline area. Other pockets of Neighborhood Shopping zoning are along Gilman Avenue and along Hunters Point Boulevard and Innes Avenue. The southern portions of the Project Area generally are zoned Residential and Heavy Commercial, and Public within the Candlestick Point area.

Preliminary Recommendation: Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Note:The public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended at 5:00 pm, December 10, 2004. 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.

SPEAKERS:

Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai, Health 7 Environmental Editor – [Spoke under Items Proposed for Continuance]

  1. I'm not sure that I'll be able to return
  2. I have some very serious issues with regard to oversights of the EIR that you have been asked to approve.
  3. CEQA requires prior to approving a project, and EIR must be certified.
  4. Certification by the Agency means the environment impact of the project was adequately analyzed under CEQA.
  5. Additionally, if subsequent to the commencement of public review, an inter-agency produced new information, you must issue new notice and must reticulate the revised EIR.
  6. That is part of the Public Records Code CEQA Guidelines and is predicated on a lawsuit that the California State Supreme Court heard against Laurel Heights Improvement Association and the Regents of the University of California in 1993.
  7. The complete and total oversight of mitigation matters to the mitigation measures relevant to the earthquake liquefaction zones documented in the comments to the EIR, you can see much of the proposed amendment area in B does comprise of earthquake liquefactions only including the Candlestick Park activity zone.
  8. Additionally, there is only one hazardous waste site that is referred to.
  9. That is a site that was remediated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
  10. As you can see from the map, that was generated with the input of the Department of Public Health.
  11. This identifies numerous areas of hazardous waste, storage and oversight, including areas that are hazardous waste disposal sites.
  12. Notably, many of these sites are located along 3rd Street.
  13. I bring this to your attention because the planning for this area proposes increasing housing density all along that 3rd Street corridor.
  14. As you can see, many of these hazardous waste sites are concentrated in this area.
  15. I also want to remind you that the Bay Area Working Group, on the precautionary principle, has identified there is a goal of the Working Group to correct fundamental flaws in policies that allow harm to our health and environmental impacts.
  16. I also want to encourage you to include the evaluation, the human health risk assessments that are being conducted by the Department of Public Health Environmental Division as part of your consideration of adoption of the EIR.

Espanola Jackson – [spoke under Items Proposed for Continuance]

  1. In one of the areas that Bayview Hunters Point that was a health and risk assessment found by the Port of San Francisco behind PG & E – there is a lot of arsenic in the area.
  2. I don't think you will get that information reading this [the EIR].
  3. This [the EIR] says that it may be assumed that there will be no health risks.
  4. But our children are being allowed, and even our senior citizens are being allowed at this time to go to this toxic dump area.
  5. The reason you are requested to have a joint hearing is because we (the community) were before the Redevelopment meeting Tuesday to be notified of what is going on.
  6. They have said that they will hold meetings in the community because Bayview Hunters Point is no longer a  black community.
  7. We have a lot of Asian, New Zealand, and Latinos concerned about the EIR.
  8. We have over 70% of homeowners in that community concerned about the EIR and the rezoning and how the lines are being drawn.
  9. I hope when you support the community and make sure that meeting is where the residents can have a chance to hear what they  plan to do that covers all the Bayview/Hunters Point community. That it doesn't just cover the little area that is four or five blocks.
  10. But that you are going to be looking at a plan that is talking about the entire area that we discussed before.
  11. I want to make sure the rezoning does not go through and stays as it is.

Francisco de Costa – [Spoke under Items proposed for continuance]

  1. I think we should pay attention to this very serious issue.
  2. This is the last frontier
  3. And as I see this last frontier with the draft EIR and the final EIR, I see that no due diligence is done.
  4. At Planning at one time we had some workshops of the Eastern Neighborhoods.
  5. Those workshops were discontinued.
  6. I think we shouldn't rush without doing the proper studies.
  7. I've been listening to you commissioners very attentively.
  8. You say let them not be impacted.
  9. The cloud of eminent domain is troubling, and it is for you commissioners that the language of the draft EIR and final EIR and the other amendments be brought to the level of the constituents so they know exactly what is happening.
  10. All this high flown language – CEQA and impact reports may mean a lot to you, but they really don't mean much to the constituents that are being impacted because a lot of them have not gone to college.
  11. A lot of them are not familiar with these terms.
  12. I have read the final EIR and it has very poor transportation analysis.
  13. It doesn't take into effect the quality, the State standards that have to be implemented.
  14. The cultural resources.
  15. I represent the first people.
  16. There are a lot of shell mounds, a lot of cultural resources.
  17. We need to go deep into that and respect those areas.
  18. There is a liquefaction problem.
  19. The proposed street and turbines are going to affect this area.
  20. All these things should be incorporated.

ACTION: Continued to March 2, 2006

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

ABSENT: Alexander and W. Lee

17. (J. LAU: (415) 558-6383)

Presentation on Bayview Hunters Point Community Planning- Informational Item - Presentation by Planning Department and Redevelopment Agency staff on a set of future Commission actions related to the Bayview Hunters Point study area. These future actions are scheduled for a hearing on March 2, 2006 and include the adoption of General Plan amendments, adoption of consistency findings of the Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan, and the adoption of related CEQA findings. This item will include a presentation by Agency staff on the proposed Plan for the Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project.

Preliminary Recommendation: Hold hearing on informational item. No action is proposed at this time.

SPEAKERS:

Francisco Da Costa, Director of Environmental Justice Advocacy

  1. I've attended 40 meetings in a month when the disposition and development agreement was being discussed at Hunters Point.
  2. There is such a wide area but there isn't a sound traffic study.
  3. There is no empirical data about air pollution.
  4. No consideration whatsoever about the impending bridge and all the traffic that will come there.
  5. What about the three combustion turbines that will spew particulates in the air?
  6. There are hot spots in this area.
  7. Where will Redevelopment get the money to abate this?
  8. Over three quarters of the area is going to liquefaction. The health and safety of the community, which is linked to quality of life issues – none whatsoever has been discussed.
  9. What I see here is a plan to get tax increment so that some of the money can be spent in the Bayview and more can be spent on Treasure Island.
  10. I see that plan where various statements are made so that housing may be given, and jobs may be provided, but there is no business plan. There is no timeline. There are no goals.
  11. And most importantly, there hasn't been a meaningful discussion with the poor people, mostly people that are not educated, on these issues at home.
  12. The Supervisor mentioned does not have the trust of the people.
  13. Commissioners, please save this community.

Espanola Jackson

  1. I had a concern with the fact that – and I'm going to say it again – that an entire community from one end to the other, from Bayshore to the Bay, is being included as a survey area. I have a problem with that.
  2. In the report that was given last week, they talked about eminent domain.
  3. We come here today, and they said, no eminent domain.
  4. Someone has got to tell the truth.
  5. And that's the reason why we are concerned.
  6. You need to talk to people who live in the area. People who know the area. You need to make sure you are getting the right information about where people live.
  7. I live there.

Angelo King, Chairman of the Project Area Committee of Bayview/Hunters Point

  1. If we could take a look at this map again.
  2. It clearly states in the map what areas they have zoned as blighted.
  3. Ever since this information has been coming out, I've been taking people on tours of those blighted areas.
  4. Yes, there are some residential areas, but they are not listed as blighted.
  5. It clearly says residential. And in the plan it clearly says that no residential zone RM or RH will there be any eminent domain.
  6. Now I would seriously question the City to try eminent domain when you've got a public document that says you're not going to do that. That seems like a fine situation for a lawsuit for that resident with that public document.
  7. Clearly, this process will develop over time.
  8. There was a lot of community involvement to say that these are the areas of blight.
  9. The survey area is over the whole of Bayview/Hunters Point.
  10. That's not so.
  11. Look at the Candlestick. That's the only area where you see a large block of residential.
  12. But it also has to buffer against a huge portion of industrial that is somewhat blighted.
  13. If you look at the rest of the area, west of the area, you are talking about Northern Gateway, about Bayshore, about Innes.
  14. And clearly if you were to go through those areas you would see that applies.
  15. To speak to the EIR – It is very adequate.
  16. There was tremendous community input and the PAC and its fine members and all the community hours that have gone into it have done the job to produce this.
  17. Let's move it.

Michael Hammond

  1. I want to urge you to move this process along with all haste because we're at the end of a very long road and there are deadlines approaching.
  2. If we miss those deadlines, we are going to miss great opportunity to do good for people in our neighborhood.
  3. This has gone on for nine years.
  4. There have been over 600 meetings in that nine-year period.
  5. I want to address the question of adequate outreach, adequate notification, and adequate exposure to the process.
  6. In addition to mailings that went to the entire zip code, we hired students to go into the neighborhood and knock on doors and to help encourage people to come out and find out about this process and to get involved.
  7. Some did.
  8. We had people at every meeting come from the community and share their concerns with us.
  9. We've done everything humanly possible to make everybody in the neighborhood aware of what is going on.
  10. And those that have expressed the least bit of interest have been involved and have been a part of this process.
  11. The EIR has been out for two years.
  12. The comment period was closed a long time ago.
  13. This stuff has been around a long time.
  14. I also want to point out that you are going to hear a lot of people come up here and talk about the changes coming to the Bayview.
  15. Property values are increasing. Development is coming.
  16. Folks, this is not a result of the Redevelopment Plan.
  17. This is not a result of anything we are doing.
  18. This is happening anyway.
  19. Changes are coming.
  20. The Redevelopment Plan simply gives us in the neighborhood the opportunity to control the shape of the development; to exact higher rates of affordability for the housing that wouldn't otherwise be; to change the demand of the focus development in these activities where it will be maximized for the whole community; to install guidelines and other devices that will provide the residents of our community the control and empowerment over their destiny.
  21. So, we really need this. And we need your help to make it happen.

Christine Nia

  1. I moved to the Bayview one year ago.
  2. Although I read all my mail, I don't always get all my mail.
  3. In the year that I've lived there I've gotten one letter regarding this redevelopment.
  4. I have done as much research as I can on line.
  5. I've emailed a few neighborhood associations.
  6. I've read the plan.
  7. I have a specific question, and this is relating to a rumor I heard about the houses on my side of the street would be knocked down.
  8. As far as I can read the plan, it says no homes in the residential neighborhood will be taken by eminent domain.
  9. But I live a mixed-use neighborhood. So I am wondering where I can get the answer to a question like that [are houses/homes in mixed-use areas protected against eminent domain]?
  10. I understand there have been a lot of meetings, but obviously before I moved to the neighborhood.
  11. Where can I find more information on line?
  12. Is it possible to maybe staff an office in our neighborhood where people could go with questions?

Wanda Whitaker

  1. Responded to the former speaker's question on whether there was an office she could go to get information with regards to what's happening.
  2. She can.
  3. There is a PAC office located at 1800 Oakdale. That's at the Southeast facility that is part of the City College's Campus.
  4. Also, there is a website at www.bvhp.pac.org, I would encourage all of those who are listening or who are viewing this to visit it.
  5. You will find all the plan amendments, information about the EIR and links to other city agencies.
  6. Information is there.
  7. We have also been out in the community.
  8. We have tried to inform people in the community of what is happening as far as PAC meetings.
  9. As a PAC coordinator, there are numerous meetings.
  10. I get tired of them quite frankly.
  11. There are subcommittees set up to discuss various issues having to do with health and environment and having to deal with those aspects of the EIR.
  12. So again, it involves community.
  13. I can always say that we can do a better job of reaching poor, uneducated people because that is part of our duty also.

Derek Smith

  1. I've been a local developer, builder in Bayview Hunters Point for the last 13 years.
  2. I just would like to echo a lot of the comments that were made earlier and reiterate the urgency to move this plan forward sot that we can continue with the redevelopment of the Bayview/Hunters Point Community, which will provide jobs, housing, and economic development for the whole community.

ACTION: Meeting held. Information only. No Action.

H. 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))

SPEAKERS:

Espanola Jackson

  1. Congratulations! You have made history here today.
  2. I believe it was item 12 that you approved.
  3. Now we will be an area that the visitors, when they come to San Francisco, can finally find their way to the Bayview/Hunters Point.
  4. You have put us on the map, and I want to thank you.

Michael Hammond, Bayview PAC

  1. I would like to address a question that a number of commissioners had that didn't get answered–what's in it for the people?
  2. That is why I got involved in the PAC and have gone to all the meetings.
  3. I am concerned about what's in it for the people there.
  4. When I moved to the neighborhood, I couldn't get a Chronicle delivered.
  5. The number one concern you mention is the super market.
  6. There was a study done a few years ago – groceries -- $40 million from our neighborhood to other places.
  7. That is $40 million of shoes I can't get fixed, groceries I can't buy, a restaurant I can't go to.
  8. I have to leave the neighborhood [for those things].
  9. We want to change that.
  10. We want to provide the amenities that make living in the Bayview as desirable as living anywhere else.
  11. As Third Street gets developed and as the stores open up and as the boards come off the windows, those people that you talk about standing on the corners will have someplace to go. They will have a job.
  12. That is the second thing that is often mentioned when people say what do we need in our neighborhood.
  13. We need a super market and we need jobs.
  14. The Redevelopment Plan will enable us to do both.
  15. It is crucial this thing get passed soon. Otherwise it was for nothing.
  16. We won't get the money. The money that can create jobs; that can put people in school; that can do a lot of good.
  17. By delaying this just a few weeks, we will miss our deadline and we won't get the tax increments for his year.
  18. This is so very critical.

Adjournment: 5: 54 p.m.

THESE MINUTES WERE ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2006.

SPEAKERS: None

ACTION: Approved

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

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, the Government category, 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